BlueRidgeDx

I know the topic has been broached before, but I couldn't find a definitive answer... Will the Mission Editor have the ability to display Imperial units? Ideally, it would be nice to be able to choose between feet, nautical miles, meters, and kilometers from within the ME, regardless of GUI settings. Thanks.

Doesn't it only show side-to-side head movement, though? It would be nice to add up-and-down movement, so you could pass a head nod in multiplayer. Head nods are used by wingmen to signal readiness before takeoff, and by the flight lead to signal brake-release, afterburner usage, and configuration changes (gear, flaps). It's always a struggle making a formation takeoff in multiplayer without being able to anticipate when lead is going to release the brakes. I don't have FC2, so maybe this is already fixed?

The ALQ-131 doesn't have a RAT...are you thinking of the ALQ-99? I don't think the EA-6B or EA-18G are modeled in the sim, are they?

I'd delve further into the human factors of it, but my guess is that I'd be wasting your time. We'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that. I do have to comment on this though. The Gimli Glider incident was a direct result of the implementation of the metric system and the conversion from gallons/pounds to liters/kilos. Thats hardly a case for why the metric system is "superior", and actually provies my point: Bad things happen when you ask people to throw away what they know and adopt a completely different system. And for the CASA accident, again, the accident was at least partially due to the imposition of the metric system on an aircraft and crew that was not designed/trained for it. How does that inspire one to claim that the metric system is better. Anyway, this has drifted way out into left field, so I'm going to bow out while I still can.

Sounds like a winning move to me. Now if only we could get a grease pencil so we could make a proper "canopy plan" while flying as FAC(A). A guy can dream, can't he?

Maybe, maybe not. They have regular ATC in Kandahar and Kabul, but thats a stretch since it's a relatively low-intensity conflict. Nonetheless, anywhere aircraft are operating at an airfield, there will be a controlling agency. It might be a pair of Air Force Combat Controllers riding around the airfield on ATV's with a portable TACAN set up, but there will be ATC. Fair point. I would be very pleased if DCS were to simulate such things. I'm just not sure we'll ever see AI airplanes taking the barrier. I know very little about the SU-25, so I'll take your word for it. I've never seen any pics of Russian airplanes taking the barrier, but then I was never looking for them. The more detailed the airfield, the better. I agree. True, but most of those countries don't take the time and resources to write their own rules from scratch. Hence they adopt another system, then make specific changes to suit their own regulatory needs. Not all of the countries I mentioned have the EXACT same rules, but they have all adopted the basic ICAO structure. And all have an ICAO compliant AIP available online. Sure, its fair enough. You're right about China and Russia, but most everyone agrees that the Chinese Flight Level system is horrendous. As far as the CIS countries, I only checked the Ukraine and Maldova, but both use standard flight levels referenced to feet. http://www.ecacnav.com/downloads/RVSM%20Airspace%20-%20October%202008%28Screen%29.pdf It would certainly be accurate (and necessary) for the new Nevada terrain, and that's where I'll be spending a lot of my time. And as I mentioned before, in the real world, there will be basic ATC services for US/Coalition even at forward operating locations.

Maybe, but thats a bit misleading when you consider that only two countries in the world use meters for altitude. I'll concede that many more countries use meters to report visibility and RVR. I guess that all depends on what your perception of "proper" is. I have absolutely no frame of reference to make sense of what a 5m/s wind looks or feels like, or how it relates to an airplane's crosswind limits on a wet/contaminated runway, to name just one. I think that requires a bit more nuance. While you're correct that both units are used, you won't find the two mixed in the same report. In the US, prevailing visibility (as indicated in METAR/TAF reports) and flight visibility are always reported in SM. Other declared distances such as airway widths, NAVAID service volumes, and other airspace related items are in NM. I've been in the business for more than 12 years, and I've never heard of an accident where such a percieved "inconsistency" led to a disaster. At least not as the probable cause. Which one(s) do you have in mind? I don't think forcing pilots, dispatchers and ATC'ers to switch to a system of measure for which they have no frame of reference, to be a safety enhancement.

Light guns, perhaps. The only barriers found at Nellis and Creech are BAK-12's, and an A-10 isn't going to make much use of them without a hook. I don't think you'd find any of them in Georgia, either. Do you mean the "net" type of barrier? The BAK-15 and MA-1A barriers can be used by an A-10, but again, I don't think you're going to find them at any of the presently modeled airports in DCS. I assume you mean Eastern Bloc? Actually, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Macedonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine have all adopted the ICAO standards. Some have more deviations than others, but they're all operating under the same set of regulations now. Georgia references altitude to feet just like the rest of Europe. Within the Georgian airspace system (along the FIR boundary with Russia), there is a transition zone between standard RVSM airspace and the meter-based level system used in Russia.

