Xechran

And its working for me now as well. Temporary outtage then. Thanks!

I am getting someone interested in DCS and working them up. I was going to use the website based radar sim to introduce the principles of how it functions, but the website seems like it is down. https://tawdcs.org/radar-f15/ Has it been down for a while? Is there a replacement the community is using?

Next thought. I see from google-chan that there has been discussion for years about moving the F10 map to a view port. Does not look like this was ever done? Would be handy to be able to find Lat Long coordinates marked on one screen and be able to enter that into the the Cat's CAP or Hog's CDU at the same time. Dread to think of what the perfmance hit would look like, unless the main viewport is continually rendered under the map as is?

The forums being messed up is making this more difficult than it should be, I think. Current issue. Have setup correctly with cockpit viewport on right hand monitor and generic left/right MFCD displayed on left monitor. Trying to setup Hornet. Have changed the size and position of Hornet MFCDs by giving them unique names in indicator viewport_config. Can not get the AMPCD to display at all. Renamed the center mfcd to Hornet_APMCD in AMPCD_viewport_config. Reverted back to Center_MFCD in both the indicator lua and the monitor lua. Is there new syntax or another file overriding this? What stuck out to me was the extra code AMPCD has that other panels do not, including dedicated viewport definitions. MultiMonTest.lua

That makes the primarily used cockpit viewport appear on the right monitor, correct, and I have done so. But the windows/driver control system has to see the left most monitor as primary to assign that top left most position to 0,0. Just have to make that left hand monitor primary when entering DCS and revert when exiting. Not doing so in this example would put MFCD on the extant right hand monitor and push the cockpit view off to a non existent monitor further right of that. Bummer. Such a waste given the Devs included the function in the past.

Have everything setup. Mostly. Running into an issue with my IF / ELSE. Is this function no longer supported? function reconfigure_for_unit(unit_type) If I include the function call the lua will not load and be seen by dcs. If I exclude it the conditional statement will not return true, and it falls back to ELSE. Wouldn't that make the alternative modifying each aircraft init file to have a differently named MFCD to deconflict screen space, since they are not all same size/shape/number?

The windows assigned primary monitor is given X0 Y0, and for me its on my right. Looks like I will need to reassign primary/secondary monitor, dcs requires primary be leftmost.

Certainly cleared that up. It lists properly, at least. First note was I have my primary on the right. So i had to change MFD address to -1920 etc. Still wont display anything on left panel though. Primary functions correctly. Will continue the trouble shooting from there. Thanks for the help, would have taken me ages to spot that missing comma.

Have a two monitor setup that I am trying to get working with a new lua file. Its two 1920x1080 with primary right. Want MFDs on left and AMPCD displayed when in Hornet. The new lua file is not showing in the monitor drop down in the settings page. I have edited AMPCD_init.lua with dofile(LockOn_Options.common_script_path.."ViewportHandling.lua") try_find_assigned_viewport("F18_AMPCD") File MultiMonTest.lua saved to c:/users/USERNAME/SavedGames/DCS.openbeta/Config/MonitorSetup and also in the config/monitor folder on the install. The game is showing the many sample luas included which are in the main install path. I am doing something wrong, difficulty in figuring out what/where. Code and file below, if someone can help point out my error. _ = function(p) return p; end; name = _('MultiMonTest'); Description = 'Variable output of MFD to secondary (left hand) display' if unit_type == "FA-18C" then Viewports = { LEFT_MFCD = { x = 190; y = 0; width = 675; height = 540; aspect = 1027/768; } RIGHT_MFCD = { x = 1056; y = 0; width = 675; height = 540; aspect = 1024/768; } F18_AMPCD = { x = 641; y = 541; width = 675; height = 540; aspect = 1024/768; } Center = { x = 1921; y = 0; width = 1920; height = 1080; viewDx = 0; viewDy = 0; aspect = 1920/1080; } } else Viewports = { LEFT_MFCD = { x = 0; y = 0; width = 960; height = 718; aspect = 1027/768; } RIGHT_MFCD = { x = 961; y = 0; width = 960; height = 718; aspect = 1024/768; } Center = { x = 1921; y = 0; width = 1920; height = 1080; viewDx = 0; viewDy = 0; aspect = 1920/1080; } } end UIMainView = Viewports.Center GU_MAIN_VIEWPORT = Viewports.Center MultiMonTest.lua

Still having issues with this. Loaded missions with no tracer and tracer round setups. Used radar gunsight and funnel with 48' wingspan set for su-27. Sights are always lower than ballistics arc. Im better off closing the range and using the boresight marker. Track: https://mega.nz/#!cv5F1Qqb

AI Mirage clocks in 770-800 knots true with no burner. Super cruise for sure. IR signature on the Mirage is the issue. The 2000C is only giving tone at 6nm from a head on aspect. Its anomalously low range. F-16 11nm F-18 12nm F-15 14nm Su-27 15-18nm Mirage 2000-5 11nm Mirage 2000C 6nm The signature is nearly half what it should be. And signature strength also plays into countermeasures, flares. Stronger the signal the less often the missile will get spoofed. Lower, the more often flares will defeat it. The 2000-5 and 2000C should have the same profile. They do not. Mirage forums say, "and thats fine."

