western_JPN

About Normal takeoff procedure, you are right. Takeoff clearance message from the tower (ATC) is given after safety airborne of the predecessor --- and more intervals to avoid wake turbulence in civilian airports. To simulate emergency takeoff procedure of military aircrafts, in other words "Minimum interval takeoff" (MITO), current DCS AI behavior is not bad. KC-135s takeoff in 25 seconds intervals in DCS. IRL, USAF tries and succeeds KC-135s MITO in 15 seconds intervals. In September 2021, Fairchild AFB / 92 ARW completed 20x KC-135s takeoff in 5 minutes. About B-52s in Cold war era, they are told also 15 seconds intervals MITO was done. I think .... no need to change takeoff intervals in DCS, now. If possible to command the ATC switching airport / AFB emergency level in missions --- switching long or short takeoff intervals --- in future reworking / evolving whole of ATC functions, that will be great !

Sde Dov's only 1400 meters runway looks too short for those Jets. In reducing total weights into 75 % or less (not load so many bombs, not carry droptanks, decrease internal fuel amount), A-4 F-4 can take-off there. IAF aircrafts deployed there were small props like Cessna 206 and Beechcraft King Air. By the way, A-4E-C mod looks a bit worse take-off performance than historical, the mod needs longer runway than IRL. I feel A-4E can carry some more bombs or fuel even 1400 m runway. Please ask the mod team about its SFM / AI performance settings (not EFM for players).

I've checked all Tel Nof spawn points in HAS that F-15 can taxi out safely or its tailfin collides with doorway. These spots' spawn point or taxi out line are a bit misaligned to there doorways' center and spawned F-15 cannot taxi out. 08, 09, 12, 13, 14, 16, 21, 22 Other HAS spawn points between 03 - 32 are OK.

Hi, Raisuli and OnReTech. About Tel Nof and F-14 taxing, I think OnReTech has not to do anything. 1 - when those shelters and sun shades are correctly modeled and placed , no need to retouch. F-14 will face the same situation IRL. 2 - The trouble that F-14 wings collide with sun shades will be solved in wings swept-back. When HB will add AI F-14 makes wings swept-back in taxing time after landing , F-14 can enter sun shades without wings colliding. 3 - Users set each parking spot numbers instead of Auto. 4 - Even current Sinai map module / Tel Nof AB + F-14 AI, sun shades can be removed by ME trigger function. My screenshots and sample mission are attached. f14b_telnof_land_STSremoved_sinai_20230731.miz

Wow --- OK. I found. Thanks all. Between GBU-24 Paveway III and Mk20 Rockeye *3. Ah ... May I request its listed place moving down to the previous from single Mk84 loadout like L-CFT ?

In current ob 2.8.7 .42718 , F-15E SE S4+'s R-CFT doesn't carry "Mk84 *2" loadout, even there can carry "Mk84 AIR *2" and "Mk84 AIR TP *2" loadouts. Well, L-CFT can carry all "Mk84 *2", "Mk84 AIR *2" and "Mk84 AIR TP *2" loadouts. Is this a bug ?

Open Beta 2.8.7 .42583 gives us ARA Vienticinco de Mayo carrier operational. I found she has a trouble with 2x or more planes set their starting waypoint as "Takeoff from runway" to her. "Takeoff from runway" to a carrier works the aircraft spawning on catapults. Mayo has only one catapult, once spawn-able aircraft amount with "Takeoff from runway" is one. (USS Nimitz class have 4x catapults and max four aircrafts can spawn once with "Takeoff from runway".) When number of the aircrafts with "Takeoff from runway" waypoint to the carrier is over her number of the catapults , excessed aircrafts don't spawn and wait the catapult become opened. --- expected behavior and Nimitz class work so with 5x or more "Takeoff from runway" aircrafts. On 25 de Mayo, all of "Takeoff from runway" aircrafts spawn once of mission starting time and they are overwrapped on her catapult. They cannot be shot from the catapult (colliding each other ? --- F/A-18C) or soon broken (--- A-4E Skyhawk mod). Some catapult settings for "Takeoff from runway" might be missing ? Sample mission with Mayo + F/A-18Cs in SA map. f18c_25mayoto4x_SA_20230729.miz

Some airports with X layout runways or triangle layout runways are more complex to decide the active runway(s) for takeoff or landing. In Syria map, Beirut and Ramat David have such interesting but headache behavior with what wind is set in the missions.

It might come from some HAS facing directions were mistaken. Reported in this topic: When those HAS direction bug will be fixed, taxing trouble will be also solved. Until it, our players are better not to place jets in wrong direction spots.

More checking ... About Hetzerim, spot 145, 146, 147 look similar wrong direction of HAS. Those three spots should open to the north. About Nevatim, spots 110, 111, 112 are also --- should open to the east. (opposite side of 113-115 HAS are omitted in your plan ? google earth photo looks 3x HAS built there) About Ovda, spots 18, 19, 20 should open to the west, duplicated three 26 should open to the west, duplicated three 30 should open to the north, duplicated three 36 should open to the west, duplicated three 50 should open to the north-east, spots 68, 69, 70 should open to the west, spots 74, 75, 76 should open to the north-east, spots 80, 81, 82 should open to the north-west, spots 86, 87, 88 should open to the north-east, duplicated three 100 should open to the north-east. To players: when we place fighter-jets in both correct HAS and incorrect HAS, they will collide each other and stop taxing. Avoiding to use incorrect direction HAS is safe until fixed.

