BlueRidgeDx

Yep, AF tells you what you're specifically allowed to do; Navy only tells you what you're specifically not allowed to do.

I assume because it's technique only, and can/could be done differently should the tactical situation dictate otherwise. If it's in the TO, then it becomes law.

Paul, It's not something I can post here, but it's pilot academics - not a T.O.

For what it's worth, there is guidance to carry the pod on Station 10. It's not mandatory, but it was determined during testing that it was preferred to be on the right for several reasons. 1) In terms of aircraft performance and controllability, a right engine failure is worse than a left engine failure. I don't know why, but it is. 2) As a result of #1, it is preferred to carry the ALQ pod on the left, to help offset the drag of a failed right engine. 3) As a result of #2, it is preferred to carry the TGP on the right in order to maintain a symmetrical load. 4) Consistently carrying the pod on one side of the airplane makes it easier to setup cockpit habit patterns. For instance: the MFCDs should be setup to display TGP video on the same side the pod is loaded, since that's the direction you'll be turning while using the pod, and you don't want to look across the cockpit in the wrong direction to see the video. 5) As a result of #4, it's easier to deconflict airspace if you know which way everyone is going to be turning. As pointed out by Paul, however, not all units choose to heed the advice.

The DTC is cetainly on my wish-list, and the devs are aware of the public interest. That said, there's some things to consider...In order to make a realistic DTC, they would also need to create a simuation of the Aircraft Weapons and Electronics software (AWE). The AWE is fairly complicated, and allows you preselect parameters for all the stuff you could imagine, plus and a few that you haven't. So it's a bit more involved that it first appears. I have no doubt that ED wants to do it, it's just a matter of priorities. There are lots of other good ideas that are competing for limited resources.

Quite right. I should have said Flight Path Angle (FPA), as referenced by the TVV. Not sure why I didn't... :music_whistling: Right again. EAC uses the attitude, inertial velocity, and position data from the INS portion of the EGI (EAC becomes inoperative if the EGI is in GPS-only mode). It also takes airspeed, and barometric altitude input from the CADC.

IRL, it literally maintains the flightpath that existed at autopilot engagement. Changing the altimeter setting should have no effect since the autopilot does not reference barometric altitude in this mode. If I had to take a guess, I'd say that DCS is referencing barometric altitude rate of change (as displayed on the altimeter) as the baseline vertical reference. As a result, changing altimeter setting causes erroneous pitch commands that wouldn't occur if the code were referencing vertical speed as displayed on the VSI. Ideally, it shouldn't be looking at either of these things, but rather the pitch angle itself.

I think it's important for people involved in an endeavor to be open to criticism, and not be so protective of their product that they become blind to good ideas. This is a good example of that. The observation is that there is a drastic difference between AI and player aircraft performance. There are times when AI performs maneuvers that defy the laws of physics, and this obvious discontinuity affects the user's suspension of disbelief. This is a perfectly valid observation, and frankly, I agree that it's an issue. I'm not sure why folks feel the need to trivialize the issue? I don't see any evidence of someone asking for a trivial "100m" tweak to braking distance...the difference in performance is on the order of thousands of feet. That's significant.

Yeah. Nonetheless, in the real airplane, both the System and Maverick slew values become more sensitive at lower values. In other words, the Maverick is currently backwards. This has been fixed in the current internal software builds. Additionally, the range of allowable values was fixed, as it's presently 'off' a little bit too.

With luck, that will be changing in the next patch. They should both operate with the same sense (1 = fast)

Charlie, Yes, absolutely positive. Wind is ALWAYS expressed as a direction FROM. This is a universal standard.

I think that the CDU assumes the value entered is knots, not km/hr. Which means you'd have to perform an additional conversion. The ME really needs to be displaying these things in knots and nautical miles. That it doesn't is one of the few things I don't like about DCS. It was fixed for aircraft, but it still needs to be fixed for weather. It's been a long time since I've used the JTAC, so I'd have to set up a mission to check for consistency between ME/JTAC/ATC. Edit: Sniped

In the jet, wind is FROM. Without looking in the latest build to confirm, I'm almost certain that in the ME, wind is TO (which is backwards).

mvsgas, Is there a sniper on the roof of the Thunderbird hangar in that F-15 shot? Sure looks like it!

By far, my longest flights have been in FSX. One notable trip was in a a 747-400F from Charleston AFB (CHS) with a quick-turn at Dover AFB (DOV) then on to Ramstein AFB (ETAR). After a little "crew rest", I continued on to Incirlik AB (LTAG) and finally Bagram AB (OAIX). But I don't have time for that kind of flying anymore, so the most I get in DCS is about 1.5 at a time.

Perhaps, but it seems a bit silly to use an IR pointer in the daytime against a pre-planned target.

I've seen a few videos where you can see the laser spot. I have no idea what wavelength the cameras were operating in, but I assumed it was IR. Here's one, right from the source at LM: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/pavewayIIpluslaserguidedbomb/Video_01.html Edit: Here's another:

Yep, WCMDs need the same amount of time to pickle as a JDAM, and for the same reasons.

Giggity! :lol:

The new E-3 is beautiful, but wrong. The E-3 is longer, has a larger diameter fuselage, and has completely different wings than the KC-135. The E-3 is based on the 707-320 airframe, while the KC-135 is based on the original Boeing 367-80 prototype. They're very different animals.

Just to clarify, in 3/9 mode, the weapon will release when the pipper passes the 3/9 line of the solution cue, REGARDLESS of aiming error. The solution cue does NOT need to pass through the CCIP reticle.

MK-82 LDGP/AIR limits are: Acceleration limits +3.0 to +0.5g for Low Drag +3.0 to +0.8g for High Drag Dive Angle limits: 0 to -60 for Low Drag 0 to -35 for High Drag

The offsets are there to adjust the dynamic HUD symbology for unique differences in specific aircraft. Things like slight differences in canopy optics, manufacturing and maintenance differences, and the fact that some airplanes just don't fly as straight as others. There are baseline offset values that are determined by OT&E and used across the fleet, and then Mx can tweak the values for each individual aircraft if the need arises. Along a similar (but different) idea, Ejection Velocity and Rack Delay settings can be tweaked to account for aircraft and weapon specific differences. The CCIP/CCRP solution already factors in the standard values, so any inputs made in DSMS for these values is added to the "standard" value.

Take a look here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=75977

Just to stir the pot, I thought I'd mention that it is physically and operationally possible to load an Alternate Warhead Maverick (G, G2, K) on the "chin" station of a LAU-88. The only problem is that no money was allocated to flight test that specific configuration in order to certify it for operational use.