ArjenHVA

16th of December if testing goes well as per ED.

Probably something we have to do as community. I have made a start in a similar topic here.

Yes I have it running on a server. PM me your email address and I will add you to the notification list to receive the alerts.

Indeed. I scripted a small alert tool myself that reads the page every 5 minutes so managed to the COMBAT READY PANEL this morning. It is back in stock as of 08.00 hrs GMT

Communication is scarce and the units rare so there is not much else to do than to frequently keep an eye out on the store and their Facebook page, that seems to be the most up to date.

Hear hear. Optimized surface details and Eliminated AIs traffic jam on some airport runways during takeoff is the only piece of feedback I have seen in patchnotes since August. That is pretty scarce.

Do you have a track file by any chance of those situations? Bit difficult to spot any operating error without seeing what you are exactly doing.

Initial check on the east side of the map of locations that could be more or less useful for a mission. The rest is mainly just repeating the same tile over and over again. Miz in the attachements. SYR map.miz

It will come (ref).

You need to ask the groundcrew to install it or set it in the mission editor as per one the last patchnotes: Helmet mounted device change: Added option in the ME aircraft property tab Added ground crew comm

FYI: was reported quite some times so it will sure get fixed but there hasn't been an OB update in a while. :mellow:

It's widely reported. You need to ask the groundcrew install it. Patchnotes: Helmet mounted device change: Added option in the ME aircraft property tab Added ground crew comm Them being black and white is a known bug.

The UK has daily missions from RAF Akrotiri. The US from a variety off place all the way up to Al Dhafra in the UAE. They have a lot of tankers in the area to cover for the distance.

I believe it's a common thing as per this thread

Annex 14 definition disagrees with you (highest point of the landing area). Interesting that AIP's use a different standard then. The example I used (Palmyra) is actually set to the lowest point of the entire airfield so that still doesn't make sense as the min, avg, max is 386,398,411 meter

Great work! To add to this, the elevation of the airports is also quite off as I outlined in this topic. I would say that the airport data needs a check-up.

Was reported here as well but no response yet.

Noticed some airport data that appears to be incorrect: Hama (OS58 ) Rwy assigned is 27-09, centerline course is 280˚ Palymyra Airport (OSPR) Ruwnay length is approximately 9474 ft. An Nasiriyah AB. (OS64) Ruwnay length is approximately 8375ft., or 9856ft. if you account the two runoff areas. Al-Dumayrab (OS61) Ruwnay length is approximately 9843ft. Mezzah AB. (OS67) Ruwnay length is approximately 9100ft. General: It also appears that the Metric/Imperial setting is not reflected properly, showing 7957m while this should be ft. (example for Hama) The airport elevation is consistently off by 5 to 15 meters. It appears that a random point is taken instead of the highest point of an airport's usable landing area (most common definition). Example is Palymyra where the lowest point, according to Google Earth data, is 387m (DCS has 386m) whereas the highest point is 404m. Another example is Al Qusayr whereby the set elevation (527m) is an average value as the highest point on the runway is 537m.