Redglyph

Heh, couldn't reproduce it either on take-off training mission. It's an elusive one. Perhaps the AP was set at some point (but I don't see why), that's the most likely. Merry Xmas too!

DCS version 2.5.5.41371 I have that with the 2 training missions but not with other missions (I haven't tried them all), perhaps that helps pinpoint where the problem is? It wouldn't be the first time initial settings are not entirely implemented, or have changed due to an update. The roll sensitivity is also very strange, not responsive at all and a very slow roll rate, but it still feels strange in other missions than the 2 trainings, it's hard to tell if there's a difference while fighting to keep the nose level.

The original topic was those switches, so technically most of the posts are out of topic, even if you are ignoring my posts about that. I'd really like to know why ED won't fix them, even though they have had a patch for 3 years that can be applied almost instantly. Is there a fondness to keep the old, messy way each user has to guess whether they have to click right or left for each switch? Did they get used to it and don't want to get back to the standard that has been adopted for a long time? Is that fear of incompatibility with specific instructions of some missions? Is there another reason? Seeing the number of downloads of the patch, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one annoyed by this. I understand ED is more eager to create new modules than maintain old ones, but the A-10C has the largest library of DLC and is one of the most complex and interesting module. And I would understand if they actually had to fix each of those switches, but since that part has been done and documented for them, I'm at a loss. So at the very least, I'd like to know the reason, and not have a thread where every single post is ignoring my original question.

I think this thread has outlived its purpose. It has been OT from the 3rd post and is obviously bound to continue as a useless debate... closing it now seems like a good move.

It seems the original buggy file from DCS hasn't changed with the new cockpit, so the same patch should be applicable. I haven't tried myself, with the lower performance it's the final blow to my PC. Seeing how they ignore this bug, I'm also less motivated to fly the A-10C to find out.

The cockpit has been remade in DCS 2.5.5.41371, however the bugs described here are still there, so 3 years after I provided the patch (which would take virtually no time to integrate). So much for the support, thanks a lot...

I see, apparently nobody gives a damn. However, tested and it's much better-looking, but the framerate has significantly dropped (can't do 40 where it was doing 70+ before...). And as expected the switches were not fixed, that's very disappointing, especially since they have received the patch years ago but simply won't apply it. It's like trying to talk to a wall.

I tried a few times yesterday, a while after the post, then gave up thinking it was planned for next week, I suppose the update came somewhat later. It's a huge and slow download so I'll check tomorrow maybe, since people managed to post 13 pages on my thread without answering my question :huh:

Hi! Today, we can read this update: That's great news! :thumbup: Any estimation when this will be available? Will that fix the cockpit switches too?

I wouldn't bother, I think this bug tracker is not used anymore. Or at least that's the only explanation I find for tickets I had opened in 2016, that included a patch to solve the problem, and that have been dormant ever since (except one that was forcibly deleted from the database). So much for trying to help them fix simple but yet very annoying bugs, thanks guys. The one ticket that was fixed though (short period of activity when Leatherneck split), implemented RSBN stations in Nevada map. It was also an awkward situation since there is no known RSBN station over there, but the MiG-21 needed a way to navigate. These ideas would sure help (and the 3rd one which is adding realism, of course): A unique, DCS-standard way to handle those mobile stations across all aircraft would be less confusing. If we have a DCS world platform, it's to avoid each aircraft to have its own way of implementing common feature (that's why I'm often insisting on fixing those cockpit switches incoherencies, which invariably fall in deaf ears). Item 2 would also make for interesting missions! For all aircraft with ground settings, a way to review and change those settings before taking off would be nice too. In most of the cases, this is done in the ME, but it's hardly convenient. The kneeboard has been used a few times, by rasbam and Belsimtek, as long as it can only be changed on the ground, it's a good workaround. So +1 too. :)

A voice/subtitle repeat would be useful for any mission. It's not too hard to implement by the mission maker, but that's an item that would deserve to be on the DCS wish list (it's probably the case) so that it's available by default.

I had the same observations, but when I restarted DCS and tried to reproduce it, it worked normally (including correct throttle position on the debug control indicator, good suggestion!). Not sure what triggered that. There's the possibility it's coming from the state of the system model not being properly reset between flight sessions, this problem is still present today apparently, at least with the engine (spools suddenly up when starting a new mission, after another one interrupted when the engine was near full rpm, for example). I started with a training mission and perhaps switching between primary and secondary unsettled something? Requires further investigation.

To the point, and at least people read you till the end, whereas they probably fall asleep before reaching the middle of any my posts :D

+1 on the attitude problem, though we have to see the intent behind, providing corrections is constructive and helps improving the guide. For my part I find that useful to newcomers, and I only wish to improve it ever so slightly, it's not easy to proofread a document with objectivity after spending hours writing it and modifying it. While it's useful to provide corrections, they should be delivered nicely. I think the attitude comes from the habit of arguing technical details, that we often find in these forurms. But the worst is this kind of useless, entirely non-constructive and insulting posts that should pave its author's way to a ban: "... or what is the purpose of it? Personally, I find this guide useless.". Of course not everyone needs a guide, but as we often see in these forums, some selfish people who don't need something feel the urge of preventing other from having it, just for the sake of it I guess. It's just pathetic.

