flusky99

So, Military absolutely use ICAO standard phraseology. There are a few, very minor differences, but all the stuff not on tactical chat/TacCon etc is done using ICAO. None of this Angels or BRA stuff. Its only when you chop to Tac that you start using phraseology like "elevate Angels 200" and start to refer to killbox lines. What we call NATO APP-7E. CAP 413 is the UK equivalent document that discusses standard phraseology. There are plenty others. QFE is typically military, although more and more, the mil are now training to QNH. You cant use QFE in places like Afghanistan, as the altimeter doesn't have sufficient wind-on. I guess Nellis would be similar. you would train on QNH there (every time I went to Nellis, as a large aircraft, they always put us on QNH). I love the Nellis area model BTW, its phenomenally accurate. I was a military flyer for 17 years, 14 spent operationally flying on OEF/OIF and a load of other stuff in Africa. A trash/bog roll hauler though (although we did tactical stuff too). Still love to Fox-3 against my old types! Thanks for the responses above, looks like DCS is coming on leaps and bounds.

Know it’s trivial, but would be really nice to have standard ICAO ATC comms implemented (particularly the takeoff vs ready for departure call, approach calls…) understand it’s a combat sim, but would really be the icing on the cake. merry Christmas BTW.

Have you considered using raw test data from sources such as NASA AMES? There is a raft of stuff in there you can use to develop aerodynamic derivatives. Pretty sure the low speed high alpha/beta stuff will have been Nerfed, for obvious reasons. But there are research papers going back to the 80s for early gen F16/F14 etc which may well help