Jump to content

Vakarian

Members
  • Posts

    489
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vakarian

  1. Until that's added, you can work around it with built in control mapping. You can bind for example BTN_15 and BTN_15_OFF (off binding is in the dropdown menu) for the toggle and then whenever you put switch in either position it will actuate it. One caveat is that you need to set the physical switch in a position and then with mouse you can sync it.
  2. Harrier default gain/brightness settings for MPCDs are not ideal. You really should play with them to get the correct contrast (it's been a while, not sure if they implemented grayscale so you can use it for calibration) and then stuff should start appearing on the MPCDs.
  3. I mean, as DCS actually manages multiple files for the same device (when such stuff happens you get multiple .diff.lua files for the same device, just different HWID), it would be highly beneficial if DCS controls manager allowed you to scan for such files and automatically restore your bindings. Right now what you can do through GUI is to go to each and every one of the controls for each and every single one of the aircraft and manually restore profile using previous .diff.lua. Basically, when you startup DCS and it sees that the ID of the devices changed (more than one .diff.lua file for the same device name), it could automatically prompt you to restore control binding from the previous ID and most* of problems would be solved. It could then remove the old .diff.lua so there's always one file per device name. *Still wouldn't fix the issue when firmware update changes the device name, but that's a subset of the problem
  4. I run both DCS and DCS dedicated server instance on my PC. I've recently noticed that dedicated server takes control over FFB forces, but only after it's launched after main DCS instance. Steps to reproduce are as follows: No issues (force feedback present): 1. Run DCS dedicated server 2. Wait for it to boot up 3. Run DCS game instance 4. FFB present when flying Issues (no force feedback): 1. Run DCS game instance 2. Wait for it to boot up 3. Run DCS dedicated server 4. No FFB present during flying I performed one additional test just to confirm that it looks like last DCS process that's run takes control over FFB forces. 1. Start DCS 2. Fly, FFB forces are present 3. During pause, launch DCS dedicated server 4. After unpausing I confirmed FFB forces are missing 5. With DCS dedicated server still running, stop DCS game instance 6. With DCS dedicated server still running, start new DCS game instance 7. With DCS dedicated server still running, launched mission and confirmed FFB forces are present. I've attached DCS logs, although I'm not sure how much of help are they. "dcs.log.old" and "dcs.log" are supposed to represent above mentioned steps with "dcs.log.old" obviously being the first part (steps 1-5). dcs.log dcs.log.old
  5. It's a nitpick, but it's necessary to get things correct. FFB (Force Feedback) and Force Sensing (like FSSB from Real Simulator and how actual Viper stick works) are two completely different things. Currently even users with the FFB bases have same issues as ones with the the cam/spring bases. Please, do not mix those together as it can add confusion What we likely need is Force Sensing base friendly and Sprung base friendly controls set, although how easy it's done I'm not sure.
  6. Mine just arrived. Although at work I did try to see how the buttons react and yeah, like expected all the 4-5 way switches are mushy as hell. One thing I noticed is that when you take the cap off, it is a tiny bit better so I suspect there's a bit of a slop due to the space between the switch stem and the cap groove. Will try to fill it with "something" to see if it'll help it. Still a miles away from VKB 4/5 way switches but that's because VKB produces their own and Virpil still uses off the shelf switches which are really sub-par. Will see later tonight how it is in action when I mount it.
  7. Could it be that the final altitude is in meters? That would roughly equate to 22k-ish feet. IIRC few of the elements are in meters unless stated otherwise
  8. Yes, something like this would be a great addition
  9. From the changelog, CA section * Fixed issue with ground units that in some cases allowed them to track targets without clear LOS (AAA and SAM tracking target behind mountain).
  10. Hi. At least now, with the latest you are doing something right as some models show OK, you see some variation. If I were to guess, liiks like those models that have "_dst" suffix are looking OK, those without are full bright through FLIR I did a quick and dirty drive by through all models in the asset pack. If this helps you figure out what are you doing better in some models, could you please make it work on the rest so the show up correct-er through FLIR? That would mean a lot to me and I presume everyone else using the pack.
  11. I cannot right now confirm that Apache is not affected, buuuut when looking at Wags' videos, what I see in the video and what I see during playing is pretty much the same so I would dare to say Apache is not affected. Here's a quick comparison what I managed to scrounge through my screenshots (after the font update) and one of Wags' videos. About the zoom, it's not affecting anything at all. Zooming in or out, lines are still "wrong" on the 21:9 aspect ratio.
  12. Trimming is not a disaster, you need to understand how it works. Plain and simple. It worked for me when I had joystick with springs and ofc it works with FFB base, but saying it's <profanity> because you don't understand its usage is funny at best.
  13. @Massun92 In my group, we are loving the pack, especially the revetments, various HESCO barriers and "fortifications". I'd like to ask you do you plan on updating the models and/or textures (I have no clue what's required) to make them not 100% bright objects when looked through FLIR? There are quite few models that really stand out so when for example making some ambushes people can easily find them on FLIR. If I can help in any way, please let me know.
  14. Yeah, EU store. I mean, production issue could mean a lot of things, not just "there are none". Maybe batch was smaller than expected because "something" and they distributed what they had... Oh well, it's not the end of the world. It will come when it comes. I pinged them just because there was a "mid/late January" for expected delivery when I made my order and it was still "processing" so I wanted to know if there's any known delay. Now that it is, I'm fine with waiting.
  15. I messaged them and there was some production issue with the counter-balance kits so if your order contains it that might be why it's delayed. They should be ready to start shipping after 19th February unless something else prevents them
  16. Yeah, it was quick and dirty test on Marianas just to see if there's any discrepancy after a few years. I'll do what you suggested sometime during this week. Have all maps so it shouldn't be an issue.
  17. While it wasn't any definite test given that I lack modules from number of 3rd parties, I did throw a quick test with few ED, Heatblur, AvioDev and Razbam modules. With QNH set at default 29.92 in both tests, only thing changed was the temperature. First test I did was with the maximum allowable 40 degrees and second with the minimum allowable 20 degrees (Celsius, both values positive ofc) In +40C test, briefing QFE was 29.38, in +20C briefing QFE was 29.35. Aircraft +40C measured QFE +20C measured QFE A-10CII 29.39 29.35 AV-8B 29.38 29.38 C-101 29.39 29.36 F-14B 29.37 29.33 F-15E 29.38 29.38 F-16C 29.39 29.36 F-5E 29.40 29.36 I did also include P-47D in the test, but for the love of god I cannot figure out how to read the pressure setting that was set QFEtestWhileOnRwy_40c.trk QFEtestWhileOnRwy_20c.trk
  18. It probably got renewed and it took a bit for it to propagate. Seems fine on my end for last two days at least
  19. One way that worked for us is when you set a lot of units late activation and invisible (50+ units) and then activate them via trigger at once. That introduced freezes in missions in my group quite consistently so we imposed a ban on doing such stuff
  20. Yes, that was the point . Wags misspoke a few times which is understandable when you get asked such questions on the spot.
  21. I've always ignored it, but after getting FFB base and trying it out, this thing is a blast to fly. Haven't had that much fun in a while. If you want something to do wild stuff, this is it
  22. It's also a bit weird here too. No SSL errors, but definitely haven't seen this message so far
  23. How about no? This was "discussed" many times before, it always revolves around few different points and ends with one of ED members coming in, saying they won't change their business model and that's it. Little forum search would have found you this in a no time if what you are truly interested are opinions of the people.
  24. Hey. Wasn't meant to be condescending, sorry if it turned out like that. That "I mean, just using pure logic, what kind of an exhaust doesn't produce any heat blur?" was just me saying that there shouldn't be any need for IRL proof that it should have it. Now that I look back at it, maybe you meant for videos that demonstrate how it actually looks. Ah the joys of written communication and me being bad at it. I missed that part that the regression happened (that part I really know how can happen ) and it'll be fixed.
  25. Because you might not, but people should really stop being selfish and maybe consider that there are people that do like to have one "thing" from which they can launch, update, repair and whatever they might add in? You want to play, open DCS.exe. Want to update? Use updater.exe. Want to repair DCS, use another thing. Some people like having one interface with nice big buttons they can click to perform various actions. It's a convenience thing that a lot of people have gratification for when they deal with people who are less skilled around PCs.
×
×
  • Create New...