:cry: Managing project is what I do for a living, and I never saw a case in which developing a new technology for a new product could be used to solve structural problems in a released product. Even before the new product is near completion, the next one is already starting, that's the only perceived way to go forward for a company. Anyone telling otherwise is either naive, finding excuses, or in a very particular niche with exceptional resources at his disposal. If the intent is really about taking care of existing customers and a released product, the way to address that is to refactor, or most likely in this case, to redo parts of the current code with new technology, before moving on to new products. And about "doing both in parallel", I don't believe that could ever work with a small team. TIP: "it's" = "it is", use "its" for the subjonctive of a non-person (if you can replacce by "his" or "her" and it sounds OK).

From what Matt said in the last fighter pilot podcast 2 days ago, "later this week, if not, next week". A "big orientation of the cockpit" for this first video :)

On top of that, I've seen it was now possible for us to "pre-sale" the F-16C :O I suppose it's a speculative feature, allowing us to sell the F-16 before buying it :D EDIT: ah, they just fixed it ;)

FB? What a strange place to post that. Soon we'll see business announcements on Flixter and Classmates too :D

You're right, and we just saw it again :D I understand it's time-consumming to read the whole thread, but reading the first posts, or a few of the last posts would show that those issues have been discussed and answered already. Few people take the trouble... and I probably have made the same mistake sometimes. Still, so many back and forth in the same thread is becoming ridiculous, no wonder there are no more "official" replies. This discussion has simply been killed. Cobra did say to give some feedback, he must be happy ;) (that didn't change anything though)

What I can't understand is this typical post we see now and then. Many users obviously have a problem with a feature, they report it. Then someone who is not impacted starts posting in order to try and prevent fixing the problem that the others have. How selfish can one get, seriously?! Anyway, removing the noise and back on topic. If there are labels, they are obviously meant to be read at some point. Otherwise the commands would be blank, wouldn't they? It's a safety in a dangerous environment, real pilots know how it is important not to leave anything to chance. It's also very useful when learning.

I never said that. But RampantCoyote did in the post that I quoted, it's just above... It's the initial post of this thread. This is not helping, so please stop.

This couldn't hurt: The first case I quoted can be reproduced reliably, so the track seems like an obvious item to post. This thread is stunning in that regard. There must be tens of people reporting the problem and almost none give much detail, that's a waste of opportunity to pinpoint a problem obviously hard to find. Most people don't even mention the version or any information on their system. I think ED specifically required the logs and track, among other items, in order to avoid this kind of silly situation. When they saw it was mostly overlooked, they introduced the auto-report gizmo for fatal crashes. I'm pretty sure that more than 80% of people are even unaware of that post I've just linked ;) Also stunning is how little people read the thread they're posting in. How many times in this thread have the logs/details been asked? And yet here we are. It's not only in this thread but in general (and it happened to me as well, but at least I'm trying to read a little before posting), the attention span of a thread in these forums seem to be about 2-3 posts on average :D Well, at least some info on the missions were given. I suppose that if the support tries that on the openbeta and release versions, on a few set of DCS settings, they have a chance of stumbling onto the problem. But yeah, Derelor seems to have caught that at some point, I was asking if the patch had been released to know whether this is another issue or still the same.

Hi Derelor, just to be sure, I suppose it was not fixed yet? I didn't see any related items in the changelog. Guys, why wouldn't you post at least a log so the devs have a chance to debug this? I'm pretty sure that just a description like that won't help, and obviously they've been trying to narrow it down for almost 3 years.

As I said, a part of the world is moving to subscription, but when it applies to the business model. DCS would have to offer something entirely different for that.

Quite a few companies are making a move towards subscription, to keep products up-to-date and evolving. However, in that case there's generally a whole team working on one product, which by its nature requires regular upgrading, and it's very stable all the time. Another motive to have a subscription is a server maintenance and/or additional service (this addresses the iRacing comparison, for instance). A very good example of subscription is development tools like Jetbrain's: languages are evolving, SDKs too, development paradigms are shifting continuously. Those are complex tools used for business, and companies can afford to pay them. A bad example is MS Office: a word processor is a word processor, they can add new (unnecessary) features and fix bugs that shouldn't be there in the first place, there is no server, no real service to justify, hard to justify a subscription for that. Actually, I haven't checked whether this 365 idea was still in place or abandonned, I'm using something else now anyway. In DCS there's a small team developing a lot of products, plus the base engine. In order to be eligible, a subscription service would require the products to be (a) stable and (b) updated often enough to justify this model. Or some © other form of service. Neither of those apply, so it would be difficult to justify a subscription at this point. The base engine is evolving, yes, but that often breaks this or that module, and once a module is created, they don't often need upgrading. And it's for entertainment, not business, the audience is different. Perhaps big upgrades of DCS world and subsequent upgrades of the modules would deserve a fee, as it sometimes happens in other sims, it's development that goes beyond what one would be expecting. But usually in that case it's not a subscription, it's a new product and people can choose not to opt in and still use the current product (see X-Plane, P3D, for example).