Redglyph

Actually the kneeboard problem sorted itself out after a few DCS close/start, so I have no idea what happened, or how it was solved. Maybe one of those transient DCS binding issues? I also had no response to any button after configuring a couple of items the first time the Farmer was installed, and others seem to have had similar problems too. I'll put that in the same bag for now ;)

I loved that voice :) Haha, good point, nice to have some inside joke ;) The jets are a nice touch, makes it more lively, it's mainly a question of timing but I know it's not easy to control that in DCS. It's good to know the cockpit will get more visibility! The flash light does a good job in the mean time. That's because I was dumb, it works perfectly. The highlight sometimes remain though. I confirm ATC is fine, I was suspecting as much, thanks! And the stick, I have no idea, I restarted DCS and now it's fine. Probably the same issue some of us had when configuring the commands, I suspect a general problem in the latest DCS versions. - Engine test: military power lamps are not ON, even though the RPM are withing the expected range, should I report that as a MiG-19P issue? - Love the final remark on the cockpit preparation that was not well done by the ground crew :D

Good to know, thanks! Interesting, not sure how to fix this nor why it happened.

DCS 2.5.4.28090 1) When the canopy is closed, the ground crew does not respond to requests. 2) The request is made with the radio (sim) interface, and the voice of the pilot and crew is heard as if it was actually made by radio. Both behaviour are unexpected/incorrect: - communication with ground crew is made by gestures when the canopy is closed, and the expected behaviour of the module is that it is always responding with open or close canopy, - communication with ground crew is not over a fictive radio channel (AFAIK), or if it were the case, there is a need for a pre-defined channel and the pilot would need to turn the battery and radio switches ON. [uPDATE] When battery and radio are ON, the ground crew respond again => so the problem seems to be some overall incoherency (heard as radio when canopy open and no power, heard as radio when power ON but no predefined channel for intercom, cannot communicate when canopy closed and no power) 2) Also, the static noises are normally not realistic for intercom, those noises are only heard over VHF, UHF and other wavelengths, unless the radio circuit has a serious grounding issue (it's a DCS bug I suppose).

Fair point. Only the kneeboard is currently not working ;)

DCS 2.5.4.28090 A few minor issues, otherwise a very nice introduction, together with the previous mission! What I noticed: - The two jets taking off at the very beginning make it impossible to hear what the instructor is saying. - He's still mentioning the English bit, which was funny in the video but now since the first mission doesn't have the same accent, it just feels weird. Someone who hasn't seen the video will not understand :D - We have to check the landing gear lever and lock, but they're barely visible because of the darkness of the cockpit. Perhaps if the sun was a little bit further in its course it would conveniently shed some light on those obscure commands ;) Or a mention of the Alt-L light could be made? (though most people know about it, for sure) - ARU-2V mode switch must be checked, but it's not possible because it's hidden, and because any of left / right click will just toggle the switch instead of forcing it to up/down position. (it's more of a DCS + MiG-19P issue than a training mission issue) - I didn't see the light on during the left/right air start test. (? to check again) - ATC is not answering to the start-up request, I had that with the landing mission as well. - moving the stick has no effect on the control surfaces. (? to check again, maybe it was on purpose) time out - to be continued :)

Also, there is a very long delay between the instant the bound key is pressed and the lever is actually moved. At first I thought it was not working.

