Redglyph

LOL. I give up. People just won't read anything but the thread's title and think that just posting "I have this bug too" will help resolve such an elusive problem. :rolleyes: Not that Belsimtek seems to care either way, there is absolutely no sign they're aware of the problem (if it is on their side, other aircraft like the Spitfire or Albatros have disappearing sounds), and no indication on what information from us would help them pinpoint it. Same old story. Anyway, I think this thread can safely be closed or deleted now.

I know that's a late reply to this post, but I suppose better late than never ;) Just to weigh in on the QNH: the "silly number" is shared with other aircraft even if they come from neighbour airfields or from far away, which is important. It's also the (virtual) height from MSL and is used to determine at which altitude you should fly depending on your heading (circular rule), and the transition altitude to switch to FL. All that is meant to avoid collisions, remain in the appropriate airspace, facilitate the control and other air traffic services, any of which would be more awkward with QFE. When you land somewhere, you must know the airfield / aerodrome data anyway (you must plan for alternates), and the altitude is a good indication of your aircraft performance, important for landing distances for ex. so it's nice to know. In the worst case, height is pretty easy to estimate in VFR. Arguably, SAS would be even better, if not for the fact we have to land at some point ;) So I find the QNH to be a good compromise. However, QNH has probably even more sense for general aviation than airliners or military aircraft, which are less concerned with the above since they can quickly change to FL (at least in Europe). Well spotted for the QNE! :)

Fantastic work Baltic (and the others who helped)! I've only recently realized that what used to be a very average manual became one of the best! Thanks to all who worked on this :)

Firstly, sim is an expensive hobby, and DCS is quite cheap in comparison of other sims that don't even feature campaigns or missions. The Caucasus theatre (it's not "Caucusus" like many people tend to write) is free and awesome, which is also more than what any other sim offers. The content of what you get with the final version should definitely be specified, but I think it's the case, isn't it? For this module, and for the first time, the training missions will require another map indeed, this is for the sake of consistency as Baltic explained above. But there is a manual that details the aircraft's operations, and thankfully it should be more complete than their previous module, the M-2000C (which AFAIK was never finished, and honestly sub-standard according to the usual quality we find in DCS). The current version of the manual seems promising anyway, we just have to hope they keep working on it. A few other modules don't have any proper training mission, so it's not a requirement apparently. In other sims the concept doesn't even exist. It does take a little more time to get an aircraft working from a manual, but that's what makes it interesting. Those modules are made to be studied and I've always found the training modules nice but superficial most of the time, except the Mirage, thanks to the great and extensive training + campaign combination - they even train for features that are not yet in the module and go much further than other modules. And except the A-10C if you count Sabre's DLC, but that isn't free. The usual training lesson allows you to quickly get in the air and get the basics of such or such feature, but you still have to learn on your own if you want to benefit from the depth of the model. There are often a few good tutorials on Youtube too. So if the Harrier is really what you want - and it seems to be awesome already, you can disregard the included training missions, or wait for a sales to get the other theatre at a lower cost, which will enrich your overall experience in DCS. In any case I wouldn't get too fixated on these missions, it's much better to benefit from the campaign in the Caucasus than the other way round. EDIT: Just checked the latest version and the M-2000C finally has a good manual it seems, so disregard my earlier comment on this module. However, that shows that all the information is not always there in a timely fashion and perhaps this should be more transparent in the product's description.

That'd be great! :) The alternative is having a lot of "arguments in range" predicates like in the mission below - a little tutorial for the MiG-21 I messed up with a few months ago, based on the real start-up procedures (haven't tried in 2.5, it might be broken). It's awkward because it requires a lot of those checks, and if you want to repeat some operations you can't copy/paste the conditions of one state to another. If it were in a script, it would just be the matter of calling a function several times. Pre-setting the cockpit would also be much easier, for ex. if one wants to preset the radio channel, it requires to send several rotate commands to the corresponding cockpit button with a pause in-between :/ I don't have much time to test those export functions right now, I hope they're visible from the mission scripts (a lot of things are hidden in that scope), it would be a good start! Mig21.Red.01.miz

Yes, that's annoying we can't. We have to use the GUI scripting instead (trigger condition values, and actions). I was designing a tutorial for the MiG-21, and setting/inspecting all those parameters with the GUI triggers and setting them up for each case was really tedious, it could have benefited a lot from Lua.

That's great indeed! :thumbup:

It would probably help them if you gave some details, you are very vague. Which DCS version, what hardware, do you have an SSD (asked previously)... ? Have you tried to lower the preload radius as suggested?

Fantastic! For a permanent fix I don't think they currently have the time, I've been proposing a fix for the switches for one year (fully tested, no impact on missions and so on, like the one for the A-10C) and they haven't had the time to integrate the new file. However, they have recently added the possibility to put custom textures which are not removed on each update, which is already very good. Unlike the switch fix, you just have to drop the new textures once, and select it in the main menu, then you can forget all about it. But frankly the current default English cockpit is very good, the gauges that were still in Russian in previous versions were replaced, perhaps the only remaining text that is not translated is on the stick but that's not an issue. The only annoyance is the list of radio channels and beacons.

