Redglyph

I've spent hours in those too, and I never find that boring. But that's not really the point, few people here are actual pilots so the argument "I'm a pilot and I have spent many hours in this so I don't see why you would want to do that" seems a bit ... selfish? Or even downgrading? Think about how it's perceived. I'm pretty sure that a guy who has to fly hours in an A-10 or an F-16 repeatedly during an intensive exercise like Red Flag, or an engagement like the Gulf War, would not want to have that in a sim. So if he gets back, happens to find a forum here where people are excited about the incoming F-16, do you think he would write such a post "Guys, I'm flying that all day long now, it's boring, why would you want to do that? You take off, blow stuff as usual, land, and that's it, you'd pay for that?" As said before by Pyroflash, those GA planes, as simple as they may be, have a huge success in X-Plane, FSX, P3D, and others. They have a huge success in real life too, because private pilots can't always afford to buy a DA-42 or an aerobatic airplane, but also because you can learn a lot in them. Finally, the length of the thread speaks for itself, it should be a clue that what you wrote is probably not in tune with what people think (but maybe the point was to be provocative?). Yes, the title says "Cessna 172", but it's about training with something easier for people who never flew a plane or people who just want to relax, and especially, it's also to be taken with a bit of salt ;) Something more exciting? It's just all over the place.

Why have you flown so many hours in it, if that's boring? :p Anyway, I think you're missing the point of the thread.

Your logic is devious ;) Seeing the list, there's much better! The taildragger is the natural ancestor of all airplanes. So obviously the Piper Cub comes first (or the Storch! Or the C140...), then the C172, and finally a natural evolution to the C182. It's all about crescendo :D

Actually I believe it's Eagle Dynamics SA, SA being the form of the corporation: Société Anonyme, in French since that's the language at Lausanne in that part of Switzerland. So that's more or less equivalent to PLC (UK), Inc (US), NV (Nederlands) and so on. EDIT: normally we don't glue the acronym with the company name, so it should be written ED S.A., or sometimes ED sa, but not EDSA ;)

PG = Persian Gulf, one of the DLC maps (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/). The Corsair is not out yet.

+1, never understood why commercial stuff was posted on FB, it's not the purpose. Good to see some news here! And it's looking great! :)

I agree on that, it would be great to know the new team in DCS :)

My reaction exactly, as a new 3rd party, they must really feel welcome ;) EDIT: saw your later post and you meant something else. Still, same answer applies I guess, but an introduction by ED would have been appropriate (and probably helpful for those who aren't decided to buy an EA module made by a new team) :D

Thanks!

I suppose I was foolish to expect any answer from them :/

Maybe we could settle for a Fieseler Storch?

@Leatherneck: Regarding the MiG-21 cockpit update, do you plan to finally fix the switches, for which a report in your bug tracker was made and acknowledged 2.5 years ago then completely ignored (and re-created since the bug was deleted), and a fix posted and ignored as well? Or are you keeping the broken logic? This was the last of it, on July 2017, and of course I never had any feedback: (the potential problem he mentioned doesn't exist since missions are oblivious of how the click states are registers in clickabledata.lua, so it should be safe and doesn't require such a big inspection. Even less if you have to redo the cockpit anyway)

Thanks for the support :)

Just for info, for those who want to play with a fix for the messy cockpit switches, it is here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2268038/ (bug with the A-10C itself, nothing to do with this great campaign) Though to be honest, since ED won't integrate the patch or even fix the cockpit themselves, I gave up updating the file, so check that they are still compatible with your version first (DCS2.1.0.5677.215\clickabledata.orig.lua is the same as your original Cockpit/Scripts/clickabledata.lua). Last time I tried it was still OK.

I may be wrong, but normally a bug is tagged [REPORTED] (or other tags like "not a bug" and so on). We can see an example below in another thread - actually there is only one I can see. Otherwise we bug reporters wouldn't be able to know whether they are aware of a problem or not, that would make reporting bugs very problematic, and not motivating at all.