I can't speak about the Baltic region, but in the US - with very few exceptions - military airfield signs/markings/lighting are identical to civil airport standards. No reason to reinvent the wheel. EDIT: Of the airports listed by Matt, I have no idea which ones are exclusively civil, and which might me exclusively military or "joint-use". But here is the Georgia AIP which I assume covers only civil airports: http://www.ais.caucasus.net/eaip/html/UG-frameset-en-GB.html

Why stop with a only WSO...how about the MC-130H Talon II or the AC-130U? Pilot, Co-Pilot, Engineer, Navigator, and an EWO shouldn't be too much. ;) But seriously, an AFSOC asset would be a nice direction to go: Flying low level penetrations on NVG's in the MC-130H TALON II to airland or airdrop special forces. Flying endless left-hand orbits sounds as boring as a NASCAR race, unless you're doing it in an AC-130... The CV-22 certainly has in interesting mission that combines the roles of the PAVE LOW III/IV, PAVE HAWK, TALON I, and SHADOW. The HH-60G's CSAR mission would dovetail nicely with the A-10C in the FAC/SANDY role. Even the U-28A could be interesting, shoehorning into and out of unprepared fields on NVG's in support of SF. Sure, not all of them employ weapons, but there are plenty of other fun things to do besides tank plinking and CAP'ing, especially in a clandestine, night, low level environment.

That link causes my browser to die, so here is the FAA equivalent: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5345-44H/150_5345_44h.pdf

As an aside, the sign configuration in the screenshots appear incorrect...at least by ICAO standards. The red signs are mandatory instruction signs, and should only be found where the taxiway enters a runway, typically adjacent to the hold short line. Also, the white inscription should have a black outline, and the legend should have a black border. In the screenshots, it looks like they're being used as an outbound destination sign, which would have a black inscription and a black border on a yellow background. Also, the dash "-" should actually be a dot "." to indicate a common taxi route to two different destinations. In this case runway 27 and runway 09 (even though they are the same physical runway, each threshold is a different destination).

I'm pretty sure that a live-fire malfunction of the gun system during a Green Flag sortie preceeded the gear-up landing.

I know you didn't really blow it off, my only point was that most internet stories (or lists) about "funny" writeups aren't actually true, because they only relate what a crewchief/mechanic/technician WANTED to say, not what he actually said. Yeah, I'm keenly aware of the differences. I was just relating an anecdote that adds some levity to the mix. I'll stop playing Buzz Killington, now. Promise. :pilotfly:

Those "gag' write-ups and corrective actions are cute on the internet, but I've never seen anything of the sort in real life. The maintenance logbook (or the equivalent thereof) isn't something to be messed around with...at least not in the airline world. Would a mechanic really sign off potentially arcing wires and smoke in the cockpit as being flightworthy? I sure hope not. The closest thing to a funny write-up I've seen in 12 years was something to the effect of: Discrepancy: Aft lav toilet seat cracked. Corrective Action: R/R aft lav ass-gasket IAW MM 25-40-11. Ops checked good. The mechanic in question got suspended and we had to self-report the improper procedure to our FAA PMI (Principal Maintenance Inspector) to avoid an $11,000 fine. I'd hate to be the victim of some SNCO's wrath after I blew off a write-up about smoke in the cockpit.

There are some open-source documents that outline the cooperative geo-location capabilities of the ALR-69A(v) on the net. Just search for AT3, or Advanced Tactical Targeting Technology. This doesn't really answer the original question about the display of relative threat elevation on the RWR, but at least it can be verified that precise geo-referencing is possible using the ALR-69A(v) and Link16 for surface threats whose elevation can then be derived by comparison to the DTED. Edited for clarity...

It's just Nellis; you can see the LOLA on the right side of the image.

I direct your attention to the fact that these guys are all Lieutenants, and that they're all wearing patches of the 563rd FTS, which is an EWO/CSO training unit at Randolph AFB. From what I can gather on the time frame the picture was taken, it was during a period of time when the first UAV/UAS/RPV/RPA class was being tested for feasibility. The success of that trial led to the reactivation of the 558th FTS, which is now dedicated to training new RPA studs. I'm taking a leap of faith, and assuming that prior to the 558th standing up, the RPA studs were temporarily assigned to the 563rd as pictured. The studs were using the simulator as part of the RIQ (RPA Instrument Qualification) syllabus. They learn to fly using the HUD as primary reference, and other basic instrument navigation skills. The fact that there are pics of Preds/Reapers on the wall is merely icing on the cake. http://www.mysanantonio.com/military/drone_training_coming_to_randolph_afb_94132999.html http://www.randolph.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5907 http://www.randolph.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5531 http://www.randolph.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123205011 And for a look at the patch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/563d_Flying_Training_Squadron

Not sure. I know a guy who went through pipeline at the 562nd FTS, and he recognizes the room the picture was taken in, and said that the RPA (RPV/UAV/UAS/this week's acronym) guys are in there learning to fly using the HUD as the sole reference. But I don't know when the pic was taken, and the patches the guys are wearing are from the 563rd FTS, who trains EWO's. This leads me to believe that the pic might be of the first "unofficial" official class that "beta" tested the program before the new dedicated RPA training squadron, the 558th FTS, was stood up. (Note the pics of the preds/reapers on the wall.) Anyway, sorry for the threadjack. The screenshots look great, and I look forward to putting the Hog through its paces.

Just as an FYI, the studs in that picture are all EWO's undergoing JSUNT at Randolph AFB. Not pilots undergoing A-10C conversion. EDIT: Without knowing when the pic was taken, I think it's also possible that these guys could be the "beta" class that went through RPA training before they stood up the dedicated RPA training squadron this spring (558th FTS).