Autopilot - unable to engage roll/pitch channel

[cichlidfan]

Same problem here. Thought at first it was maybe because I use the English cockpit, but no so.

 

I have been using the English cockpit since Devrim first released it, and the AP always worked fine.

 

It is broken in a completely unmodded sim.

[CoBlue]

Same here! Com on Belsimtek please answer!

[Hawkeye5]

Confirmed.. NO SAS

 

Which means the MI8 is a Hangar Queen until Belsimtek (DCS Claims it's a 3rd party Problem) sets it back or corrects the issue.

 

 

*** knocks on Belsimtek's Door.

 

 

"Anyone home....? It's gone on long enough.. and let's bring it out of Beta while we're at it."

[fjacobsen]

May I suggest that each of You send a ticket on this.

 

Though ED claim that it´s a 3rd party product, I still think that they will need to act, if a sufficient number of tickets has been raised on this.

 

The lack of feedback and action from Belsim also hurts ED.

In the end it´s ED who releases updates, so they must also have som quality control on those.

 

Link to support ticket page:

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/

 

Login with your username/password and click Authorise.

 

Then on the left pane select "New Ticket".

Now write about the issue.

 

 

FinnJ

[159th_Viper]

This matter has already been reported and is registered in the bug tracker as a blocking bug, ie high priority/urgent. More than that cannot be done atm apart from remaining patient and awaiting the fix.

 

I'll endeavour to keep this thread updated with progress reports.

[ericoh]

OH MY! Information!

 

Thanks.

[Devrim]

This matter has already been reported and is registered in the bug tracker as a blocking bug, ie high priority/urgent. More than that cannot be done atm apart from remaining patient and awaiting the fix.

 

I'll endeavour to keep this thread updated with progress reports.

Finally. That's it. Thanks so much Viper...

[Speedbrake]

Thanks 159th_Viper....all I was looking for (short of the actual fix) was acknowledgement that a fix is being looked at.

[skouras]

nice thanks!!!

[Lex15]

Quick fix

 

I have looked into the Mi-8 files and found how to fix it (since the dev´s seems a bit slow to respond).

 

It took me less than 15 mins to find the culprit by comparing the files with some old ones I have in my DCS Open Beta install...

 

Find this file:

\DCS World\Mods\aircrafts\Mi-8MTV2\Cockpit\Scripts\device_init.lua

 

Open it with Notepad (I prefer Notepad++ for Lua files) and then find this line (line:118 with Notepad++):

 

creators[devices.AUTOPILOT] = {

"Mi8::avAutopilot_Mi8",

LockOn_Options.script_path.."Devices_specs/autopilot.lua",

{{"ElecInterface",devices.ELEC_INTERFACE},

{"GMC", devices.GMK1A},

{"ADI", devices.AGB_3K_RIGHT},

{"LightSystem",devices.LIGHT_SYSTEM}},

LockOn_Options.script_path.."Devices_commands/AUTOPILOT_commands.lua"}

 

And change it to read:

 

creators[devices.AUTOPILOT] = {

"Mi8::avAutopilot_Mi8",

LockOn_Options.script_path.."Devices_specs/autopilot.lua",

{{"ElecInterface",devices.ELEC_INTERFACE},

{"GMC", devices.GMK1A},

{"ADI", devices.AGB_3K_LEFT},

{"LightSystem",devices.LIGHT_SYSTEM}},

LockOn_Options.script_path.."Devices_commands/AUTOPILOT_commands.lua"}

 

 

Now save the file (better make a backup before changing it).

 

Voila - Pitch & Roll Channel works again !!

 

 

FinnJ

[Save]

Thank you fjacobsen

But really it's too easy : I didn't pay (even a Beta) to have to modify myselft a *.LUA

@Belsimtek : Don't you feel shame that we haven't official answer yet after one week !!! Since you took the decision to make us pay : that you wish or not you became professionnal ... And your lake of official communication on this problem is all except professionnal to your client!

More easy to waste power in answer for next futur Beta !!!