DCS 2.5.4.29167 So that users don't have to guess which of the left / right click they have to use, here is a fix for that problem with some of the switches (once again, this is to make it easier and to stick to DCS's standard). Just replace the clickabledata.lua file with the one in the zip archive, there is no compatibility issue whatsoever. The front cockpit is mostly correct, there is only one switch that behaves erratically. But the RIO cockpit is another matter, it seems some of the devices were made by another developer who would do it differently, which gives an overall impression of chaotic behaviour (not as bad as the A-10C, admittedly). The knobs all seem to be fine. There is one spring-loaded switch at the back which is counter-intuitive but I left it since there is no risk. Same for the light intensity knobs which feel also wrong, but at least they're all consistent. Fixed switches: 1) Front cockpit elements["PNT_928"] "Hydraulic Emergency Flight Control Switch" 2) RIO cockpit elements["PNT_36"] "Target size (no function)" elements["PNT_37"] "Main Lobe Clutter filter" elements["PNT_63"] "Mech fuse" elements["PNT_75"] "Missile option" elements["PNT_68"] "Jettison station 1" elements["PNT_71"] "Jettison station 8" elements["PNT_161"] "IFF audio/light (no function)" elements["PNT_162"] "IFF M1 (no function)" elements["PNT_163"] "IFF M2 (no function)" elements["PNT_164"] "IFF M3/A (no function)" elements["PNT_165"] "IFF MC (no function)" elements["PNT_166"] "IFF RAD (no function)" elements["PNT_167"] "IFF Ident (no function)" The original clickabledata.lua file is provided as "clickabledata.org.lua" for comparison or backup. Cockpit_fix.zip

I don't think they read this thread unfortunately, they would have acknowledged by now.

DCS 2.5.4.29079 I had already dropped several Mk82, I dived to drop another one on one of the remaining boats. That's the first time I saw the pull-up cue I think, I was lower. It crashed before I had any chance to pull up. Unfortunately not much info in the DCS logs directory, only what is attached (the new DCS failure window that is supposed to appear didn't). There was no track file nor other recent file that is relevant. I had to rename the dcs.log to a .txt file, for some obscure reason it's not possible to upload .log files. :rolleyes: dcs.log.txt

UPDATE With DCS 2.5.4.28841, the missing audio issue wasn't experienced anymore (was it linked to "Significantly reduced Disk IO & CPU usage at mission start."?). This still leaves the bandit appearing too early, loosing sight of it can be worked around by asking Jester to lock it (but he'll speak at the same time as the narrated voice of the mission). It seems the lock break frequently and that the user has to ask Jester to lock a bandit again and again though, not sure this is intended?

No, they'll work on the next thing ;) Seriously though, some visibility would be welcome indeed. The principle of buying Early Access products is fine, but if there is absolutely no idea when/whether the product gets a chance to be finished or even worked on, it dramatically reduces its appeal. Also the lack of feedback on the bug reports, or the lack of visibility on what is known to the devs removes any interest in trying to report them. If someone feels like what he does has no effect, he'll quickly lose any motivation (issue which, to me, is not limited to the Yak-52 but to most of the DCS aircraft in general).

Simply edit the mission as I did above and it's much better. After this Su-25, you can optionally chase the other bandits :) I can't upload the file for copyright reasons, we just have to wait until Heatblur reads this and updates the missions.

Strange that it wouldn't spawn at all, you don't even see a speck in front of you at the very beginning? To solve 1 & 2, I just set it (target1) to late activation, and added an activate action in the unpause trigger. I haven't tried to delay the dialogue, so the first two dialogues are still missing (the first time I run the mission).

Only if you don't take it too personal when we report issues on this great module ;) Thanks for hunting them down!

Thanks! Yes, I realized that later, I should edit my post.

DCS 2.5.4.28615 Same issues as in the guns mission: 1) An enemy aircraft is spawned in the front of the user's, but the active pause is on, and while the user's F14 remains at the same place, the enemy aircraft flies out of range. As a result, a lot of time is required to catch up, if it can be found at all, which is not the purpose of the mission. 2) The dialogue is mixed with Jester's voice when he's spotting the enemy plane, which makes both dialogues incomprehensible. => the enemy plane should only be spawned in front, once the user press SPACE and the active pause is removed. 3) The dialogue starts late because of the initialization and is cut. This only (mainly?) happens the first time the mission is run. => wait a while before starting the dialogue. Temporary work-around for 3), load the mission, abort, load it again.