Bearfoot

It's complicated. First, you need to update the firmware of the Black Box. To do this need to download ZBootloader (which uses the .vkb firmware files rather than the .cfg files which are used by the VKB Configurator program as profiles). But you cannot just run ZBootloader. More details here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3349326&postcount=105 Then, you have to default the Black Box. More details here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3349350&postcount=110 It's a little bit of a dance, but you will get there.

It seems that there are some perpetual mysteries to the universe ... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=197364 :) :) :) However, we are not trying to figure out the grand unification theory here, and given that somewhere, some human put those maps together and is still presumably alive, one would think an answer would be forthcoming from the mission designers/developers? Maybe a post in the Russian Belsimtek forums might be needed?

I am 99.999999% certain dburne is right. DCS always autocrappily assigns buttons and axes to controllers. Major PIA in almost every module and for almost every controller because it not only gets it wrong/non-sensical (except for the TMWH + A10C), but results in multiple/conflicting assignments. I suggest you click the "clear category" for EACH and EVERY controller on a particular module, on both the "All" as well as "Axes" pages, and start from scratch, one-by-one. Sounds like a pain, and it is, but will save you the frustration of things not working as you expect.

If the Huey legend was born in Vietnam, the Mi-24 and Mi-8 legend was born in Afghanistan, 1979-1989. The various African Wars from the 60's till today would also be the runner-up/second-stage for this legend.

"As noted earlier, the 'flying IFV' concept did not prove feasible in combat. The crews were reluctant to fly a 'battlebus' full of 'passengers' firing out of the windows, as the Mi-24 was decidely overweight and sluggish with a full payload. Hence the armor plating and troop seats in the cabin were often removed to save weight." -- "Mil Mi-24 Hind Attack Helicopter" (Yefim Gordon and Dmitriy Komissarov, Airlife) The above book is a truly fantastic resource on the Mi-24. Great detail on its development and operations across all variants, including typical missions, weapons loads, performance, and pilot stories. Definitely worth getting! Anyway, while I have no doubt that the Mi-24 may have been used in the battlebus capacity, it does not look to be a SOP or even common, and certainly not liked. The typical and certainly common usage that I've seen in numerous accounts is working in close conjunction with Mi-8's, with the latter not just fulfilling the troop transport role by also airborne FAC, C&C, etc. There are also reports of Mi-8 gunships working in conjunction with Mi-24's, with the former the providing initial heavy salvos of longer range rocket fire to plaster and area and then turning away, while the Mi-24's continue in for the close-in work with guns. I think I read that on these forums somewhere. As anyone who has done a run in on/over ground forces in Mi-8 can tell you, as it is unarmored it is extremely vulnerable to fire, even small arms fire, to the extent that even getting close to (let alone flying over) troops firing at you can shred you up. According to the above source, the Mi-24 with its armor proved itself time and time again on the battlefield to be, for all practical purposes, invulnerable to small arms fire, taking it with impunity, so that is definitely going to make for different employment!

Absolutely no way. Same as the AH-1 cannot replace the Huey. Or the Apache the Black Hawk. Or Romeo Juliet. They complement each other beautifully, and one cannot live with one but not the other.

True. Though in practice it was almost never used that way due to terrible performance.

I am working on a Lua scripting library that (among other things) allows for different capacities for different helos (e.g., MI-8 can carry 20-24 troops, while Huey can carry 10-14), as well as different types for different helos (e.g., Mi-8 can carry small jeep). I think it will be straightforward to incorporate into either CTLD or MOOSE. The Mi-24 cannot replace the Mi-8. Either in reality, in the sim, or in my heart! These two are "sisters" meant to be used in concert.

I am incredibly excited about the Mi-24!!! Totally iconic helicopter and this is the one module I am looking forward to more than the F-18 and every other fixed-wing announced COMBINED! But curious: why do you say it is a multi-capable multi-role helo over the existing ones combined? Surely the current KA-50 can do it all, and perhaps more?

Is there a place where users can share/show-off/read about control mapping assignments of the stick for various DCS aircraft? I do not mean "profiles" in the sense of a software profile, but just what folks find useful to map on the 128+ buttons (!!) of the stick? If not, maybe it would be nice to set one up. Perhaps a dedicated forum on the VKB site, with separate threads for each aircraft type (e.g "DCS: Ka-50 Control Assignment Ideas")? Alternatively, maybe a dedicated thread in each aircraft sub-forum here (e.g., "VKB MCG/Pro Control Assignment Ideas for Gazelle"). To help in this, we probably could use an image template with blank labels pointing to the various switches etc., sort of like is available for other sticks like this one: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=78297&d=1362999434 . I have no doubt everyone at VKB is super busy right now, and probably want to take a (REAL) vacation once the dust settles, so no rush ... but maybe something to keep in mind in the future or for someone in the community to do?

You probably already thought of this --- but check the cable connections. I get that red light when one thes cable is slightly loose in its socket.

That did it! THANKS! I think I got away with just doing the typing "DEFAULT", clicking the button and then clicking the big "DEFAULT" button (i.e., without swapping the grips back and forth) ... as that seemed to solve everything. Grip is recognized as MCG, and all buttons, axes, etc. are recognized!! I totally missed reading that these steps were needed. Excellent support saved the day :) :) :) THANKS AGAIN!