Command binding / mouse interaction issues DCS 2.5.4.28090 On top of the landing gear, radio transmit button and some other issues already mentioned, I found those command and binding issues: - The speedbrake switch only works from a key/button binding, it looks as if it were possible to use it with the mouse (cursor reacts to the button) but it doesn't respond to a click - not that it would be practical, but it's just strange. - Kneeboard next/prev page bindings and other related functionalities don't work. Most of the kneeboard controls appear in orange in the control option list window and are present twice. Removing the configuration and starting over doesn't solve the issue, it seems DCS has default commands for the kneeboard, loaded by Mods\aircraft\MiG-19P\Input\MiG-19P\keyboard\default.lua, and the module itself seems to try and register those commands again, which makes them unusable (I can't flip the page, for instance). [uPDATE] see below, this is apparently another DCS issue that disappeared after a few DCS restarts. - The ARK-5 FAR/NDB Frequency Band Selector Switch does not react to mouse clicks but only to button mapping. - The AChS-1 Chronograph Right Knob is confusing too, aren't the left/right click reversed? We have to set the correct position with the left click and start/stop/reset with the right, which is the opposite of other aircraft. - The Elevator Control (ARU-2V) Mode (Automatic/Manual) is not visible. - The Afterburner Enable has no effect (tested in cold start training mission), once the afterburner is disabled it cannot be enabled apparently. [uPDATE] see below, apparently depends on the actions done before, in mission 2 it won't be enabled again and mil lamps don't work, in other conditions it is fine

DCS 2.5.4.28090 I found the landing gear command very confusing too. When I try to put it back to neutral, as recommended in the manual, it pushes the lever all the way to the other position. So after extracting the landing gear, if I press the key for the lever to go up, or interact with the mouse, it goes all the way and retracts it. So I assume the 3 bindings (I see them in the config menu, unlike JunMcKill, maybe a side issue?) are only - to switch from retracted / extracted, - extract the landing gear - retract the landing gear and going to neutral is automatic, not possible manually by the user. Is that correct? Could this be fixed/improved? JunMcKill, have you checked that you are not in "easy" mode, and have you tried to quit/restart DCS? There are known issue with the command bindings (I had that too at first)

I think it's more than just the device being a Warthog Hotas ;)

I couldn't bind more than a few commands. I had to quite DCS and restart it, next time I did the mapping from the main menu before starting the mission, and also further mapping from a mission and it was fine this time. The usual problem was there though: silly bindings of buttons that don't exist on the rudder pedals, and so on. Actually all bindings are the same for the thrust lever, joystick and rudder pedals, but I think that's the old usual DCS bug. Clearing the whole categories is the best way to get rid of those. I saw the same problem, didn't find any restriction in the manual regarding those commands and obviously they are implemented so I suppose it's just something they forgot. Also: The speedbrake switch only works from a key/button binding, it looks like it's possible to use it with the mouse but it doesn't respond to a click (not that it would be practical, it's just strange). Keyboard next/prev page bindings or even functionality don't work. Most of the kneeboard controls appear in orange in the control option list window and are present twice. The ARK-5 FAR/NDB Frequency Band Selector Switch does not react to mouse clicks but only to button mapping.

Sadly, and as I expected, this problem doesn't seem to be reported nor shown as known issue, so that's one more report in vain. It would be so much easier with a bug tracker (although... some developers have one and it's either impossible to have problems reported in them, or we can report bugs and they are just ignored - but at least we have a visibility on what they are willing to report/fix).

It's funny, I had no idea the Michelin guide was even known outside of Western Europe :)

Yep, I saw they were known values. Again, I have zero problem with that :) The full data set is probably not accessible to the public anyway, probably stored somewhere in Mikoyan OKB archives. I wonder how much details those manuals contained anyway, when we look at a modern jet, airliner or military fighter, there is usually an entire volume of tabulated data, abacuses and curves to determine the performances. But when we look at older manuals, even the MiG-21bis which was later than the MiG-19P, they don't contain that much. Unless they are not public, or less accessible. Beside what was said, the 'P' must also be more interesting for us since it was an all-weather interceptor with a radar. It's very interesting as a point of comparison in the evolution of those aircraft. The difference in performance or in the manual are of little importance.

I've read long and extreme debates in these forums on the accuracy of modelling, and some fans are sometimes quite radical. Saying that you started from another's aircraft model and extrapolated the dynamic characteristics is courageous :D Personally I have never flown a MiG-19P, so I won't notice any difference and that won't ruin my day ;) I also know that even several abacuses don't contain enough information for an fully accurate modelling of a system as complex as a supersonic aircraft, and that sitting in my chair won't give me anything near the actual sensation of flying. But still, it's a little bit like knowing there was a fly in the soup, even if it has been removed, some prefer just not to know ;)

Hm, probably a piece of information that not everyone will like.

