PE_Tigar

True - the problem is with the ILS, ATC of course decides on active runways. Now I get it that someone thought runway lighting and ILS go in one package - it would be easy to introduce the same logic there but it's actually not how this thing works. IRL the situation in IMC can be quite fluid, I've witnessed a Challenger shoot ILS, go around, then do a VOR/NDB on opposite runway, then back on ILS in 15 minutes - just imagine yourself as a flight controller fiddling with switching ILS on and off amidst trying to do your job managing traffic... I hope just leaving ILS on wouldn't be too much to ask for.

In my (admittedly limited) experience it definitely is not the case. How would you do circling approaches, for example? The game mechanic seems to be ill-informed here. ILS is usually only switched off for maintenance or repairs, and you get that info in NOTAMs. Or perhaps it's switched on and off if you have a single frequency for both directions (like in Vaziani in DCS). BTW, if this was how it worked IRL, then why would you have different frequencies for different ILSs at one airfield? This is both complicated and wrong, ILS should be on all the time unless we have a situation like in Vaziani. BTW - see this Quora thread for supporting info: https://www.quora.com/At-large-airports-with-an-ILS-is-it-active-all-the-time-or-is-it-turned-off-during-daylight-and-clear-weather

Had the same problem, and the issue is that the mission in the original campaign packaging was faulty. SorelRo has already issued a hotfix, you can pick it up here.

On your first question - yes, it is suitable, it will run DCS just fine (how much you can go crazy in the settings will depend on how many pixels that 34" monitor has - I'm playing on 34" 3440x1440 with pretty high quality settings, and this configuration matches or exceeds what I have in the box). What I would add to that configuration is just one thing - more storage space. My installation of DCS is ~250GB, so with only 500GB you'll run out of space for other things pretty fast. I bought an M.2 NVMe 2T SSD just recently because I was running out of space for ~400US - you can probably get it cheaper than that. In any case wouldn't go for less than 1T of storage total - 2x 500GB, or a single 1T, whichever you please. Oh and I do remember Falcon 4.0

I've found some errors near Shiraz-Marvdasht Hwy (approx N29.746, E52.608) 1. "Phantom" tunnel on the highway - it also causes problems for ground units, which get stuck in it, or pop through to the surface. 2. Missing railway tunnel 3. Missing Soleymani Hwy (ends in the middle of nowhere in DCS) See pics for details.

That part is correct, but I have serious doubts that needing to switch UHF Radio Function Selector to ADF to get the signal is "as intended". As others pointed above, manual says you should get ADF bearing with UHF Radio Function Selector on Main or Both; UHF Radio Function Selector ADF position should be non-functional.

I couldn't get ADF to work either way - I was trying to tune ATC UHF frequencies on airports on Persian Gulf map.. nothing with either NAV Mode on DF, UHF function selector on ADF, or both. Am I doing something wrong? EDIT: I actually got it to work, but it's as described in the original post, which is very impractical - since there needs to be some kind of transmission on the frequency to get ADF bearing, I need to set the radio to Main or Both, ask ATC something, then quickly switch to ADF to get the needle to show the direction for a short while... I'd say this is not "as intended".

It's like saying "there's no evidence that 2019 model car has automatic air conditioning if 2018 model has" - from the point of pure logic you theoretically could be right; most likely you're wrong. Here's why: Without going into detail - if you look at major radar system components it's (very roughly) transmitter, receiver, antenna, and indicator. Range gate is logic, "built into" the indicator part, i.e. it incurs very little weight, space or cost penalty to implement for modern electronics. The more modern radar is, more sophisticated the software, more features it packs - if you have the algorithms, know-how, etc. - space, power and compute capacity needed are all reduced each year following Moore's law. The only advantage AWG-9 can have vs. AN/APG-68 and similar is the size of its antenna and consequently raw detection range. DSP etc. - miles ahead on newer radars. That's why, BTW, AWG-9 was replaced by AN/APG-70-based AN/APG-71 in F-14D - the newer AN/APG-70 was - naturally - seen as superior.

Ah, but now ED will claim that the video is too recent :)...

Bearing search.

It's not that the missile is crappy or not, it's trying to maintain altitude with practically no wings in dense air - hence quite high energy bleed. That's a normal behavior when shooting a low and fast target - aerodynamics 101. I don't know how much, or at all, S/A missiles are supposed to loft in these scenarios. But if they don't loft and try to fly more or less horizontal trajectory to the target, they have to bleed a lot of energy. If they don't - like HQ-16 - it's a suspect behavior.

It most definitely looks off - but may I suggest starting a separate thread and attaching a track or Tacview file to the report? This one is related to a specific issue with a specific weapon.

Thanks - good to know. Fingers crossed this happens soon.

Agreed. Also, the point of my post was not to count SP/MP - the point was to ask for a proper bug tracker for open beta. Since we have portions of half-baked code and early-access products in OB, it's only logical for ED to use this sizable OB user population to acquire some meaningful information. A more organized bug tracking process would certainly result in more usable feedback for ED.

Correct - I'm comparing SA-11 (Buk-M1, missile 9M38M1) with HQ-16 missile (fired from HHQ-16 VLSs on 054A (Jiangkai II) frigate). HQ-16 is derived from 9M38M1 with the help of Almaz-Antey, if public sources are to be believed (Jane's for example). My point is that HQ-16 behaves very oddly, especially when compared to the similar 9M38M1. 5V55 should be compared to HQ-9, of course. And - incidently - the charts shown are not "my results" but missile telemetry plots from those same tracks I attached, anyone with DCS and Tacview can redo the analysis.