Hippo

Seems to be. But nothing mentioned in log?

Apologies, I immediately assumed that the issue was with the COCKPIT PERFORM CLICKABLE ACTION trigger action , and as described above, it seems that the issue is with the 4 MISSION START trigger, so this could potentially be affecting any actions under that (althought I haven't checked). All the actions now work correctly as long as I run them under a 1 ONCE trigger. Maybe this post should be moved to the general MISSION EDITOR bugs, with post title: "Trigger actions under 4 MISSION START trigger do not run" ? Thanks again to Sunstag for clearing that up.

Are they associated with a 4 - MISSION START trigger? If so, then I have also experienced problems, though with other actions. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=263353

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=263369

A BIG thank you Suntsag. That does indeed resolve the issue, and thankfully it's a quick fix. However, something has definitely changed. Maybe it's a feature, not a bug.

On further (very limited) testing, I'd say performance is unchanged from 2.5.5 (I have NOT tried turning on SSLR).

Ah - I didn't even realise there was a new option - SSLR. I had it turned off. One thing I noticed was the gear handle light, which had a really cool flickering effect (at least I think it's new - I hadn't noticed it before). Everything is much brighter. I've turned gamma down to 1.5 (from 2.0), which I think works well for night. I think I probably want it higher for daytime.

RE: [uNABLE TO REPRODUCE] To reproduce: Create mission with F18 in the air, set up a trigger 4 MISSION START - X COCKPIT PERFORM CLICKABLE ACTION (23, 3003, 0) This should cause the F18 to start with the master arm switch in the off position, but it starts with its default position of on. I have spent many hours creating many missions getting the F18 just so using this trigger action. They all now don't work. I realise this a beta - still this is extremely frustrating. Please look into this, and please don't let it go over into stable without fixing it. It's a curious issue - some switches work, some don't. Another one that has stopped working: (35, 3004, 1) which should activate the HDG switch. Now it doesn't work.

Very quick, very initial impressions (FA18C) A step in the right direction, overall a great improvement. Night cockpit I think is much better. Not sure about the light blue stars. Can see the carrier lighting more easily - much better. At Anapa when passing the "searchlight trucks" at the threshold on landing - don't like the effect - maybe just remove the trucks? Need to test, but I'm getting the sinking feeling that frame rates have been negatively impacted.

Introduced in OB 2.5.6.43505 I have been using the COCKPIT PERFORM CLICKABLE ACTION trigger action to change the positions of cockpit switches, etc. in missions. These now appear to have stopped working (for many switches, but not all) in the new OB. e.g. X: COCKPIT PERFORM CLICKABLE ACTION (23, 3003, 0) would turn the master arm switch off. Now it appears to do nothing.

Try this mission. It sets up the aircraft in preparation for the ICLS approach. Turn on ATC as soon as you enter the mission then wait around 5 seconds whilst the aircraft is set up. You should see the localizer bar. Case III ICLS Approach DME 10.miz

Just tried CH17, and it works ok. 1-20 are available.

It certainly works in my missions, so I don't think it's a bug that's been introduced. Pushing ENT after 17 on the UFC? Then ON? Unit correctly selected (i.e. the Stennis) in the ME advanced waypoint actions?

Although in VR it's not too much of an issue, it seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion to me. +1

Yes, exactly that. Sorry for the confusion. Why? Surely the throw of a real F-18 throttle is much longer than that of a consumer throttle? The suggestion is far from perfect, but it might help. I take your point on spool time, but are you saying it's not realistic as modelled? I suspect that it's not as delayed in reality, but I have no idea - maybe it's accurate. I haven't tried a 3rd party utility, obviously I would prefer to have this in game. I've already amended the axis curve, but this only gets you so far.

It seems to me that most (I'm using an X52 at the moment) physical throttles don't have the necessary sensitivity to enable the precise control required for landing, AAR, etc. Would it be possible to have a binding, so that when activated it would change the (physical) throttle sensitivity to a used-defined value? So say you're coming in to land, your engines are at around 85 rpm for AoA on speed, you press a button, suddenly the whole range of your (physical) throttle goes from (say) 82 - 88, user-defined. Press the button again, and the throttle's back to normal. Make sense? Sorry if already requested.

There also appears to be a bug, which is overstating A/C weight on the CHKLST page. E.g. With a loadout of 2 x aim9m + 2 x aim120 + 2 x aim7m + 2 mk83, the weight given the CHKLST page is around 5000 lbs higher than in the mission editor. This is possibly causing other unintended issues?

I mean the fuel weight as displayed on the IFEI and FUEL page, compared to the fuel weight specified in the mission editor. My guess is that the sim is compensating for change in fuel density, but I would have thought that the value on the IFEI would be corrected for this in the real aircraft.

I reckon the issue is the 10% of airspeed g break. I have never been able to get this to work correctly as it always brings me in too close on downwind. You're supposed to be 1.25 - 1.5 nm from the runway on the downwind leg. I do the following. arrive at 350 knots for the break turn. Throttle to idle, speedbrake out, begin turn (relatively) gently at 2.0g and keep the turn smooth, g will drop as speed drops. halfway around the turn, around 250 kts gear down flaps to full. Speedbrake in. This places me on downwind at around the right distance, and makes the turn onto final with 27 - 30 deg bank work, at most weights. I don't see an issue with landing at a higher weight, as long as you don't exceed any limitations. From the NATOPS max field landing weight (flared) is 39,000 lbs. It does sound as if you might be too heavy.

Retested, something odd does seem to be happening. Create a new mission. Add a player F18 at 34000ft, mach 0.83. full fuel (10800). Go into mission. F18 starts with around 10100 lbs.

Latest open beta. Just set up a mission with the F-18 starting in the air at 34,000ft M0.83 with a particular fuel load in the mission editor. When I go into the mission, the fuel instantly drops by around 800 lbs. Sorry if it's something I'm doing wrong, but pls could you confirm if you also see this? EDIT: It's around 500 lbs, not 800. Track file not provided, since either it's an issue or it isn't. E.g. I set up the aircraft as described above with 8000 lbs in the mission editor, and it starts in the mission with 7500 lbs.

Thank you for that - I admit I was a bit sceptical, but you're absolutely right about Sochi. However, URKG appears to permit departures from both runways. https://vau.aero/navdb/chart/URKG.pdf I couldn't find charts for URKN.

If I set up a mission (with F18, not tried with other aircraft), on Novorossiysk or Gelendzhik with the a/c set to takeoff; no matter what the wind is set to, the aircraft is always placed to takeoff on runway 22. Have also tried at Anapa, where wind direction is accounted for. Haven't tried anywhere else, so not sure if this is an issue on other runways.

Very interesting - many thanks.

There is an item in the NATOPS before taxi checklist: FUEL - BIT / SET BINGO I assume that this means putting a number into the IFEI. Your bingo description based on furthest point + contingencies seems the most plausible suggested here so far - I assume there's a final reserve (2000 lbs?) included as well. Wouldn't it seem more logical to put the joker value into the IFEI? What do you mean by "reset bingo on the IFEI"? Set to zero? Clearly there will be a point after which you're on your way back from the furthest point, at which the calculation is no longer valid. I'm just trying to get more detail into how that IFEI number is calculated and used throughout a flight IRL. Thanks to all who replied.