[159th_Viper]

@Belsimtek : Don't you feel shame that we haven't official answer yet after one week !!!

 

Did you read post#30?

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2145385&postcount=30

 

What more do you want? For a Dev to come and repeat the same thing I just said in the above post?

 

Honestly, being constructive will win you a lot more favours than tossing your toys - food for thought ;)

[Flagrum]

Thank you fjacobsen

But really it's too easy : I didn't pay (even a Beta) to have to modify myselft a *.LUA

@Belsimtek : Don't you feel shame that we haven't official answer yet after one week !!! Since you took the decision to make us pay : that you wish or not you became professionnal ... And your lake of official communication on this problem is all except professionnal to your client!

More easy to waste power in answer for next futur Beta !!!

:doh:

Yeah. They should send you a personally signed apology letter ....

[Save]

@159th_Viper : I saw that you are ED tester... not that you wrote for Belsimtek officialy... And the ED answer was to saw with 3Rd party (or Partner) for this problem ... Sorry if i did mistake...

But anyway, is it so hard to have an offcial fix if really this modification is so little?

This is just a little client's point of view who Wonder ... and find strange how you do business...

[Cibit]

Thanks Viper appreciate the heads up:)

[Lilkiki]

Many thanks Lex15 !!

[Flagrum]

@159th_Viper : I saw that you are ED tester... not that you wrote for Belsimtek officialy... And the ED answer was to saw with 3Rd party (or Partner) for this problem ... Sorry if i did mistake...

But anyway, is it so hard to have an offcial fix if really this modification is so little?

This is just a little client's point of view who Wonder ... and find strange how you do business...

There are several things to consider. Although the fix seems to be a real no-brainer, it can be a bit - or much more - complicated than that. Why did BST change that line that caused the problems anyways? There was certainly a (good) reason for it. Seems to me as the AP is depending on the function of the ADI but there are two in the HIP. Before the dependency was bound to the "left" ADI, after the change the intent seems to be that it rather should depend on the "right" ADI. But the change did obviously not work - so there might be more to it (that was accidentally omitted in the 1.2.10 patch). Maybe they planned to make the AP dependend on either the right or the left ADI?

 

Then there are the people. The devs are not sitting there, waiting for the first bug report coming in after a patch was released. They have other tasks (like working on the next module) and thus someone needs to go through all the current tasks and new tasks (i.e. open bug fixes) and assign priorities to them. Then such tasks are collected to "work items" - that is work package of either similar tasks or changes on the same code modules, etc. It just would not make sense to get 10 people work on 11 tasks that are all scattered all over the source code. It is way more productive to bundle them to 2 or 3 work packages that 1 or 2 devs then can scratch from their list one by one.

 

In short, to make such bug fixes you need to organize it a bit before - which also takes time - but in the end it will make it quicker and more effective.

 

Also not to forget: someone needs to test the changes. And the testing is also more effective if it is similarily organized as the bug fixing itself.

 

And then you need to carefully plan the release of such bug fixes (aka "patches"). It is not only up to BST when to release a bug fix. It all has to be synchronized with the prodecures that ED has set up for it - preparing all the autoupdater stuff, making sure that no conflicts exists between bug fixes of i.e. BST and ED, etc.

 

Just because it is all "just bits and bytes" does not mean that it is simple or easy... :o)

 

(Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with ED nor BST in any way and I have no insight of how they actually work. But I am making my living as a software developer and what I wrote is more or less common sense in the business)

Edited August 13, 2014 by Flagrum

[Speedbrake]

Great "Temporary" Catch

 

While I totally agree with the last post...this "temporary fix" makes it a lot easier to fly than not having that part of the autopilot working. I'm sure when the official fix comes, it will change the ,lau file in the proper way.

 

Still....way to go!!!:thumbup:

[fjacobsen]

While most of what You say a makes perfectly sense Flagrum, I don´t think that the "machinery" You need to start for a patch is that heavy.

 

I have been an aircraft addon developer for FSX for some years now and thus knows approximately how addons/modules are developed, tested, released and later (always) patched.