You can use the default English cockpit, it seems to be correct.

Sounds perfectly fine to me. The very purpose of those subforums is obviously to report such problems in beta versions, they are meant to the devs or who reports to them. What is not fine is other people who feel entitled to claim nothing should be reported or said because it's a beta; unless they give helpful information those posts have no place here IMHO. Just don't pay attention :) Hopefully that won't spoil the thread and you'll get a reply or see the problem as [reported].

Crisp images are usually uncomfortable to the human eye below 30 FPS. The problem also comes from the inconsistency of the framerate, it's very noticeable and annoying because you see the sim is slowing down. Then there are the freezings which is of course much worse. Another aspect of the low framerate is the relatively lower responsiveness, which is critical in a combat simulator.

It clearly depends more on the hardware than on luck. Clearly with an overkill setup of 1080 Ti, i7 8700, 32 GB and SSDs you are better off than with a 4-year old system. Not everybody can afford that though, or is willing to just for a sim ;)

It is, sort of, thanks! Both settings determine how far the trees are drawn, but it's confusing.

That slider is for the quantity, isn'it ? Has this changed? The visibility range does have an effect on how far one can see them, are both settings combined somehow? Thanks for the tip, I'll tweak that when I have the time. :)

You should post your log, it may contain useful information. Also, specify your settings and what your hardware is, otherwise I don't see how they could help.

Even on visibility range set to Ultra, trees seem to "grow from the ground", the visibility is way too low, I have to set "Extreme" not to have those annoying trees poping up all the time, and no tree visible at all from even low altitude. But extreme allows other things to be visible too early probably, which causes frequent freezes as the sim has to load objects (and since those are apparently blocking reads...). Perhaps a separate slider, or balancing that differently helps? Or are there other problems doing that?

Of course, that's only the flywheel. Makes sense :D

A few pointers to add to what HiJack posted. This wiki is a good reference for scripting: http://wiki.hoggit.us/view/Simulator_Scripting_Engine_Documentation http://wiki.hoggit.us/view/Mission_Scripting_Tools_Documentation Be aware that many mission features cannot be accessed from scripting unfortunately (like any R/W interaction with the aircraft systems). This is a great tool to do some interactive tests: (but it's a bit awkward to set up, there are two modes depending on what you want to do) https://jboecker.github.io/dcs-witchcraft/ There are libraries like MOOSE and MIST with a fair amount of code, reading that helps a bit to understand how scripting works in DCS.

I tried again the first mission, 1) There is still a lot of static in the recorded instructor's voice. It's really on the whole spectrum, including high frequencies, which sounds completely wrong in that environment. I think filtering the instructor's voice as if it was heard in a headset (so through a band-pass filter) would have both advantages of removing the weird HF and making the bad quality legit, and to make it more immersive at the same time. 2) Instructed to switch magnetos M1+M2 before asking the mechanic to turn the starter. We just don't do that :) Even during WWII, original operating manuals specifically mention to switch those magnetos after the mechanic is clear.

When we do navigation estimations in aviation, we use the wind speed vector, but we take that from a meteorological service which uses the common FROM convention. You never indicate "wind 045" for a wind coming from the SW, it would be too confusing. On my log I only report the FROM direction of the wind and its magnitude, as given by the tower or by the METAR. If you draw a speed triangle to someone to explain the principle, you will of course use the wind speed vector, but you label it "wind speed" or "wind vector", which is not the same. Wind direction is defined as the direction the wind is coming from. As proof of the confusion, the many threads about this wind direction issue :D Also, as it can be seen in the screenshots I posted in another similar bug report, the weather information given in the briefing is wrong, I doubt anyone would try and argue this one. And starting from there, wouldn't that be best to have the same direction used everwhere, which happens to be the international convention? A good principle in programming is to keep the same convention for parameters, to reduce the risk of error. Designing those missions already has its share of challenges :)

+1 The MiG-21 is in need of some love regarding textures, gauges and lighting in 2.x :)

The Bf 110 would be interesting as well, though probably not as much as the Ju 88.

I'm not sure which post you are referring to - or coming from ;). Yes, according to ICAO or meteorology in general, 045 would mean wind coming from the North-East, but that's the point, in the editor (and I think in the briefing) 045 means it's coming from the SW. I'm not sure there's any field in which it's customary to indicate the TO direction, it must simply be a bug in formula used to display the wind angle. It's problably a 2-minute fix, the problem is just that they are not aware of the problem (or I missed any reported thread about that, it's quite old).

But neither of you give any log or any information that would help Belsimtek find the cause, not even the DCS version.