john4pap

Yes, that was it. Thank you! Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

I was flying with a friend in a mission I created on mission editor. It involved taking off as soon as possible, so I didn’t do any INS alignment at all. After getting shot down a few times and respawning again, I noticed that upon takeoff the speed and altimeter digits were approximately x1.5 larger than they normally are. I was shot down too quickly by an enemy playing flying by our airport so I didn’t have time to take a screenshot (I died while trying to get one :) ), but this left me wondering: How is it possible, even in a haphazardly and improperly cold-started aircraft, to have those digits appear larger than usual? So, curious whether anyone has experience that, or if I did something wrong... or whether I'm seeing things that aren't there :) Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

It happened to me once in the two years I own the mirage and it was a bug. Ground crew wouldn't reply, wheel chocks disappeared, but they were essentially there. I was in multiplayer with a friend and had just aligned my ins so instead of restarting, I used full afterburner to taxi and once on runway the effect of chocks suddenly disappeared and was able to take off and land with no problem [emoji16] But that was just once... Is it consistent with you? Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

I really like the contrast of the mirage's cockpit. I prefer it in comparison to other high dynamic range lighting cockpits. Adjust your gamma like others said, turn on cockpit lights and you'll be fine. It's a great looking cockpit and I much prefer it as it is. Then you may also consider drawing your curtains/turning off the lights too. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Lots of people are using ff and I believe that ff is the future of joysticks. I never had many problems with the Huey that others report, but it's nearly impossible to fly the spitfire with ff. It is not that much of a bug, rather an oversight. However, if ED wants to support their ww2 modules (where ff shines in my opinion) they will have to take a look at it. I understand that it is not a priority, however it can't be that difficult to have curves compatible with ff. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Alright. Thanks again! Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Many thanks for your answer! That's really helpful :thumbup: On the speculation part... I'm not sure that I understand... are you saying that in the real Viggen, the pilot would possibly be getting more information than we do after trigger unsafe (altitude and steering cues perhaps)? But then he would have to aim again in order to hit the target?

Thanks for the clarification! I have read the manual on level bombing multiple times so I have already understood most of what you're describing. So, are you saying that the manual is inaccurate in saying that level bombing should be performed at 200m, and that 200m is rather the minimum altitude at which level bombing may be performed? If so, I can understand why we are given the choice of different safety altitudes. Now I'm wondering: what is the max altitude at which one can perform level release? Also, is there any reason the manual instructs to maintain 0.8 to 0.9 mach during level bombing?

Certainly. I'm saying that once you equip with low drag bombs and the safety height is left to default in the mission editor, you cannot aim to release in level bombing since the targeting cues disappear under the HUD. Correct? Now, if level bombing is supposed to be performed at "around 200m" (and supposing that this is accurate information), why should there be any option for different safety heights? The logical thing is that once a type of weapon is loaded, the aircraft should be automatically set up to be able to employ that weapon effectively. We’re supposed to be piloting the Viggen not performing the tasks of the ground crew, isn’t it? :)

Not per se, however it is inhibiting any satisfactory release if the targeting cues disappear under the HUD due to an incorrectly set safety height, isn't it?

From the manual (p.298): "Level bombing can be done in a slight climb or dive if necessary. Release altitudes is around 200 metres." From this statement only it appears to me that what you call "safety height" should be automatically set in relation to your armament. Under what plausible situation would a Viggen be configured to NOT be able to employ a weapon (here, level release with low drag bomb) just because the intended release height (200m here) is outside the limits of the "safety height"? Is this serious? If there is a reason for that, please do update the manual. RC2 was released in the meantime but there's nothing specific on safety height in it.

He speaks for many of us. Common sense implies that if you want to do something better with a module, you first put some work in it, then you distribute it for beta, and then moving yo stable. At the moment, the mirage has been broken for many months because the supposed "stable" is broken. Are you saying that the community should be happy with this? Do you actually enjoy flying the mirage anymore? It may be paramount to get the module closer to real life, but this doesn't mean I should get to see every single bug on the way there.

