Art-J

@statrekmike Read BN's reposnse a couple of posts above yours. The rest of the country will follow later. EDIT: Sniped by NL

Business practices from mainstream area of production and distribution don't quite apply in our very specialized and niche software segment. 1) Guys who are crazy about PTO and Corsair will buy it no matter what; 2) Guys who have sub-zero interest in PTO and Corsair will not buy it no matter what; 3) Guys who are possibly so-so maybe kinda sorta half-interested in PTO and Corsair will: a) wait for release and buy it (or not) only after reading and watching reviews from early adopters; b) wait 3-4 years to buy it when it's on sale. In all of these cases, devs' interaction with community in pre-release and pre-preorder phase is irrelevant and unnecessary, as it will not affect aforementioned buying decisions in any way. I agree with Lionel that it would be nice to read more frequent updates on this project, even short ones, but that's my point - it's a "nice to have" item rather than "must have" one and this is where our opinions differ. Introduction of preorder changes things, obviously, but we're not there yet.

Other option - the last time I've read about such symptoms in Mossie, user had game flight mode turned on.

Good opportunity to drive a 3rd party into the ground I'm afraid. 50 bucks per asset pack wouldn't cover dev cost of a couple of planes even, let alone 20'ish. Don't underestimate how time and resource consuming building high quality AI assets has become in recent years. Unless one settles for visual and functional standard comparable to Hawkeye's and Cuesta brothers' mods, then maybe it could be done, but I'm not sure many guys here would be willing to actually pay for that.

Keep in mind even if you haven't "saved" individual device profile, its .diff.lua file is still there allright in Saved Games / Config / Input / etc. etc. location. So you can actually just highlight the relevant column, hit load profile button, navigate to that old .diff.lua and click it. That will restore the settings and rename the file with new correct USB ID. Been there, done that. Granted, as you noticed, you'll have to repeat that for every module and every device, but I still consider that method to be quicker than manual file renaming, which does the same thing but is... well, manual and more tedious. The whole "save" profiles thing is unnecessary, as they're always saved by the game in .diff.luas anyway, only under these gibberish ID names. So unless you specifically want to name each of them in some personal way, or there's a risk something can actually delete these files from your disc, there's no need to use save function. Making a frequent backup copy of the whole Config / Input folder, however, is a must for aforementioned reason. A disclaimer - my observations are based on hardware assigned directly in DCS without any external profiler software (Thrustmaster and MFG user here). Not sure how extra layer of Virpil soft affects all of this.

Only if easy comms option is selected, otherwise Silverdevil is correct. I wouldn't use stock training and instant missions as a reference either, as they override some of realism settings you use in your own custom missions. So do the multiplayer ones, of course. In either case, please post replay tracks showing the issue, it can be Huey problem, or map/airbase problem, or both.

It's not only DCS thing. I had the same issue with Il-2 GB and CloD controller file backups after switching to new computer, albeit to somewhat smaller extent. I guess as long as Windows 10 and 11 work the way they work, there will be USB ID related teeth grinding going on. I wonder how MSFS and XP deal with it (haven't played either). And how next gen combat sims (CP and unannouned GB's successor) will tackle the problem.

I'd say the problem with that approach is you would get a post of "There's a bit of system/FM coding/debugging done" week after week after week after week after week and after week. The only interesting stuff that can be used for updates and newsletters (of any PC videogame really) is graphics (screenshots and short vids), maybe occasionally some functional feature description like Heatblur's custom UI for upcoming Phantom. We've got some of the former (screenshots posted by Rudel every now and then), all the latter would be tedious and not really "showable" bits and pieces of code. In the end, as mentioned above, as long as money hasn't changed hands yet, nobody owes anything to anyone. And even money isn't a guarantee of succesful outcome. Let's not forget all these nice screens and vids of VEAO P-40F (with pre-purchase!) and Mk XIV Spitfire coming to DCS... until the company flopped and they didn't.

I was afraid you were getting fed up with MT mission flag shenanigans, AI issues and N2 airfield problems to the point of not producing DCS campaigns anymore. I'm glad to see, however, that sweet masochism still drives you to produce the best DLC campaigns available for this platform . And so it drives us to play them! Keep up the good work, mate.