Did not even know that was a drop down! I can indeed select either MCG or Generic Device. This made think the problem was solved! But alas, still no joy ... no button clicks register, and the device still shows up as missing/red. Also, when I restart the device its back to KG 12 :(

Checked. Still no joy

I tried that. And it did not seem to work. But that's because I did not do it right. Good news is that I figured out how to update the firmware It is really a crazily convoluted and, to me, a non-intuitive process, so I am going to list it here for future reference: (1) Download ZBootloader and the firmware file. (2) Load Vkb Config, and click bootloader. The blue light on the Black Box goes out and the VKB config program quits. Don;t worry about this, and do not try to get the blue light to come on. It's fine. (3) NOW fire up "ZBootloader". You might see something like "read error 0". If so click reset, quit ZBootloader, and restart it again. You should now see just the "device connected" message without the "read error 0" (4) From inside ZBootloader, open the .vkb firmware file you downloaded. Then click on "Flash". (5) Now your Black Box should register as "VKBSim Gunfighter Modern Combat PRO v1.917". For me, going from step 2 to 4 was the crazy non-intuitive part. I must have missed to some basic documentation. Aaaaaanyway, that's the good news out of the way. Here is the bad news (for me): The buttons, switches, etc. on the grip are STILL not being recognized, nor is the different grip.... :( I guess I am going to open a ticket ...

I am almost certain I missed something here. But before I open a support ticket, perhaps someone here can help out. Just got my MCG Pro. Swapped out my existing KG-12 from the Gunfighter stick. Followed the calibration instructions. All good. BUT: (a) none of the button presses, or grip axes (as opposed to base stick axes) are recognized. (b) the VKB software thinks the grip is a KG-12. I guess I have missed a critical update step? What is that? EDIT: I could not run wizzo_gf, because I get "JOYSTICK NOT FOUND PLEASE CHECK THE CONNECTION", so I am running VkbDevCfg v1.852. EDIT 2: Here is the screen shot showing that the VKB software only knows about the KG 12 grip:

Do you have your font size > 125% in Windows?

Kneeboard controls, as you say, are the big ones. Not just on/off, but page forward/back. But apart from that, there are the "sim/game" controls that we need to account for the fact that we are, in fact, in a sim/game: -- crew commands (ROE, burst, autopilot, etc.) -- VR/TrackIR commands (zoom, recenter) -- control indicators on/off -- radio menu manipulation -- F10 map view and manipulation (zoom/unzoom, center on A/C etc.) Then there are secondary controls of the "other" seat, e.g., the weapons operator on the Gazelle. If you are playing SP or true multicrew is not supported, then instead of switching seats you can manipulate those controls from the primary seat if properly mapped. Again, this is a concession to the sim/game nature: in RL, someone else is sitting there to do it, but if you want to fly the a/c AND aim and launch in the sim the only way to do it now is to have controls mapped so that you can manipulate them as pilot or otherwise while flying. Then there are actual controls that might be difficult to reach/see even if clickable due to limitations of the physical interface. E.g., I find that even with VR, switches close to the side/behind and below are difficult. In real life you could just reach down and flip/manipulate without thinking twice. But in VR you have to bring it in to the center of your FOV, which is not always easy.

Asked: http://forum.vkb-sim.pro/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2901

Thanks! Looking forward to it. It will really greatly add to the information available ... so far, I've had no luck tracking this down.

Yes! This has happened to me too many times. Sometimes it is forgetting, especially with the ones that can be either side depending on who are the "good" guys vs. "bad", like "Insurgents", and other times is changing my mind or wanting to, for e.g., add other countries to get platforms/technologies not otherwise available to a particular coalition. This -- the changing of coalitions after a mission has been created -- has been brought up before, and categorically and unconditionally rejected by ED: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=601226&postcount=4 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=605262&postcount=9 However, there have been instructions posted online on how to change the coalitions manually by unzipping the mission file and editing the text files. It is pretty painful, but I've used it before many patches ago, and it worked back then: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=121373 Now, there is also a mod by uboat, and Grimes, that allows you to do this magically within the Mission Editor: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=168720 I've tried this, too, before, and when it worked, it worked BEAUTIFULLY!!! Unfortunately, with the public (ED site) version of this mod is enabled, 1.5.8 will not launch. There is a special patched version available for versions 1.5.8 and above, but I have not yet tried it: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3329822&postcount=65

Interesting. Good to know! Why are the defaults lower rather than the maximum? Is there any reason -- or are there trade-offs -- we can't or shouldn't just crank everything up to maximum precision?

Even better . :thumbup: . :thumbup: . :thumbup:

+1 MUCH better than the OP's request. His solution takes a (very) minor irritation that affects a few people just some of the time (mission designers creating missions, as opposed to people just playing), and makes it a major irritation for most people most of the time at the cost of the most limiting of limiting resources -- developer time. Your suggestion actually fixes the problem for everyone once and for all, without bothering anyone else who was not affected by it or who really could live with the way it was before.

Can you really tell the difference? I went from a Saitek X-55 to a Warthog with 20cm extension, and it was a night-and-day difference. Then to a VKB Gunfighter Pro, and it was better still, but not quite as a dramatic. But I have no idea how you assessed 12-bit vs 14-bit precision! Is that even humanely possible??!! More generally, though: agreed. In terms of performance gain, for me the single biggest one came from VR, followed by upgraded stick, followed by upgraded pedals, followed by upgraded throttle. Frankly, the single biggest difference was VR, and that's the only no-going-backer. I used to fly with TrackIR and 4K. It looked beautiful. But VR feels better. And the last couple of times I tried flying in 2D, it was a disaster. Don't think I can -- or want -- to fly in 2D anymore.