chaos

NIMROD! WoooHoooo! 19 hours over vast oceans looking for a needle in a haystack. The possibilities are 'endless' :)

Point being that if there's something in real life -especially something as crucial as a runway, however short, in a flightsim, it should be ingame... again... in principle... I don't mind debate and used the word 'dumb' to provoke a reaction. It worked didnt it? Just to be sure... I don't think anybody here is dumb... I think... ;)

I'm with Bluepilot here. In principle, it should be in the sim if it is depicted on the chart...plain and simple. Now, ED may have decided otherwise because of gameplay reasons, dev cost etc, etc.. Same goes for location (Lat, Long) and layout of various airports in-sim compared to sat. pics on Google Maps. Whatever, never mind. There are more pressing matters that need to be dealt with. However, to find 'holes' in what Bluepilot writes when his point is so obvious is downright dumb. :)

Group-hug everybody! Tomorrow is a brand new day. You can do it, I'm sure! ;)

Thinking outside the box is good... armed with facts... Wags said "Fixed wing US fighter". Most people would assume "Jet". Considering he also mentioned "different time-periods" in a seperate interview, this opens up a whole new can of airplanes ;-)

The SA-10 isn't that hard to defeat, particularly in wide open terrain where you can run-in at treetop level. I was thinking the same thing; "this seems a bit too easy"... Then again, these sites are usually flanked by a host of short range AA defences. Also, running in at less than 50ft. for any length of time is not realistic, I think (except over water).

Well done Jan!

In this case your destination has to be above certain limits regarding weather. Visibility and cloudbase should allow a visual approach. These limits are set by the authorities and may differ depending on geographical location as well as other factors. Basically ATC will let you descend to a minimum altitude and you take it from there. There's no exact way to fly a visual approach. You're on your own... All depends on the published procedures. Usually ATC will vector you (give headings) so that you're in a good position to establish yourself on an instrument approach procedure. It depends on how bad the weather is. ILS is more accurate than a TACAN approach. First you check what the actual weather is. You then decide which approach is best suited for the actual conditions. Visual approaches are the quickest way to get the wheels on deck. ILS is best suited for bad weather conditions (cloudbase 200' AGL/ 600m visibility). TACAN is somewhere in between :)

Fish, thanks for taking the time to making these videos. Just one remark... I believe you're getting courses and radials mixed up. A radial goes out (from the station) and corresponds to the degrees on a compass rose. You fly a radial outbound or inbound. A course is what you see/set on the HSI. So, flying along the 270 radial inbound means you're flying course 090. Flying radial 180 outbound you'd fly course 180. Like the groundschool bit... nicely done. regards.

What if.... We could import Half-Life2 into DCS. Just imagine you being Freeman waking up inside a holding cell with G-Man standing there... you break out of the cell and run towards the HAS outside where your shiny A-10C is wating for you. You take off and destroy the Antlions taking over Kobuleti. Awesome!!! ED will be rich beyond belief...

Your pitch will be on or above the horizon. I assume you meant VVI at 3 deg.? Apply brakes as soon as all 3 wheels are on the runway. If you start to apply brakes at 80kts you risk an over-run. ? Ummm... no :) ...but I won't get into that again except to say that you control attitude with the stick. Thrust Levers makes airplane go fast or slow. End of lesson :)

leafer wrote ; Love the beast but it has no guns! Aaaargh! F-4E! Know thy planes ;)

Thanks for another huge list of improvements. May I be so bold and ask for one more? The TACAN distance counter doesn't show a 10th of a mile. It's been annoying me since beta1 (the things people get worked up about...). Anyway, I'm sure it's on the list. Here's to patch .10 ;)

BBQ, Lobo is right about this. The flight director doesn't work correctly. You wrote; "You should be able to center them immediately by just changing the pitch/bank" means, or how it is different than how it currently works--as indeed, you roll and pitch to center the bars." The bars should move instantly as soon as you change pitch/bank angle. They command required bank and pitch. That's why its called a flight director...

Slacker, I'm not an expert on A-10 systems but in general this would be expected system behavior. The APU drive will supply electric current to the busses as soon as it meets certain quality standards (provided the switch is on). No need to reset. Indeed on many airplanes these switches are "ON" all the time...

This is not a bug. In general you shouldn't follow the glideslope unless you captured the localizer. There's nothing to prevent you from doing it the Fish(y)- way :) This is a confirmed bug. The audio panel selections don't work as advertised. Supposedly adressed in patch .8. Nothing to do with "being within the LOC lobes though... :)

NOE is the only viable option in a high intensity conflict (like the East vs. West scenario). When your opponent consists mainly of men carrying RPG's and Kalashnikovs ,with the odd MANPAD thrown in, you're better off up high. Plain and simple.

Check all the things that affect nosewheel steering and braking... *rudder pedal calibration (if you have pedals) *check Emer. Brake Handle in *check Hydr. Pressures (L and R) The Emer Brake System is serviced by the R hydr. Sys. so that would be my prime- suspect. Did you accidentally pull it out? Please explain because, if this is true, I've been doing it the wrong way for 24 years ;-)

Welcome back then :D ! Aye to the rudder pedals. I'd like to have a pair as well. Good to see 'old-timers' coming back....

Realism is not scaled back in training missions. What can I say? Obviously your callsign is "Maverick" .. :) To really prove you're actually Chuck Yeager, try it with some crosswind and a little bit of turbulence. I want to see the track as evidence :)

I think we're not talking about the same thing here... It has nothing to do with how soft or hard the landing is. I believe certification allows descent-rates in excess of 600fpm but that's not what we're talking about. It's the amount of runway you chew up by landing fast (ie. forward speed... not vertical).

I'm looking forward to commenting on it ;)

Thx for the heads-up, BiPod. No use in repeating your analysis... Obviously the issue is still there.

Just did a quick test... I compared landing distance at 30.000lbs. using the real A-10 procedures (TO-1A-A10) and the "Kenan" procedure (flying 25kts. too fast) _and_ switching of the anti-skid. Odd outcome... I got more or less the same landing distance with either technique. Either my fLyinG skiLlz are not up to par or there's something funny going on with the ground-modeling... I'm going to 'investigate' further. Might open up a new topic in the appropriate forum.

This is where you're 'wrong'. A 'soft' landing isn't always a 'good' one. Your aim should be to plant it in the designated spot _on-speed_. At 30.000lbs. you're going 25 kts too fast if you're flying @ 155kts. Your landing distance required will go up by a few hundred feet. Now, the runway lenghts in DCS are not that critical but an anti-skid failure and landing a little long at too high of an approach speed will have you end up in the approach lights.... on the other end of the runway. "Oh Kenan... you've got some 'splaining too dooo...!! " :-) PS; I haven't tried it yet but just fail the L-HYD sys. and try to land it at Batumi using your technique...