Following up. Actually found 2 bugs here. One is the Mirage AI flight model is over performing, and can apparently travel at high speed without afterburner. Second is the IR signature is bugged anyway. Tone at 6nm, where it should match Mirage 2000-5, which uses same engine and airframe with different avionics, at 11-12nm.

Defensively maneuvering target, yes. Far outside. But this is called RNE. Straight and level is Rmax. Check the last two tracks posted on the bug thread. Killing the poor SU-27 with 18nm shots. Head on against a defensive target, RNE, would be about 5-6nm. This is actually important here. Because the Mirage is immune down to 3.5nm, while others can be engaged out to RNE or RMAX. Also, despite the info and repeated tracks, "case closed". Like I said, forumites on that side aren't trying to find or fix an issue. :thumbup:

No aircraft should have the same heat signature at cruise and full burn. That was demonstrated off the bat, and the notion that was not accurate is what met resistance. There is a substantial difference in narrowing the issue down in some way, to saying its a problem with the other air frames being locked too far away. ... think so eh? :music_whistling:

"Aircraft in afterburner has same heat signature as without." Includes demonstration. The proof is evident without the comparison to other fighters, except to say that REHEAT generates added heat is normal. It does not in this module. "Sure its not intended?" "Try looking somewhere else?" Thats called, "failing to see an issue." Deflecting away is not the same as asking for proof.

Naturally the mirage forumites see no issues. :megalol:

Done: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3598568#post3598568 I have to wonder whether it is on ED's or RAZBAM's side though.

There absolutely is a heat attribute in play for different airframes. What I'm asking is if there is a reason the Mirage has such a small one that I am not aware of, or if there is an issue with its model? Target in afterburn should be easier to spot than non. Here is a track of a simple setup head on in air start versus a M2k and a Mig-15. Note the 9M gets tone on both targets at the same range, and the first missile gets baffled at the first sight of flares. Even after the 9X gets adjusted in the internal build, if there is still an issue with the Mirage heat image we will still have an issue. sidewinder2.trk

Evening gents. Been setting up practice scenarios with against different fighters and have noticed some odd behavior with the sidewinder family against the Mirage. In a head on engagement, I am able to get tone on afterburning SU-27s at 15nm with the 9M and 22nm with 9X. By comparison, I can not get tone on a head on Mirage until 3.5/4nm with the 9M/X. Additionally either version is spoofed by flares very easily. Including a track here. In this engagement with the 3rd Mirage you can see the 9X acquire tone for the briefest moment at 8nm, before giving up and going back into search. In testing for comparison, I've gotten tone on nonafterburning f-86/mig-15 at similar and farther ranges than I can an afterburning Mirage. Does the Mirage come equipped with some form of DIRCM I am not aware of? :helpsmilie: https://mega.nz/#!x65izaxS!Hg3mchCKJMxKNE23pna3v9HGobG95asYqy3G8AGDDgU

Ran into a few things, some which may or may not be my own fault. Nose wheel steering - this will sometimes not lock on when the button is pressed. Instead it will stay on only while the button is pressed, preventing access to NWS HIGH. Have had a few CATs where I could not get the finger lift to turn on afterburner. Other CATs they will. Not sure what I'm doing differently, its been left at the default 9 & 0. During the Cold Start training mission the OBOGS section is voiced in... Chinese i think? Wanted to ask on the TDC behavior - is it normal/intended for it to return to the top left corner when releasing a contact? I presume this is a WIP aspect. LOFT is also WIP I presume? Did not see a change in the launch or aiming queue for the Sparrow.

You'll need to use the finger lifts, default keybind is 9 and 0. This is for the detente that the pilot lifts over to reach afterburner irl. Why its inconsistent? Dunno, CV coding for the Hornet is all new, maybe they wanted full sim for it.

Bought mine via Email and just got it in the mail yesterday. Simply outstanding. Great work HAV! Setup in opentrack was a head scratcher. Its not quite the same as the default point model, and that throws some calculations slightly off. The trouble is with opentrack. The 'custom model' tab is totally void of direction for what measurement goes into what axis with what sign. Settled on this: P2: X -5mm, Y 40mm, Z -30mm P3: X -5mm, Y -70mm, Z -80mm Works like a charm.

So long as we are doing wishlist items, we need a way to minimize them rather than close them. Its difficult using F10 to find BRA in an area cluttered with labels.

I purchased and received one of the new model X-56 this week. Had a few days to putz around with it, figured I would offer my thoughts. I have had plenty of sticks over the decades, but this is my first HOTAS - I've never had a dedicated throttle before. Bear this in mind, as I lack something to compare that to. Can I recommend this? Well, yes. With some caveats. First that we can't spend a thousand bucks on a high end VKB/Virpl/Crosswind controller setup. If you can, why even bother with this thread you damned bourgeoisie snobs?! Leave the proletariat masses alone! More seriously, I wanted it for some specific functions; two throttles to act as control for prop and throttle settings for the P-51, wanted the rotaries for the Mustang's gunsight, the thumb sticks give slew control for modern radar TDC, etc. So far, it serves these purposes 'adequately'. Sadly, it is not 'perfectly adequate', largely owing to issues with the rotaries and that not-a-slider, but is fit for purpose. All this assumes the sudden death issues have been properly handled.