Indeed, that was stated clearly in the last open beta changelog.

I'm sorry but my message isn't a bug report nor is it listed under "bug reports". As mentioned above, I have lost interest in even tracing new and old bugs. If you are indeed interested to know about the bugs introduced in the mirage since late-2019 you won't have any difficulty finding long lists in the same forum.

Back in November (I think) this was a perfectly playable aircraft with the only bug I can recall being the INS update (ah, and the bomb recticle was off too). Somewhere around that time the devs decided to update it and make it more realistic (what could be more welcome than that!). Yet, this introduced a ton of bugs and a different approach to its functions, and after struggling to re-learn the "new" aircraft's systems I realised that my main difficulty grasping it was the ton of bugs introduced in it. I did relearn it, yet since then it remains grounded due to its new bugs. Now, I'm not a real fun of beta versions; I have a life and I'm no kid who wants to check the new features first. But since the last stable release is back in December, and having seen the recent changelogs mentioning bug fixes for the Mirage, I decided to check if the mirage is anywhere near being playable again. No, it's not. And in fact, I don't know and I don't have the time to check whether they fixed any of the old ones. I found new ones though: adjusting seat height isn't working any more, and the green box that appears on a target after locking it isn't always there anymore... Ah, and yet new approach to controls for locking targets and weapons employment; second time since November. I don't have the time to dive into this mess again, especially upon seeing that bugs are still there. So I'm back to stable with the m2000 grounded for an indefinite period of time. What I'm saying is that I do appreciate the devs work but never signed up to any beta-testing (ok, I did download the beta but only to see whether the broken stable is fixed). I would be more than happy having the old and less realistic but virtually unbugged mirage while being in anticipation for a new and bug-free update. I don't understand why the devs forced us with this. How about they give us the old mirage back until they finish it? Am I the only one here who has just been wishing for this simple solution?

Thank you for your replies. I did a integrity check via steam; I don't know if that fixed it, but it's now ok again.

Today was the first time I noticed it while re-playing the campaign. Tried it in quick mission too... same bug. Other planes aren't affected so it appears it is a problem with the mirage. Keybindings are ok (although orange for some reason). Has anyone else noticed this?

I don't know if it's always been like this but bombs have always been problematic on the viggen. I would have very much preferred if the devs could address such problems instead of directing their resources to visuals such as pilot body and that fancy fan.

I felt you had something cooking for Christmas for us Viggen die hards. Many thanks, keep it up, and I hope to see the plane complete soon!

I found a couple of YouTube tutorials before posting this but they do it all wrong anyway--partially or completely disregarding the instructions in the manual. I hope this gets fixed soon anyway

Has anyone figured out how to get decent results with toss bombing? I've been trying it for a couple of days now. I understand that it isn't an accurate way of bombing yet the first bomb consistently falls a few hundred metres after the target. I have tried 0.9M at 4.8km, 0.9M at 5km, 0.8M at 5km, 0.8M at 6km. I have also tried different altimeters between 20 to 70 metres, and pulling up with 3 and 2.5G instead of the instructed 4G. All I'm getting is a relatively consistent result with the first bomb falling some hundred metres after the target. Ah, and the QFE is correct. The only way I managed to get some better results is by making a radar fix way before the target. This makes me think that the computer is making calculations taking account where the target waypoint is, and that's why my bad results are consistent with different speeds and ranges. However, if I understand correctly, the target waypoint shouldn't play any role on toss bombing other than helping the pilot estimate his course and distance to the target. It shouldn't have anything to do with the execution of toss bombing, right?

It has FFB support, yet it can spontaneously 'die'. I have a MSFF2 and it only happens with the Viggen and the Spitfire on DCS. Perhaps it'd be something to look into.

How about fixing the bug? It makes fuel tank jettison harder than it already is. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

I still have my good old MS sidewinder FF2

I was searching the forum for force feedback being too light when flying the spitfire. It always feels like I am flying with force feedback turned off in terms of stiffness, regardless of the speed and with some forces kicking in when making abrupt movements on the stick. Is this your experience? Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk