Redglyph

LeCuvier's patch works fine, and I don't think those files will change anytime soon now that this module is stable so it should be pretty safe :) Except we'll have to re-install it after every update. What I gave up is trying to provide the devs with patches, I had a full fix for the A-10C's switches that are a real mess (you never know if you have to left or right-click, rotate up or down), it was fully tested with all the information ... and it never went through. Even bug reports are ignored most of the time so I had enough frustration for now, at least for a few months or years ;)

Thanks! Works like a charm :thumbup: I hope ED read this one day and add that to their setup.

Was there any response from ED on this? Or is this supported now in 2.5? It seems to be the same as before in the lua files, unless I missed something.

Also, the IDLE key doesn't work right after you start a mission, I found out you had to move the throttle firtst. Currently, the throttle internal state is maxed out when you start, and before you touch any of your controls, no matter where your actual throttle control is. So if you start a mission on the runway, it will start to spool up and roll unless you quickly touch the throttle control. And perhaps the throttle must be low before the idle is taken into account, that would explain the problem. It may also depend on how finished the previous mission, there are remnants from the previous overall module state. Very old bug, the initial state that fails to read the controllers on mission start.

Was the question about RSBN and PRMG availability? That's usually the issue with modules like the MiG-21 and the L-39C, it's actually a good question. Normally the PRMG could be set on a mission basis, since there were mobile units for that, not sure it's planned. It's probably not easy since those channels are set on the module's side and not from the DCS theatre data (at least it was the case before for the Fishbed, and I think for the Albatros).

It looks like an old bug, I have the same problem. You have to move your throttle a little bit after starting the simulation, and before pressing the RALT+HOME otherwise it won't register it. Usually in DCS, the settings of the controllers are not read when the sim starts, only the first time you change them. That's a bug I think I've reported about 3 years ago and only got a reply that this synchronization was supposed to be for the A-10C only, which didn't sound convincing.

It's not entirely clear, quoting the briefing "At an altitude of 50-70m and speed of not less than 250 km/h, retract the flaps. When speed of 350 km/h has been reached, set the RPM to 100% and continue climbing with an acceleration to 350 km/h to 200m.". I wouldn't directly have a 10° pitch with a low speed, usually patterns have a low-climb part in which the airplane accelerates to climb speed. The briefind does not mention to climb initially, but it does mention to "continue climbing with an acceleration to 350 km/h". Perhaps badly worded, but I understand it as, now you resume climbing and you "accelerate" to maintain your 350 km/h (by "accelerate" I suppose it's most probably meaning more RPM since this speed has already been reached, the only need to increase the throttle would be if the climbing actually starts there). And this is also the first part mentioning any climb. Perhaps just the 10° pitch check should be delayed a bit until a proper speed is obtained. The first turn leads to crosswind per definition ;) I don't see any instruction for a continuous turn, it just says both 1st turn and 2nd turn have to be at 200 m and so on. There wouldn't be a 1st and 2nd turn if that were only one continuous turn... "The first and second turns must be performed together at altitude of 200m, a speed of 350 km/h, and a roll of 45°. When exiting the second turn, you should be on the downwind leg. Maintain a speed of 350 km/h and an altitude of 200m." They don't specify how far to go on crosswind, but that'd probably be when the threshold is on the 8 o'clock (and not the usual 45° which is used for civil aviation). If we must perform one continuous 180° turn, I'd choose another explicit phrasing to remove any possible confusion, since it's not common. Nice touch indeed :) Thanks for the explanation, that wasn't entirely clear to me, especially since I was convinced there was an ambiguity with the crosswind/base legs. Setting full-proof triggers is always a nightmare with such training missions. If some of the tests could be done in Lua that would probably make it much easier. Perhaps one day when we're able to read the aircraft state (RMI, speed, and so on)... Thanks again for taking the time to answer all those questions! :)