 

For me it was relative simple to find the issue and give a solution.

Offcourse a company like Belsimtek needs to alos bring some quality assurance into it.

But I disagree that they don´t need to monitor their best input channel - the forum - when a new update has been released, especially when thay have made some changes to thier own modules.

Due to QA work, as well as syncronising their work with ED, I still think that for showstopping isues, hotfixes must and can be released within a day or 2.

It would also be normal to voice out some official statemet that they are aware of the issue and what people can expect.

 

I also wonder if they make cahnges to a not yet released open beta version. I woudl assume that if they are in the proces of altereing some inner workings, that this is done on an internal beta version, and first when the entire update packeage is ready and has been tested internally, then it will be put into an autoupdater by ED.

 

It has clearly been stated that buyers of an open beta are not to be regarded as betatesters.

We get early acces and we can make bug reports in the forum, but the beta testers are a different closed group.

Also the term beta should be used with caution.

In my opinion a beta version is an almost finsished version. All features has been added. What remeain is tweaking and finding bugs that the developer doesn´t have time to find. If there still are stuff to add or other looses endes, then it´s still in alpha.

Beta testing is conducted within a relative short timeframe and will end up with a complete set of files pacjed in an installer and then be called Releasecandidate. Testing the Releasecandidate, means chacken that the right file versiosn are in and that the installer installes them correctly.

 

There fore I think that the open beta rather startet as an early alpha acces, that now has come much closer to the beta state, since some of the announced features still not has been added. There is not alot that is missing, so when BST gets the last few bits dnoen, then the beta run can, and probably will, be very short, since most systems has allready been tested sufficently with positive from the open beta members.

 

Internally I think that ED and BST should find out what role they play. Are they partners or 3rd party developers, since it seems that has an important impact on who is resposible for support or not.

It would also be good if BST could find a "spokesman" to give updates, maybe once per week or every 2 weeks. Total silence, or just individual "insiders" from the tester group is not the right way to go.

 

Just my 2 cents...

 

 

FinnJ

[Flagrum]

I do think (well, it was mentioned in this thread) that they actually monitor the forums and that they are aware of the importance of this specific bug. But still there are procedures to comply to. Maybe they already have half of a new patch ready - that would make it difficult to squeeze in a "quick fix" and release it ... properly.

 

But sure, there is always something that could and should work better and I especially agree on the criticism of the "unidirectional information flow":o)

[ericoh]

I think DCS as a whole needs more small fix patches, there is tons of devs that pump out hot/quick fixes on daily bases. It is not even neccessary to pump them out daily, make it weekly, or when its crucial?

 

Unless ED/Partners have 2000 people you cant tell me it is hard to squeeze in a 1 liner code fix. C'mon...

 

Also i wanna emphazise what FinnJ said, all these discussions lately come down to the lack of information or a "Spokesperson".

Edited August 13, 2014 by ericoh

[Speedbrake]

But.....

 

You have to remember that for each "hot fix" you have to put it in an installer and test that it works both in the sim and in the installer before they can release it. Plus I'm sure that the devs may be working on separate sections of the code meaning that they too also have to update the version they are working on before the fix goes out. This all takes time and with a small population of dedicated simmers....time is money in their pockets. It would be better that they note internally all the changes they are making, make the update to all the devs version so that each individual fix can be sure to "play correctly with" all the other fixes before the updated version gets released.

 

For this fix, there is a temporary solution that works. Use it until the next version is released. :pilotfly:

[ericoh]

Realisticly you could still just make it an updater patch. Release a new installer with the next major update.

[cquail]

Did you read post#30?

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2145385&postcount=30

 

What more do you want? For a Dev to come and repeat the same thing I just said in the above post?

 

Honestly, being constructive will win you a lot more favours than tossing your toys - food for thought ;)

 

Didn't know you are the official spokesman for Belsimtek.

[159th_Viper]

Didn't know you are the official spokesman for Belsimtek.

 

Another :smartass: :doh:

 

What difference would that make hearing the exact same thing from another person who's time is better spent coding?