B-52 (and MAM's C-5 Galaxy) can be placed as "Takeoff from Runway" in Syria map; Incirlik, Akrotiri, Larnaca, Beirut, Damascus and more. And they succeed to take-off from there. Impossible is "Takeoff from Ramp" or "Takeoff from parking hot" as discussed in this topic. Changelog of ob patch 2.8.7 .42583 says: Someone knows which parking spots / which airbases are this ? I feel not so changed in this patch about the feature and B-52 cannot be placed in parking as same as older DCS versions. Is this improvement about C-17 or IL-76 size and not for bigger B-52 (and CAM's A330 / MAM's C-5) ?

Don't you use very old version DCS installer downloaded years ago ? or not ED but Steam variant ? Current DCS 2.8 web installer by ED shows that location dialog.

Ras al Khaimah International airport may provide both runway directions 17/35 (mismatching to IRL and runway texture 16/34 though) for each take-off and landing. There doesn't have terrain or city obstacles not to land to RW35 (34). In DCS; PG terrain module, its RW35 (34) touch down area are blacked with tire dusts. The take-off direction in missions with "Takeoff from Runway" starting waypoint or ATC instruction for spots-parking ACs' take-off request is in both 17/35. They look correct. Only landing ATC instruction is always RW17 even with tailwind. This maybe a bug. I heard it from this topic and comment. My own test missions are attached. su25t_RasAlKhaimah_w350_toland_pg_20230727.miz su25t_RasAlKhaimah_w170_toland_pg_20230727.miz

From ob 2.8.7 .42583 changelog: Added right-hand traffic in Cyprus It looks OK about both ground vehicle units and civil traffic cars. Cyprus' Road signals and sign poles still stand for right lanes. They have to face to left lanes.

In ob patch 2.8.7 .42583 , terrain modules can set both traffic side rules in one map. About SA map, Argentina and Chile's civil traffic run on the right lane, Falklands' civil traffic run on the left lane. They are correct to the real world. But ground vehicle units (placed in mission editor) run opposite sides in all areas in SA map. They run on the left lane in South America and on the right lane in Falklands. In Argentina: In Falklands:

Thanks, flybull. Interesting plan rule for Israel HAS, I've not known. Comparing photos vs. Sinai map about Ramon, those spots look in wrong direction. 04, 05, 06, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, 78, 87, 88, 89

Hi, shastasm. 3rd party modules have their own bug report forums instead of ED general forum. I make my topic in reproducing your report with miz files and screenshots here. Please continue there to comment about Ben-Gurion / Sinai map.

When AI aircrafts are set taking-off from Ben-Gurion International airport ; spot 01 - 19 , their taxi routes become conflict. Spot 01 - 19 have two exiting routes .... I'm calling them "Exit A" and "Exit B" in this topic. Without wind and default Runway 21 is used for taking-off, only spot 13 uses Exit B. Other spots use Exit A. Its conflicting result : With wind 120 and Runway 30 is used, Exit A/B routes look mixed between spots 04 - 06 and 13 - 16. and also conflicting : miz files are also attach. --- This bug is originally reported in DCS World's General forum by shastasm. I reproduce his report by myself and get screenshots. ai_to_BenGurion_nowind_sinai_20230723b.miz ai_to_BenGurion_wind110_sinai_20230723b.miz

Third party jet modules --- AV-8B NA, F-14, F-15E S4+ --- are set chocks in their cold start missions. ED modules (A-10C, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C) are not.

About North Las Vegas / Nevada, when you set stronger wind in just 120 / 300 direction --- ATC will use runway 12 or 30. My test mission behaves so. I test Ras Al Khaimah in my own built missions, and I find this maybe a terrain module's specific bug instead of Mission Editor generic issue. When I contact the ATC to land there, He always instruct to the runway 17 as you say. But I set my aircraft "Takeoff from Runway" , its starting point is switched at 17's end or 35's end following the winds. ATC's instruction about takeoff runway for "Takeoff from Parking" also chooses both runway directions correctly. Only landing ATC is troubled about there. I've search forum topics in PG map section, but not yet reported about this .... might be.

Hi. I'm digging up 3 years old topic. Here is no response or no patching about PG module. Those airdrome data mismatching still exist in ob 2.8.6 .41363 , today. I search Google Earth photos about the three airports and ... all in-game runway paint textures are matching to the real world. Airdrome data (and ATC call) have to be corrected into painted runway directions in my thoughts.

Ah... St. Catherine or Abu Rudeis don't have TACAN - VOR/DME stations IRL. Only NDB on St. Catherine . (I'm not sure that is working still now, though. It isn't modeled in Sinai map. ) TABA VOR/DME, Sharm El Sheikh VOR/DME, Hurghada VOR/DME are placed correctly in the map. Other TACAN or VOR/DME don't exist in those area. When you want fictional TACAN for easy flying, you can place portable TACAN units in Mission Editor.

Some airports / air force bases have a limitation Take-off <--> Landing direction is static even with down wind because of near mountains or near cities IRL. About DCS terrain modules, those airports and AFBs (in example, not all) maybe in that condition. Caucasus: Batumi, Nalchik NTTR: Nellis PG: Khasab I don't remember Ras Al Khaimah has the same limitation or not ...

USAF Kadena AFB in Japan received F-15Es to replace aged F-15Cs working CAP -- A/A roles in this April. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/kadena-more-f-15es/

Hi, ED forum admins ! TheRigere wants to talk about Stream Deck. It's not Steam Deck. (very easy to confused) The board fitting this topic is here : https://forum.dcs.world/forum/57-pc-hardware-and-related-software/ and existing topic about Stream Deck is :