Yup, tail strut issue is being discussed here, amongst other undercarriage-related observations: It's beeing investigated, though, so let's see what tweaks will follow in next months.

Yes you can, as both are just duplicates of each other at this point. Unless you have something very specific in your open beta saved games you want to keep and copy to your stable, ie. custom skins, replay tracks, missions, logbook, control settings maybe etc.

Your pilot or AI one? I'm not sure about the latter, but with former, just use external camera view (if it's allowed both in DCS and mission settings). F2 works, don't remember if F3 does.

^ Albeit Google Authenticator is suggested by ED simply as the most popular option, guys in the other long thread on this very subject confirmed that pretty much any other 2FA application works allright, so choose whichever you prefer.

Good, because neither have we. Unless one talks about AI plane, or one flown by player, but with game flight mode turned on. In either case, the only way to make this thread useful is to: 1) Post a short replay track showing what you think is incorrect. Hint - press Ctrl Y (IIRC?) to enable info-bar on the bottom of the screen, presenting flight data, including G-loads. 2) Post real life tech reference data (charts, manuals etc.) showing how much a chosen flight parameter might need to be be tweaked. Anecdotal "evidence" is not evidence, developers literally cannot do anything with it even if they wanted, because how are they supposed to adjust numbers in the code if there is no reference? Take a look at these two examples of how a valuable flight model issue report should look like:

I kept original centering spring which turned out to be just way too soft for about 30'ish cm extension I used, making the stick floppy and making it pretty impossible to find and "feel" the center position. Quite an issue when trimming any aircraft in DCS, especially my Mi-8 in "move joystick to center" trimming mode. Without the gasket there's more distinctive "clunk" I feel when going neutral and the stick is more likely to stay upright. Your mileage may vary, though, as some users prefer not to feel the center position at all (I didn't like it when my Warthog was full stock short in the old days) Apart from that, from mechanical point of view of how pressure plate and centering spring operate, gasket doesn't change anything.

I don't own Viper and Apache, but by default, yes, all training missions for DCS aircraft use Caucasus map.

It's meant to be glued to internal flange of this pressure plate thingy sliding up and down on four pegs. Take a look here: As a side note, from my own experience, superglue might not be the best one to use for reinstalling the gasket back in place. Mine stayed there for a few year afterwards but fell apart to pieces eventually. Either this particular type of rubber didn't like cyanoacrylates, or it couldn't flex enough after hefty superglue application around all the circumference, or maybe it just deteriorated because of age. In either case, I use joystick extension so getting rid of the gasket completely turned out to be better solution actually.

Yes, keep in mind repair and cleanup processes check only root game folder but not Saved Games one, so if there's anything hidden somewhere there that causes problems, repair and cleanup won't help, unfortunately.

Talking about pot calling the kettle back... The point is Nealius' understanding of terms was invalid indeed (absolutely can't blame him!) and Graf's answers were technically correct, albeit he, as a non-native speaker, does come off blunt quite often, I'll give you that. Nevertheless, you have to be kidding if you say "the terms are widely understood" with a straight face. Amongst whom? Real life veteran pilots and maintenance technicians, maybe. If they were amongst other people, however, this thread, and many older like it, wouldn't exist. The aforementioned incorrect terms interchangeability in wartime manuals does cause confusion for any avation entusiast who tries to learn more about CSPs for the first time and reads these. Not to mention that as Nealius noted, DCS manual for Thunderbolt is blatantly wrong in this particular paragraph no matter how you look at it, as it specifically addresses prop blade pitch.

Do the usual DCS troubleshooting then: make sure there are no active mods not only in game root folder, but also in Saved Games location, then run repair command, preferrably the "slow" one. What you see is just some texture files missing, if there are no mods interfering with the game, repair will download and reinstall these.

