Torbernite

AAR is always one of the most difficult practice in DCS for new players. And I doubt whether a good assisted tutorial could be provided in present DCS environment. Without a real instructor, the in-game tutorial can hardly teach you how to stabilize the oscillating plane or the correct way to align the probe and drogue, which need some sudden enlightenment after heavy practice. And the F-14 has no FBW and need more practice to well control and adds up to the difficulty. I don't know if F-14 is your first aircraft to try AAR. If so, you would have to face problem from both the AAR methodology and F-14 flight characteristics. If you need an easier start you can try the FC3 Su-33 or the Hornet. Su-33 has an AAR flight control mode, Hornet has a better digital FBW system, and both have ATC. You can build up basic sense for AAR on those friendly aircrafts. Especially pay attention to the Su-33, feel how the AAR mode controls the aircraft and try to manually simulate its handling on other aircrafts. After completing that, you should have a basic impression of how to do an general AAR operation. Then back to F-14 you just need to adapt to the lack of modern flight control system.

In fact JF-17 and AV-8B also have a normal probe light as 3rd party works, but all they have are white lights. I wonder if it's because the red AAR probe light of F-14 is made in another way more similar to the position lights for signal use (in order to show correct color), instead of those white lights for illumination.

I tried to do night AA refueling with no NVG and find it impossible to fine the basket in totally dark condition. It seems the refueling light casts no light on any external objects except the nose of own aircraft. Maybe the red light is naturally dimmer than white lights, so I put the aircraft in hangar towards the backwall, and when refueling probe extends I see no light on the wall at all at gamma 2.2. While the white lights on other aircrafts work fine. Even the position lights on the wing gloves cast some light on the ground but the refueling light illuminates nothing. Is it a known issue, technical limitation or as it should be?

Use a gamepad as a HOTAS control for pilot may not be the best idea, but it would be the best solution for the RIO, WSO or CPG if you don't want to make a specific device yourself.

We are not talking about if the changes later to make the module better should be welcomed, but whether that a module is not as completed at first and has to be fixed in long term, rather than relatively completed at first release, should be welcomed. I would understand a dev team if a module was made with presumptive features first due to lack of information or deficiency of DCS platform and changes every patch to be more realistic. The earlier flaw was cause by external conditions which they can't control and I would still support them. We see this situation in many teams. Raz made the M2k with difficulty of lacking information, and Deka made a coarse A-G radar DBS mode before ED's API. Such things are imperfect at first but that could be forgiven, especially considering now we have free trial to know that before purchase. But I would also still get disappointed when I were too frequently told that "your former learning and practice are no more useful from now on because that's not how the real one works". I mean just to the module and not to the dev team. I won't blame the team as I know they are no less annoyed than me by the endless work to change the system to more realistic one. Of course a complete module from the first release is the best. But if unavailable, I can hardly tell which way is better, a presumptive makeshift before a complete system, or a placeholder like the F-16. As for the F-15E I hope to know how they would deal with the AN/AAQ-13 pod and SAR, complete at first release, placeholder until done or presumptive makeshift. If someone wants a suggestion I would still recommend to postpone any new module, regardless of the team, to see its degree of completion and weigh it with your love to the aircraft. Anyone has a different tolerance to the continuous changes needed to the module. The best way is to try and decide it yourself. Finally I must say I'm now more confident with Raz after the rework of M2k and AV-8B and the gradually started revise to the MiG-19P. I'm optimistic about the F-15E and wish them a great work on it.

The scare explanation is quite strange but the problem is more strange itself. It's quite normal on earlier aircrafts that AOA indicator shows not in degree but they are not claimed as degree. Just see the F-14 and F-5E and the AoA indicator is in "unit", a totally arbitrary stated "unit". They just adjust the unit to fit some integer critical point, 15, 20, 25 unit for approach or for stall. It's reasonable that the indicator on MiG21 was made also in arbitrary unit but strangely M3 and the English manual(maybe from Poland or somewhere else) both said 25 "degrees".

N34-04-36, E38-14-49

Let's celebrate the end of this question!

Deka Ironwork Simulations: JF-17 WMD7 pod update: manual lasing control clarified (no other switch or button, controlled by MFCD OSB, present keyboard command for manual lasing would be removed later) cage/uncage limits (can't be uncaged with gear down, only laser code editable when caged and no other OSB option)

I'm not sure where to put this question. I noticed a screenshot of MAD campaign: Seems to be a marking beam from the viviane. And I tried in SP mission and got this: Only the spot could be seen and can't see the beam. I know whether the IR laser beam could be seen depends on power and weather in reality. But I don't know if the ranging laser used to be visible in the game before. Or that screenshot was taken in other way or I have any option wrong? Also I noticed a script. Could something like this be used to create an official updated screenshot?

I remembered they said in early FAQ that it would be visual effect only if modelled and no relevant aerodynamics.

Well we have to be realistic. I hope we can get it one day but not very hopeful in near future. Assuming the plan is true and decided by both North Korea and China. North Korea is basically a safe and necessary export customer and the clue has been suggested early before. One more export project may not show actual change of J-10's secrecy status. North Korea faces very heavy air defence stress but to protect itself NK chooses to put more power on strategic missile instead of air force, partly because it's easier for a nation with too old air force fleet and poor systematic aero industry. Producing missile is difficult, but to build a modern air force and all the industry to support it nearly from the first screw is surely more difficult. But to China, it could become a weakness if something like B-2 infiltrates and shoots some stand-off weapons to China from North Korea airspace (check the terrain and you will find it not harder than shooting some 802AKG or SLAMERs to the other side of Caucasus). Of couse NK don't want to see that happens either but they can't prevent it with only fulcrums. To solve the threat, China could negotiate with North Korea to send its own fighters, SAMs and even radars into North Korea when necessary. However that's obviously not the usual way of China and also hard to accept for NK. Then the only way is to provide necessary equipment to NK air force. So this export plan is quite important to China. Some trade off on secrecy safety could be accepted, maybe there is also some compromise on price if that's true. Cautiously I hope to get it in next ten years, if we still have DCS and Deka then.

Many pylons have installation angle in real life and it's not strange, on viper and hornet you can also see those downward pylons. JF's inner pylon does have a more downward angle than outer pylon. It's actually a problem that the bomb doesn't touch the bolt beside the pylon, not the pylon itself. The bomb is hung by the hooks on the pylon and rings on the bomb, then the bolts are tightened to fix the shape of ordnance with its changeable length and press against it to prevent its lateral waggle. But the bolt might be modelled with the pylon together so hard to tune its length to show the "tightening", which causes its visual incompatibility with the curved (not cylinder) shape of GBU-12. It's a deficiency but I don't know whether we should call it a bug because it's not a fault or cursoriness and it's hard to fix, unless they would model different pylons for every different ordnance.

Thanks! I got it. I remembered that's truly what I felt last time I use it. Hope it could be fixed.

Totally correct. Only difference between the ARK distance counter and odometer is that it considers the angle between heading and NDB direction to produce a correct radial component of velocity. And the radial velocity update has a little lag when direction changes on DCS L-39. As a result, this system is relatively accurate when flying straight inwards or outwards, or far from the beacon (beacon direction changes slowly), and the error becomes more significant near the beacon.

I checked your MiG21 manual and found it lying in my disk for a long time. Thanks for your reminder and now I'm reading it carefully. Here is my understanding to that chapter: When used with only ARK system (ADF-NDB, 197 and following paragraphs in the manual), it seems no azimuth but only direction considered, because ARK or NDB gives no azimuth but only direction to the station, unlike the RSBN station, which gives both. It doesn't tell us where "we" are (what the RSBN does), but only where "it" is. The ARK distance counter just believes the distance you set to it as initial value and does dead reckoning with that. Knowing TAS, heading and pitch is enough. For example let's tune an NDB beacon in 30° from us and set the distance counter to 50km. Now the system only knows there's an NDB beacon in 30° direction from the aircraft, 50km distance. The 30° is not azimuth but just a direction, relative to the nose heading instead of true north. In other words, the navigation system knows the beacon is in 30° right of our nose and we are flying 30° left of the beacon, but not our azimuth from the beacon. Then if we fly at 500km/h, the system knows at this point it should show the distance for us at a decreasing rate of sin30°*500km/h. It don't need to know where is the true north to do that. No matter we are flying towards north and the beacon is in our 30° azimuth, or we are flying towards east and the beacon is in our 120° azimuth, it's in our 30° direction 50km anyway and no azimuth actually needed, the calculation is still correct. Under this principle you can see such a system fixes with the manual description. It's not a normal pure dead reckoning like INS or doppler in some way in this mode, for the heading or direction is measured from the ARK signal. But the signal contains no information and updates no position, so it could still be called a dead reckoning. The manual says on leaving the coverage zone of a homing beacon the readings of the distance counter may become wrong. I think the system may assumes all motion in radial as you said, or it may do dead reckoning based on last known position which seems to be less possible, for the ARK is a more primitive system than RSBN, the direction is fully measured from the antenna and not likely to be continuously calculated after signal is out. The instrument just combines it with the heading indicator (the movable scale controlled by a heading gyro) to show the azimuth, but it's hard to infer that the GMK and ARK have more integration under the panel. If so, the dead reckoning would be possible but less accurate than RSBN dead reckoning for the ARK (ADF-NDB) is initially less accurate (degrees level). Very likely it's not designed to be used in this way. Only the RSBN station, which works as a VOR+DME or TACAN, could tell us where "we" are. When used with RSBN, we can not only know where the station is from our view, the signal from the station would also tell us we are 195°, 50km from the station. This 195° is azimuth and means we are 15° from the south seeing from the station, and have nothing to do with our heading. When signal lost, the RSBN system would go into a true dead reckoning mode. It could calculate the relative motion to the station. For example, if we are at 195°, 50km from the station, flying towards 300°, in other words, the station is in 15° azimuth and 75° direction of us, and the signal is blocked by terrain. Then the system could calculate our position in next second with TAS, heading and pitch. Even if we turn, the GMK would tell RSBN the heading is changed and give it new heading information to continue the calculation. Due to the accurate measurement of RSBN (±0.02° theoretically and ±0.25° in practice for azimuth, according to my former resources), this dead reckoning is more reliable than former imagine. The RSBN and ARK seem to do different calculation, just happen to use the same counter to show the results.

Frederf explained the system quite clearly in his third post, but his former two posts are misleading in some way suggesting that it should be a DR only system with no signals involved. My opinion is that at least RSBN is not a DR only system and I have given my information sources to show my opinion and he should give his if he means that way. I admire Frederf for his patience and preciseness and apologize if offended him, but not your words. It's not the way of finding answers.

Nice resources! So the system is actually capable in both radio and DR condition. I have only learned the beacon and signal design and know little about the onboard equipment. Now I just wonder how much those two modes are used, as a TACAN with DR capability as backup in long range flight beyond radio coverage, or as a DR equipment with automatic updating function through beacons. Considering the intensity of beacon distribution (as the L-39 module provides) I'm afraid that it's the latter condition.

I see your firm but you are just repeating your former words and give no evidence or disproval. Could you give some more information?

It's surely not a non-signal dead reckoning method like doppler navigation on Mi-8. It's functionally a red style TACAN. Ranging and azimuth measurement are both in pulse style. If you only trust blue docs, then details in ADA044697/ADA044698. Azimuth in page 16, 20 and range in page 24. Azimuth measurement also discussed in https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119163060.ch4

Oh Thanks! Sorry I got no notification for your response and nearly forgot this question for a long time. That's the decisive answer!

Could anyone explain what happened? I haven't used the SC with F-14 for a long time. It used to work before? Or it never works?

I talked about that in another desolate post. The smoke should be there but not in every second. Slightly changed in expression.

It sounds that maybe you used the "invert" instead of "swap"? Do you experience strange trim performance, for example, initial center position moved in X axis, and center position change in X axis when actually trimming in Y axis? If so, try the "swap axis" option above.

I know the smoke is already binded with RD-33/93. That comes from small fuel drops in rich fuel condition (roughly low altitude and high or suddenly increasing throttle set, which is mostly the condition in airshow and maneuver display video), which can not disperse well and get carbonized in anoxic atmosphere near the combustor nozzle, instead of well burn in the whole combustor, and sprays the carbon particles from the nozzle. But at least intuitively, the smoke could be solved with DEEC tuning and seems shouldn't appear in the same thickness in all operation condition, all altitude, all speed. In video of JF, MiG-29 and FC-31 prototype, you can see the smoke appears and vanishes with the change of operation condition. Even the DCS MiG-29 have this changing feature. If our JF still has the smoke, the thickness variation would still be an interesting detail.