Pizzicato

Sounds like your rudders are assigned to multiple devices. When you input on one, the other is cancelling it out. That's why it looks stable when you assign the axis, i.e. because it's only looking at the specified device. Remove the duplicate assignments, and you should be fine.

Hey guys, I'm clearly misunderstanding something about how barometric altitude is displayed in the Hornet. I built a simple mission which included a trigger that checked for the player reaching 10,000ft. When the trigger failed to trigger despite the HUD reporting 10,000ft exactly, I looked in the Mission Editor and saw that it was reporting my altitude as ~9,400ft. Sure enough, I climbed another 600ft to 10,600ft and the trigger fired. My guess is that this is something to do with air pressure / QNH, but the Mission Editor (using Static Weather) just uses the default of 29.92 inHg. Can anyone educate me on this, and help me figure out how to set the mission and/or aircraft up more correctly, please?

Pretty sure we'll get a GA video given his recent hints. A video isn't going to tell you anything meaningful about FPS, though.

I'm putting together a Cold Start "refresher" tutorial mission for the Hornet, but I'm experiencing some weird ATC behaviour that's resulting in an inconsistent tutorial flow. Basically, there are some occasions when starting up the Right Engine will immediately result in an automated "Ready to Taxi" message (just the text, no voice) from my virtual pilot. On other occasions, I have to actively communicate "Request Start-Up" before the "Request Taxi" option becomes available. Does anyone know what triggers the automated transition from "Request Start-Up" to "Request Taxi" ATC options?

Awesome! Thanks AG! :thumbup:

This still seems to be broken as of today's Open Beta update. Is this actually Ugra's issue to solve, or ED's?

Yes. I'm having the exact same issue. Just came here to post that exact thing. Also, are the custom kneeboards for Syria still broken/missing?

No.

That's a really good point. :thumbup:

Highly unlikely. ED's prerequisite for building new models is that they have access to enough in the way of appropriate documentation and SME's. The levels of classification around the F22 and F35 mean that there's not enough in the public domain to make those aircraft viable options of DCS in the near future.

Awesome. Thanks for the clarification, Mustang. :thumbup:

Does anyone know if there's a way to set up the equivalent of an escort or TARCAP flight? I'm looking to have an AI flight cover a distant airfield that's the target of a player-flown strike mission. There doesn't seem to be an "Escort" mission type, and CAP only seems to provide options for friendly airbases and the frontline.

Hmm... I'm seeing exactly what you're seeing. I even tried changing to Cold Start and doing the alignment from scratch, but I still ended up 0.5nm from W0. Not sure if this is a bug or a feature, though. Needs someone a little smarter than me to chime in...

Can you save and share a .TRK file? (Save the replay from the debrief screen) That might be the easiest way to solve the mystery.

Is that from a cold start? Sounds like your INS isn't aligned. Do you have any advisories on your left DDI, e.g. INS-DGRD? You may want to check out this thread for info about INS alignment has changed: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=283532

Just tried it, and it works perfectly. Thanks for your help, Daemon. :thumbup:

Hah. Just spent two full hours trying to figure out why I couldn't get a consistent lock from my Laser Mavericks. Looks like I've been hitting the exact same bug that everyone in here's been calling out. Well that was a waste of an evening. :(

I feel as though the OP has shot himself in the foot with the way he's framed the post. I don't think Auto-Start is actually the problem he's trying to address. The actual issue seems to be that so many campaigns and missions default to an aircraft that's already up and running, versus one that's cold and dark. Rather than "removing auto-start", the better solution would be something along the lines of "Provide an option that allows all missions to start from cold and dark." That way, players can decide for themselves whether or not to start hot or cold, and - if they choose "cold" - they can go through the full start-up sequence or just use the auto-start shortcuts. If I'm right and that was the OP's actual intent, then I'm totally on board. I always start from cold and dark wherever possible, and that's an important part of the experience for me. I hate starting "hot" and then having to figure out what has/hasn't been configured.

Not for you, but it obviously does work that way for others. All of your arguments are predicated on yourself - "I could care less", "I don't need a choice", "I don't pamper my ego" Sometimes there's value in trying to step back and acknowledge other people's perspectives, too.

Being bothered about the absence of non-white pilots isn't the same as being bothered about a white pilot. If you walked into a supermarket and observed that all they had on the shelves was Bran Flakes, that wouldn't imply that you had an issue with Bran Flakes - it would just imply that you had an issue with the lack of choice on offer.

So if every pilot avatar in the game was a suddenly a black female, none of the white male crowd would even raise an eyebrow? Everyone would just be "Yeah - that's cool. I'm just here for the airplanes?" Yeah, that's totally how that'd play out... ;)

Yeah. There was an interesting interview with Razbam back in May where it was clear that a lot of these features were already well under way. Doesn't explain why they weren't more widely communicated to the community, but that's a whole other conversation. The important thing is that today marks some very significant and much appreciated progress on the Harrier. :thumbup:

Pleeeeease get this resolved. Map-specific kneeboard pages are hugely valuable to a certain subset of the DCS audience. Thanks! :thumbup:

It's pretty hard to imagine that they'd go to the effort of building a brand new weather system with brand new cloud visuals and not address such obvious issues, no?

It's all in reference to last month's update (26th Aug) as far as I can tell: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.5.6.54046/ There's no changelog for next week's patch as far as I'm aware.