Redglyph

I wouldn't take for granted posts that don't have a solid reference. Saying "Its power is poor" and mentioning "boost" (?) seems strange and vague. What was it compared to, what is meant by "boost", is that the boost rockets? I can take off without those, even without full reheat. So unless some details and references are given, those are not real issues (as said by Jonne). But the gunsight has been mentioned several times. There is a bug report tool which could perhaps give you a more precise idea of the current state, but I'm not sure it's still used by M3. There was a surge of bug solving right after Leatherneck split in M3 and Heatblur, but since then I haven't seen much activity (at least not on the bugs that I posted in 2016, 2017 and 2018). https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io In any case, the Fishbed should be revamped in the near future (link in first post), though I don't know if that implies other fixes than the performances. It would be nice to have a clear status of what the devs are aware of from their perspective regarding the bugs, and what they intentions are.

That's pretty harsh, what is so wrong with the MiG-21bis? I'm aware that the RSBN-6C indicators and autopilot were not entirely correct for a while, and partially fixed - I think, always hard to know with so little feedback from the devs. Some also mentioned the engine stalls were exaggerated, but it's always hard to extrapolate from a few accounts. Overall it's quite an impressive work, apart from the appalling, broken training missions and some quirks in the cockpit. If someone states he has "zero confidence in quality/accuracy", there must be other severe flaws I'm not aware of.

All those comments and questions have been said, asked and answered before ;)

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.

That looked like it but it's good to have confirmation, thanks! The current version of the manual only lists those switches without mentioning which position does what and the procedure still instructs to put them ON. There was indeed a mention by someone else that it should change and that the manual was wrong, but nothing official so it was hard to know for sure.

I checked in today's update but I see no change, and still no answer here to clarify the problem...

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).