Great, thanks! Nice to see you took the time to describe the systems, the history and operations! :) That's more or less the format they were using back then (at least it's the case with many other aircraft). Insight into the human physiological limitations and techniques to mitigate them improved over time ;)

Thanks :thumbup:

Did you mean EFM? Or is this module only AFM for now? There's a good review article by Mudspike that mentioned an EFM level (which of course, doesn't say it all in terms of actual criteria because it's only "part of PFM", but still, is normally quite superior to SFM and even AFM). Since it's not indicated on the product page, it's not easy to be entirely sure. It seems to be ASM, too. So from what I understand, it's a change due to the change from SFM to EFM, correct? :)

I was talking about the -C, but the OP clarified above. And I would definitely not rely on Wikipedia :D

Ah OK, I thought it was the general model, I have no idea about the different lots within that model so disregard my comment. 100% with you there! And hopefully those will evolve to catch up. But you see my point, that may be very subjective, and several votes could be more representative. Or not, it's really your idea after all :) Valid point also about the ASM (and I also prefer those). But there is a renewed trend in DCS to also try and get more casual users with a simpler systems and cockpit handling. If they represent a good share of new users, they would be very interested in such a guide. But on the other hand, it means someone has to write a mini-review for these modules. Or would they? Ah well, maybe a guide for simpler aircraft is not as necessary as for the advanced ones that require so much learning time.

An interesting summary for the newcomers, definitely a good idea! I like the tags and the simplicity of it all. Even if at first glance the description seems shorter than each of those products deserve, there's just too much we could say about them. So, very well done. A few suggestions: - I think an important criteria for the aircraft is the available DLC, even though there's a section on some of the campaigns. For ex. the A-10C is the richest in that regards (and by the way, I don't agree its mission set is limited, on the contrary! It's simply a ground attacker and not a fighter). - Beware of the PFM notation, don't forget 3rd parties won't have this qualification but the EFM one, which doesn't mean inferior! That's why the CEII must be EFM and not PFM, by the way (unless I'm wrong, please correct me if that's the case). Most ED's modules are PFM except a few FC3. - The ASM criteria may be important too, a non-interactive cockpit and limited system modelling are much less appealing to more demanding users. And it may be more appealing for casual users. - "The best DCS has to offer" would probably deserve a poll for each, for instance having no "star" for the Mi-8, the M-2000 or the F-86 is definitely going to be a controvery. One star for the MiG-21 seems fair (who doesn't love this one?) but on second thought it has no campaign, very bad training missions, and is getting completely outdated, I wouldn't like to buy this one in its current state if I were a new DCS fan. - Same remark as above for the "fidelity" (I suppose you mean the systems and flight modelling since there's a separate label for the 3D modelling). Actually a yearly poll/contest would be very interesting :D The only challenge is to find a formula that isn't overwhelming for you when gathering the results. A few fixes: - Bf-109 is PFM/ASM. - F-5 is PFM/ASM. - The F/A-18C was produced much earlier than 1998 (first flight 3 Sep 1986, production started in 1987). I haven't checked the others. Don't take my word on that date, better to double-check. More stuff: If you plan to expand the campaign section, you should check out the "The Museum Relic", one of the most creative campaigns around and a great incentive to get the F-86 or the MiG-15, which are otherwise much underrated modules IMHO. I can try to send you a couple of paragraphs on it, or put them here, if someone else hasn't yet.

I'm rather looking forward to the Supertucano, but whichever the next one will be, we know they're taking great care of the quality of their modules, including the missions! :)

:thumbup:

Very good idea! :) Note that there is a coffee stain on this sheet, so they do drink coffee up there. What if we buzzed the tower? ;)