Brun

If you're not already using the script editor that's gonna be difficult, but the code is: SetCustomCurve(&Throttle, THR_LEFT, LIST(0,10, 100,100)); And similar for the right throttle. This means that when the physical throttle is at 0, DCS will see it as 10%. I use separate scripts for each aircraft so it won't have any adverse effects elsewhere. Am sure it must be possible to accomplish the same effect with the Hornet's axis tuning, I just prefer this way.

Post in another thread suggests the radios don't work correctly if easy communications is selected in the options. The problem sounds exactly like the issues I've been experiencing - COMM 1 doesn't work at all, COMM 2 does - but I haven't had chance to test it with easy communications off yet.

That sounds very similar to what I've been experiencing. Wasn't aware I had easy comms selected, but will check it out. Thanks.

It is modelled. You can't reduce engine RPM below about 70% in the air. Ground idle is more like 65%. I'm at work so the numbers may not be correct, but there's definitely a difference.

I think there's two separate issues here. The inflight idle stop in the real aircraft prevents the throttle being moved back as far as ground idle. Obviously there's no way to reproduce the physical stop in our sim hardware, but it's functioning correctly. However, I started an instant action mission on the runway and found there was still a small deadzone before the engine's ground idle. I used target script editor to increase the base of the throttle's range by 10%, which got rid of it.

I'm not sure entering the frequency is the problem. That should be indicated by the comms menus being greyed out. The problems I've been experiencing are when the menus are white, which suggests the channels are set accordingly. Will try record a track this evening.

I've been having similar issues with radio comms. I'm sure there's something weird going on with the COMM 1/2 switches getting mixed up. With the frequency still set to COMM 1, could you try RCtl+\ and see if that works?

From what I understand, the finger lifts are necessary when either the launch bar (which attaches the front landing gear to the catapult) or the hook are down. So yes, the aircraft 'knows' it's on a carrier. Try lowering the launch bar on a field runway and see if you can select AB.

It's definitely still there on the ground, but to a lesser extent.

Press 'right-ctrl+return' to display the controls on screen and see if that shows any unintended inputs.

I think the problem with following the CASE I examples is it gives you very little time to get a feel for what an on-speed three-degree approach should feel like. I've changed tactics and am trying some straight-in ones. The mission setup gives you a good opportunity to immediately reduce throttles to idle, let speed to drop below 250kts for gear and flaps, and then wait to be on speed before descending. You get a nice, long approach with plenty of time to get used to how the AOA and descent rate are affected by control inputs. It's a bit dull in comparison, but my hope is that if I can nail that consistently, it'll be a lot easier doing it the 'proper' way.

I understand cofcorpse's point about it being an electrically held switch. At least they acknowledge that adding the extra commands are being considered. I think that would be a huge improvement on the current state of things. P.S. Someone actually modded their Warthog throttle to make the EAC switch disengage realistically in the A-10C. Pretty impressive, if a little complicated...

Before finding the instant action refueling missions I set up my own with the KC-135 BDA. Been away from DCS for a long time so wasn't aware of its existence, but it appeared to have the correct appendage. I was cleared contact by the tanker, but the Hornet wouldn't connect to it. Probe just went straight through the basket even if I hit it dead center. Tried to figure out if it was me doing something wrong (like I said, it's been a while), but the same procedure applied to the S-3 and KC-130 was successful.

From the NATOPS (I-2-4): So the finger lifts aren't strictly necessary if you apply enough force. However, 32lbs (15kg) sounds like a lot to push forward with your left arm. Think I'll assign a pair of DX buttons to the finger lifts and have them turn on when I move the throttles forward. Much hassle avoided.

It's not 'fixed'. I updated and still don't have ON and OFF bindings for the APU. I mentioned in the other thread that I suspected it was because the switch is electrically held. However I don't think that's a good reason to not include the discrete bindings when they're so comprehensive for everything else.

Posted about this on the weekend - https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=210996 Would really like to see it fixed.

I read a post about the incorrect functionality, but the update didn't change the way in which the controller is mapped. Most two position functions (e.g. landing gear) have both a toggle binding (g) and discrete bindings for UP and DOWN (something like shift+g and ctrl+g, can't check while at work). This was the case for the APU in the A-10C. In the Hornet, there is only an ON/OFF toggle, so it's still not possible to use the Warthog throttle's APU switch correctly. The only reason I can think for this is that in the Hornet the APU switch appears to be magnetically held and switches off automatically. This means that the Warthog switch would then be in the 'wrong' position. Regardless of the above, it would be appreciated if the other bindings were added so the user can decide which is the most appropriate behaviour.

The A-10C has always had separate bindings for starting and stopping the APU. This obviously works perfectly well with the two-position switch on the Warthog throttle. The Hornet only has one binding for ON/OFF, which means having to setup Target to fire the same command for start and stop. This seems like an oversight because most similar functions have separate bindings, meaning the switches can be set up properly.

I'm at work for three more hours and would like to everyone for entertaining me with their suffering during this difficult time.

Am I right thinking this was Rift only originally? Does it work on the Vive yet?

Currys/PC World are due to be selling it at some point as well. Think I read that wouldn't be until September tho'.

I think the term 'pixel density' used in this context is really misleading. Pixel density is really a parameter of the screen, commonly expressed in pixels per inch or PPI on regular monitors. Pixels per degree would be more appropriate for VR, which by my reckoning is about 11 for current hardware. Increasing the 'pixel density' is simply supersampling (exactly the same as nvidia's DSR etc) where the image is rendered at higher resolution before being downsampled. It's essentially just a very brute force way of rendering a higher quality image, producing a cleaner image than other antialiasing methods but with a much more significant impact on performance. Bottom line is that the density of the pixels you're actually looking at doesn't change in the slightest.

Which aircraft? I find the majority of them work fine with a realistic field of view across three screens. The exception is the A-10 (both A and C) because of the deliberately incorrect point of view. If you make the field of view it wide enough to actually be able to see and use the cockpit, you can see the wings in your peripheral vision. The fish-eye effect when looking around with TrackIR is also very disorientating. Like I said, I reckon all other aircraft feel fantastic (even the FC3 ones with the new cockpits) and are incredibly immersive running three screens. Real shame nothing can be done to fix the 'Hogs.

It's so frustrating that this has never been officially acknowledged, let alone addressed. The A-10C is supposed to be ED's flagship product, and yet we're stuck with no way to get around the supposedly 'best' solution to making the HUD readable with a typical field of view. If the in-cockpit seat raise/lower control can move the point of view up and down while keeping the HUD working properly, surely it must be possible to do likewise for fore/aft?