Prop thingy is strictly DCS ST related, so no amount of driver tinkering will help in this case. One just has to play in MT mode to solve it for now and that's that. I would, however, investigate that game startup time issue now, 'cause ST will be discontinued sooner rather than later and we'll all be left with MT for better or worse. Search around "performance bugs" section for hints, tips and tricks. Game and mission loading times should not be all THAT different compared to ST mode.

^ It's all very interesting in its own right from technology development point of view (and I do mean it), but also getting quite irrelevant to topic originally discussed. Moreover it's certainly not a valid reason for this D-waving contest of who allegedly worked in IT on what and for how many years. What's the use of these 40 years if they result in superiority complex mixed with being stuck with single obsession while conveniently ignoring any different aspects and opinions? "Enjoying the chance to educate people"? Yeah.... rrrrright. Could you just please just not look at it from IT geek/nerd perspective for a moment and look at it from average flight simmer perspective for a change? At least if you don't mind getting off that high horse of yours. For average DCS player framerate IS be-all/end-all performance indicator, followed by stuttering or lack thereof and ending with mission load times maybe. Mind you, by "average player" I mean anyone who just fires up DCS client on his machine to do some short SP or MP flying, WITHOUT runnig dedicated server in the background, or live-streaming, or video processing, or crypto mining, or whatever else that would make storage solution (and the rest of his PC for that matter) more busy than usual. I know from my own experience that switching from two separate system & DCS drives to a single one didn't affect performance understood as above in any practical way. Framerate didn't change obviously, but neither did the other two factors, at least I couldn't see it. Who knows, maybe even got "improved" (so to speak) performance on average as that single SSD of a different brand I bought was theoretically somewhat faster than two smaller ones? I didn't know and didn't care, 'cause I didn't notice stuttering and/or load time changes one way or the other, and thus I never bothered to do any benchmarking. Not to say there were no changes - I suspect there probably was something out there, but anything single-digit-percentage is not worth attention. For the same reason buying two new bigger SSDs just to separate DCS from the system didn't make any sense either. It doesn't really matter if a disk costs 50 bucks or 50 cents, why should I throw money away? I tend to choose and buy my PC components as tools for the basic job, trimming off unnecessary glitter and gimmicks. Look, I understand that your're super passionate about storage solutions but whatever you mean by "technically superior" solution and performance, even if very important in previous professional applications you have experience with, here in DCS doesn't matter all that much and thus - well, nobody cares. Unless the person is in a small group of experts and enthusiasts who are crazy about minute details. It's almost like GPU geeks arguing over which new card is better when one card pulls 140 fps and the other pulls 150. C'mon, really? I get it, for them it must be life-or-death confrontation, but normal user is going to be like "Ummm... Yeah, whatever, I need 60". For average guy and not a tech nerd, alternative storage solution must be "practically" superior, not just "technically". Like in real gaming application, not in benchmarks or professional non-gaming applications. Like in not-so-old days of switching from HDD to SSD when even folks who knew nothing about PC/console internals noticed THAT performance increase immediately. Switching from combined OS/game SSD to two separate ones is just not comparable magnitude of change. In either case, OP specifically wrote in his first post that he does have his system and root DCS folder on separate drives, just like you strongly recommend, so what is this storm in a teacup about anyway?

As razo+r hinted, open Normandy map in full mission editor, choose the airplane icon, move your mouse while observing cursor coordinates being displayed on the info bar, scroll and put the airplane where Stonehenge coordinates are (haven't checked how close the ones provided above by Markom are, but I suppose they're good enough?), change the airplane properties to make it flyable by you (airstart will suffice I presume?), launch the mission and there you are - roughly over the landmark. Would create the mission myself but my gaming rig is inop.

C'mon, Pete, "an airshow P-51" is quite a bit of an exaggeration. This pilot model issue is cosmetic only and doesn't affect combat cababilities of the module in any way. Low-tier cosmetic even, I'd say, compared to some of the official skins not being fully converted to PBR standard for example. I suspect that's also the reason why not many folks are vocal about it and why it's a low-priority development item.

You lucky SOB . I've moved to different flat recently and still won't have access to my gaming rig for two weeks at least, ain't got controller either. It's difficult to stay patient when so many goodies are getting released for both DCS and Il-2GB