Yes, I'm curious too about the necessity of such a low pattern. Found a few issues/questions with mission 1. From the briefing I understand it's still a regular pattern, with take-off, crosswind, downwind, base and final. However, (a) after take-off, I am supposed to level at 50-70 m AGL to reach 350 km/h (while managing the landing gear and flaps). => the instructor keeps repeating "pitch 10°" and "altitude 200", before I reach 350 - even before I have the opportunity to accelerate. (b) at 350, 200 m, I'm supposed to turn to crosswind with 45° bank angle. => the instructor says to turn to downwind, not crosswind => after the turn to crosswind, the instructor keeps repeating "roll 45", yeah... wait a minute will you? Is there a misunderstanding on how the pattern should be? Seems to be a discrepancy between the instructor and the briefing. © before turning to base there is something about the RMI and the external scale having to match some value, not sure what it's all about. Do we have to setup the RSBN? (d) turning to base, it's supposed to be a 45° bank angle at 280 km/h, and flaps to 22° quickly after the turn. => the instructor says "turn to the left with a roll of 45 to enter the A landing course of +60°", which has absolutely no meaning to me, and the final turn is supposed to be 30°. What turn is he speaking about? What is the "A" landing course? 60° to what? (e) after landing, => instructor says "you're not maintaining", but the phrase is incomplete. => later, instructor says "roll"... yes, I'm rolling on the runway, not sure what he means. Or does he mean I'm not maintaining "bank angle" because he was only expecting 2 turns instead of 4? (f) I'm told to repeat the pattern (22° flaps, throttle max, ...). I suspect that this discrepancy between pattern in the briefing and the instructions in flight are the cause of this "failure", but I'll wait for a confirmation before trying again or recording the track. (g) if the heading is wrong, the instructor says "direction" (instead of "heading"), and the subtitles are in Russian for this particular message (other subtitles are fine).

We have already explained to you TWICE that the tower communications have nothing to do with the missions and campaigns. It's a negligible part of any mission, so I don't see why you are making such a fuss out of it and hammering on this small detail. There are subtitles in English for those communications and it's more immersive since you are at a Russian airbase. If you still have to insist on that point, take it up with Eagle Dynamics and add it to the wishlist for DCS world in the support section, it has nothing to do in this thread.

I had a quick try, but in the first mission, - apparently it does not detect the flaps on the approach, it systematically says the flaps could not be extended, but he hadn't say to extend them to 44° yet, only 25°, - on the second attempt he didn't even say to lower the flaps to 25°, directly said they couldn't be extended (speed is fine, approach is fine), - on the second attempt with a go-around, the instructor doesn't say anything anymore, even though I'm back at 200 m with the correct speed. Most likely trigger issues?

You're hard to read, but I understand that the ATC communications are still in Russian. It's set by DCS, the campaign cannot override this except if they do their own communications (like the M-2000C campaign). So it's normal and AFAIK it's not possible to change that. The subtitles show the translation in English however, and anyway that part is not really important since ATC has never been debugged/finished.

Or 3 posts above here ;) But apparently there are new problems... Anyway, if Belsimtek wanted to fix this mission, they'd have done so one year ago, I'd just skip it and check missions and the small campaign made by users (in the "user file" section, check both campaigns and single missions).

Aah, the disco club was already open then ;)

In DCS 2.5.1.16543.355, with the option shown in the screenshot below. Using Track-IR, not a VR goggle set. The problems and screenshots are shown for the P-51D but they exist for other aircraft, if not all. So I'm writing this PR here since it seems to be a generic DCS graphics engine issue. 1) There are weird reflections on the canopy, as seen in the screenshots. They are not moving with the pilot's head so they stand out as stains on the canopy. They are low-res and very much visible, the last part being realistic, but unwelcome because of the other problems. The combination is distracting, and bad-looking, unless it's an incorrect option choice from my part. An option to turn them off completely would be preferable, probably to many users but to be confirmed (I doubt that my setup has any limitation to justify those issues). 2) Additional reflections from the ground are updated every few seconds, which is also very distracting, terribly annoying, and unrealistic. In practice, they prevent any immersive effect and would greatly benefit from a 'disable' option (again, perhaps I missed it but I don't think so). To my knowledge, this problem was already present before 2.5.

Still no answer from the team so I don't think this has ever been read or reported. The problem (1) still exists. I did a quick check trying the difficult landing mission of the challenge campaign. I relaunch the mission with "fly again". Often, the engine would quit immediately due to the shock of quickly changing parameters, even though I try to set the throttle as fast as I can. It doesn't read the controllers' position before starting so it's in vain, it seems that the simulation starts with very low engine parameters (low throttle, possibly 0 RPM or idle), then jumps to a pre-set value, and finally reads the controller when it's moving for the first time. I suggest setting the proper engine parameters (for ex. if the mission starts with a specific speed, correctly set the engine RPM, controls and internal state variables accordingly), and pre-scan all mapped controllers to avoid this initial awkwardness. Perhaps an option so the user can set a few controllers to the right position would be nice to have. I'm reporting that here but the same problem exists for many other aircraft, if not all, starting in the air is always messy.

Any news? Do you want some help with the proof-reading?

Thanks, I'll try that as soon as I find a little time :)

I only had that twice in that training mission and nothing relevant seems to be in the logs, I haven't had any problem going through the great Relic campaign. That's why I was hoping someone else would share their logs, or at least a system description, instead of just posting "me too" but that seems even more difficult than replicating the bug. Is there a debug test/log we can activate when the module or DCS connects to the sound system API, or something similar that could be added? If the Spitfire still drops sounds like before, it could help debug two birds with one stone ;)

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: