effte

International airports which are not frequented by a lot of US military traffic will typically only give QNH, and expect inHg accustomed pile-its to put that expensive training to good use figuring it out. "USAir 123, descend 4000 feet, QNH 1002" "Uuuuh... could you give us that in inches, 123" "Sure thing. USAir 123, descend 48000 inches, QNH 1002" ;) QNH is short for altimeter setting, referenced to MSL, dating back to the good old days of using morse code to get messages across. Theoretically you could give inches HG, mmHG or hPa interchangeably as a QNH. That's not the way FAA phraseology is set up, obviously - and just as well. Reduces the potential for confusion! FAA order 7110: When clearing an aircraft from a level to an altitude, the altimeter setting has to be given along with the clearance. I expect that to be a lot less common in the US though, with the TA all the way up there at 18,000. Cannot seem to find a solid reference in the FAA order, so I guess the issue about how it is done on the wrong side of the Pond is still up for debate. :)

Amen to that! If you need any help creating the Flying Barrel, let me know!

Or three lasers... ;) Negative on the reading material. As I said, my own knowledge is sketchy. No colour in the ones I've been fortunate to mess with, even though they were rather advanced compared to most of what you'll find out there. As the CRT driven huds are not rasterizing but rather steer the electron beam to draw the symbology (i e vector graphics), CRT driven colour HUDs are all but impossible to create. The fact that our DCS HUDs are rasterized (obviously ;)) whereas the real ones are not is one of the reasons for ours being harder to read I think. Real ones have virtually infinite resolution, only really limited by the size of the beam and the granularity of the phosphor.

To the best of my knowledge, there are HUDs operating with a laser for drawing the symbology. I'm unsure about the details, but the new colour ones would obviously be of this variety.

Congratulations on taking the plunge! Welcome to the New World. I'm kind of jealous, actually. I would love to re-experience the sensation of awe when I finally received my first TIR and got it setup. For simulated flying, it is akin to putting on your glasses in the morning if nearsighted. :)

Exactly what it isn't, and what it doesn't. Oh well, as long as you are happy... :) An attempt at a detailed explanation In that last pic of yours, with the F-16, you see the boresight cross slightly left of centreline. The boresight cross indicates where the nose is pointing. With me so far? This means the cross is seen slightly left of the centreline of the HUD, obviously. Now, if it was "like an image painted on the glass", if you moved your head right, the boresight cross would move left as referenced against the horizon. Still with me? However, the spot the nose is pointing at wouldn't have changed due to you moving your head. Only manoeuvring the jet can do that. In other words, something would be terribly wrong. Imagine the same thing, but with a target or steerpoint marker. The target marker would only be superimposed on the target if you had your head in exactly the right spot - kind of useless. What really happens is that as you move your head to the right, the boresight cross stays in the same position as referenced against the horizon. Similarly, a target or steerpoint marker stays fixed, superimposed on the target or steerpoint. This is the true magic of a HUD. In order to achieve this, the boresight cross, markers etc - in fact, all of the HUD symbology - have to move as referenced against the HUD itself when you move your head around. Move your head right, and it moves right on the HUD. Move your head up, and it moves up. All to stay in a fixed position relative to the outside world. Now, if you had one target on the left side of the HUD and one target on the right side of the HUD, each with a target marker on the HUD superimposed on them, and you moved your head closer to the HUD - what would happen? The target markers would have to stay on top of the targets while the HUD itself would fill a larger portion of your field of view, right? It is then easy to see that, as compared to the HUD, the symbology would shrink - in order to remain the same size as compared to the outside world. The outside world remains the same size on your monitor even if you move your virtual head fore and aft by a few inches in your virtual cockpit. Thus, moving your virtual head fore and aft cannot change the size of the HUD symbology as displayed on your monitor, as it still has to be the same size as your view of the corresponding part of the outside world. Only changing your FOV (zoom) can change the size of the HUD symbology on your monitor. And that is exactly how the HUDs behave in the DCS simulations.

The reason to set the approach course on the HSI is merely one of convenience. It tells you where to point the nose. The course deviation indicator deflection will be the same regardless of the course setting. The course setting doesn't affect the avionics. Set it 180 degrees wrong, and you'll have seemingly reversed indication though - makes things interesting. ;) I believe it does affect the command steering cross pointer bars in the HSI though.

Hmmm... is this configurable somehow, as I have not seen them? In real life, in dry weather, a vehicle moving on a gravel road will have a 500-foot plume lingering overhead for a long time. Much less if out in vegetation, of course.

It's both ways. Normal visual acuity means you are able to see better in real life than on any monitor. Maximum zoom is getting close on my 1920 screen I think, but then your FOV is severely limited instead. OTOH, in real life, if something is hidden in a forest or on a forest road, you have to be real lucky to find it, as in fly right over it and happen to look down just as it is visible. That's where the IR optics come in handy. One thing is lacking in DCS though - dust trails. I fly fire watch missions in real life, and while you can generally tell by the colour of the smoke it is hard to be certain, so I've checked out countless off-road bikes, cars etc. That combine harvesters and plows leave a pretty significant visual mark goes without saying... :) Obviously this is when the terrain is dry. When it is not, tracked vehicles leave pretty visible track marks though. You'd be able to follow the activity on the ground by looking at the tracks made.

+1 on this one. Much easier to look around the stick in real life. Even with TIR it's a PITA, and for those flying without, well... another reason to hate being them.

IIRC, Batumi has a true heading of 131 and 5 degrees easterly variation for a mag heading of 126. However, something is broken so you'll see closer to 121 mag. On the road, so that's off the top of my head. I posted the data in another thread, so search for those numbers. Not that it matters much, it's just convenient. Set the HSI TO any heading and keep the CDI centered - you'll be on RWY centerline.

I think it will be released this weekend. I base this upon two things: 1) Sod's law. 2) I'll be on the road. Have fun! ;)

The official, non-Accusim, MkII manual from Zeno's do not contain the limitation on windmilling, FWIW. I find that more plausible, but I wonder where Accusim got their information. I don't see them as the kind of people who'd make things up. I'm in a hotel room, so I'll have to check more manuals when back home if noone else beats me to it (yes, that was a challenge! ;)). Cheers, Fred

"Approach plates" is the search term to use. Here's one thread. Check the aviadocs site for starters. If you can't find the relevant plates, let us know. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=64700&highlight=approach+plates

I dropped a pen under the bang seat of a non-operational aircraft while in school. Endless amounts of ribbing, of course, and told many, many times (yawn!) that there was no way I'd be getting the pen back as they weren't lifting the seat out for a couple of months. When working on operational aircraft later, it was 100% sterile of things to drop when in the cockpits. Of course, the aircraft were then handed over to pilots and that's a surefire way to get them back screwed up. More hangar queens to the people - saves a lot of hassle! ;)

The Spit is a real lady, and she's breaking due to you insulting her! ;) Windmilling doesn't do serious damage engines, unless you let it windmill to the point of overspeeding. You're likely to have the engine windmilling on most every approach (or you wouldn't make the field in case of a sudden deafening silence). Edit: There is a limitation on windmilling in the Accusim rendition of the MkII manual. Peculiar - that takes further investigation. You need to keep the RPM up for high power operations, or you will be overtorqueing and risking detonation. Both can destroy your engine more or less instantly. The rule of thumb is just a rule of thumb. While it worked for some old Dinocomings etc, there are no guarantees. Stick with the power/RPM settings in the POH. And yes, the limit is to always keep the RPM to a a minimum dictated by the MAP setting - not the other way around. Overboosting means a too high MAP for a given RPM. Brit gauges show MAP relative to atmospheric while US gauges show absolute pressure. In other words, you need to add 1 atm. Cheers, Fred

1) The course to set on the HSI is published in the approach plates (not included with the game, linked from the forum). 2) The TACAN and ILS are on separate frequencies. However, a frequency can be given in two different formats, either a xxX/Y channel or a plain MHz frequency. You're seeing the TACAN channel and the ILS given as both a frequency and a channel. Cheers, Fred

There are 24,187 erasers though. But now that you know, I have to kill you. :P (Sorry, couldn't resist)

I'd like to add to this one as well. ED, we may gripe endlessly in here about the things which Are Not Quite Right, but most everything (except for the dynamic campaign... ;)) is head and shoulders above most of what is out there. While there is no need to point out what is right endlessly, it must get pretty depressing reading these forums at times and see all these minor niggles surfacing. Please keep in mind that for everything which is complained about, there are probably a hundred things which are mindblowing! To counterbalance the bug reports, you're making a great job and you've given us a beta which is what most other companies achieve six month post release through extensive patching... at best!!! You're maintaining a standard which should be a given in the industry but sadly isn't. I hope the rest of the industry is watching closely! Good job, keep it up! (And fix my toe brakes.... ;))

Would definitely be a good way to spice up the missions and add plenty of realism. Weather considerations are one of the Big Things in flying.

Now, this is a thread which didn't get the attention it deserved. Too early and in the old forum structure is my guess as to why. Well done gathering all those in one place! Could be a sticky IMO. I'd be interested in more discussion on the subject of battlefield tactics, as applied within DCS:A-10. For starters, we have the mission generator missions, which is what I end up flying quite often when just learning and wanting a quick bit of flying done. You're all alone, have no real briefing (I consider checking target locations on the mission map to be on the wrong side of my personal realism threshold - takes the challenge out of it), and no one to talk you onto targets. The scenario is not too likely in a real world context, I guess, but - how do you deal with it?

If you have a look at the requirements, you'll see that limited -ve G capability is pretty much a must for a combat aircraft. Spitfire Mk I/II (with the addition of the interestingly named device) and on, they've pretty much all had it. You simply do not want to have to roll inverted if you want to change your trajectory downwards more abruptly than a ballistic trajectory. The RAF learned that the hard way. On the other hand, prolonged inverted flight has no practical use outside of airshows. If it's more than a limited amount of time, you are better off just rolling the aircraft around so it can do what it is supposed to do the way it is supposed to do it most of the time. Hence, most if not all aerobatic combat aircraft will have limited capability for -ve G. Not unlimited, nor be without it, but limited capability.

Avilator, sorry for throwing you a curve ball there. No hard feelings, I hope? One also needs to bear in mind that TTW ratio does not include drag, so unless airspeed is insignificant the net force available for accelerating/climbing will be less than the thrust. This may or may not have implications on the achievable climb angle with TTW above unity. For info on an in my opinion more interesting measure of performance, google "specific excess power". Bipod, figured you would. :) Bucic, it's not impossible. Reversers... :D

I think the technical term would be Papa India double Sierra Tango Alpha Kilo Echo, with regards to the stunning performance the installed powerplants give the aircraft at max gross. ;)

Just somewhat below negative... ;) A-10A model dash 1 tells us static thrust 8,900 lbf per engine at sea level standard.