Azrayen

MrBukkake, as said above: - In TWS, there is a known bug - In STT, there should not be "undue" lock-loss. As you're not the first to post it happens (but I didn't encounter it), please provide a track? Note that lock-loss is legitimate = feature, not bug if : - target is beaming and below radar horizon (not just below you, what counts is what's behind the target, as seen by the radar: clear sky or ground?) - target is cold and Vr is near zero, particularly at mid-long ranges and using HFR. ++ Az'

No. That's called adhering to SOPs.:smartass: Plus, with the ground power connected: - if battery switch is on, then the battery is charging (from AC => DC "TR" converters) - if battery switch is off, the the battery is discharging because it power "battery bus" alone, which is not connected to the rest of the electric network of the aircraft. Look at the electric system schematics included in Razbam's manual :book:

:thumbsup: More seriously, they make their pre-flight inspection, then strap-in. 1/ climb into the aircraft, launch the ALN 2/ climb out, preflight inspection 3/ climb in again, strap in 4/ continue before start-up check list 5/ start-up check list :)

Never.

Aren't you trying to use Caucasus copied over 2.0? You shouldn't, and that's why (at least one of the reasons).

Yes. There is already a topic about this. In the M-2000 section of the forum (here we are in the general Razbam section).:D

Right :) Thanks for being more precise than I was. Short answer: yes :)

@ ZHeN: It's simple in fact: the "IP" (+BAD) process is not intended to be used with a JTAC in a CAS scenario. Rather than trying to make it work at all cost, I would use other (simpler) modes in CAS scenario, such as CCIP or CCRP normal modes (depending on weapon) using the JTAC-given coordinates to create a BUT (not a BAD) and simply using it (as DEST) as a reference for my bombing run. The IP" (+BAD) process is intended to be used for AI mission, with full preparation (including knowing IP and target locations) before climbing in the aircraft.

Pity about what? It works...

We should indeed be able to enter (and see + use) one decimal through the PCN. Not more. 2 decimals through the mission preparation + datacard system (aka ME in DCS). As Zeus said, it's a "display real estate" issue :)

I voted no on this one. - I don't see an interest for a player managing an LHA in DCS. - I think ships are "environnement" today in DCS (= can be used by all players, and are AI controlled) Any LHA (or BPC) included should allow all (pilots) players to see it and use it (if their aircraft is able to... or even not, with lots of wind). So: yes to get an LHA, but no to make it a separate payware module.

Last time I tried, it worked... Only once for each but, though.

Because no one feels it's worth it? Various issues are known; aircraft is still in beta, so evolving quickly. What more is needed?

I don't know if there is a link. Perhaps, it iswhat was projected anyway, but the ~10 years between entry into service of the M-2000Cs and the E-3Fs makes me feel unconclusive.

Do they now? :huh: Just kidding, you're right about this of course :D

You're probably right indeed :) But then, a precision should be made: The seat is branded MB but is also french made by the SEMMB (a joint venture between MB and SAFRAN): http://www.semmb.com/fr/content/mk10 SEMMB: Société d’Exploitation des Matériels Martin Baker, meaning (more or less) Martin Baker's Devices Operation/Exploitation Company.

Uh uh uh. Would be nice, he? Worth mentionning is the system never really got into service; let's assume very scarce documentation.

Nice article, thanks for sharing :) Good to have an English speaker writing about the aircraft. A rare event. I'm at loss.:huh: Note that he didn't talk about "limitations".:detective: Comfort? It's a tiny cockpit. Apart from that, it's a Martin Baker Mk-10 aka same reference as in the Sea Harrier, Hawk, F-5, F/A-18, Gripen aaannnnd... Tornado.:book: (among a few others) Wuuuut!?:smartass: Hat, coat... :D

1st step = BATT On. You missed that.

Hi gavagai My advice about this is to bring the subject with a precise example as much as possible. A track for example. If not, then developpers won't be able to track the potential bug. I fully understand that it's not really possible when you see the "bug" (?) during a multiplayer flight, and that it takes time to try to reproduce it afterwards. But then situation may stay as it is for long...

You already get the underlying feature with RDO mode and/or the directeur d'ordres (little square in the VTH). I therefore don't feel the need to introduce it in the HSI too. The idea behind having TEL in the HSI is because when you use TEL you're at long distance. When you use radar, you're at shorter distance.

Traduction de l'annonce de ED : La dernière phrase signifie : vous pourrez voler. ++ Az'

Chiming in, heard ~the same indeed. 40-45K. No more than 2 Fox2. M1.2, perhaps a bit less? Was not specific.

@ Frederf good brief :) The logical order whould be 4 then 3 though, as in: - Set the bearing first (and while you do that, it's displayed by both the wide needle and the DME window - Then set the distance (and at this point only the DME window moves, the needle stays where you put it at the previous step, giving you a chance of controlling your VAD input) - Then with just "one click" (one step to the left) you activate the VAD.

Good thinking. :thumbup: Don't know how you did your search, I just tried and got lots of hits (search for keyword D2M in M-2000 forum & child: 25 topics or 110 posts). I agree such results may be overwelming when you just come around. Was just amused. Rest assured, it's no big deal (hence the smiley) :)