Gasman6

It would be nice.

Fantastic! I was hoping this would get updated. Thank you so much.

Hit the OBS button on the TGP to return to boresight and then re-sight your target.

Hey no hard feelings. I'm glad we understand each other. My situational awareness around here is admittedly low. Even though I knew a patch was coming, I did not expect it to include updates for the CEII. I saw no mention of it in any of the prior releases I read, and this subforum has been extremely inactive. There are also bug reports over a year old mentioning issues I saw just the other day, which to me was a bad sign that there had been no progress made on this module in a very long time. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Well my foot is in my mouth! I take everything back. It's never my intent to insult anyone who puts time and effort into a project. I do not understand why you would think my post was even the slightest bit abusive in tone, I thought it sounded lamenting and mournful. However, I have seen people give the sort of feedback you describe and while I don't understand the motives entirely, I do think part of their frustration might come from paying for a product that is nonrefundable, only to find it is no longer serviceable. I am happy that that wasn't the case here and I look forward to the changes put forth in the update as soon as I've had a chance to install and play around with it.

Doesn't seem like there have been any updates or announcements for a while. Looks like this fun little airplane was abandoned. The flight model may have deteriorated from earlier performance values, somehow. Perhaps engine changes on the World end that haven't been tweaked for the CEII? Very unfortunate. I enjoyed this little guy.

You will probably be waiting until the full world model is implemented.

My very first combat flight simulator.

And military aviation is a different monster from civilian aviation. I don't know your experience or your training, and I certainly don't have any relevant experience to speak from on this subject myself. But taking @ASAP's comment at face value that he read the A-10 is refueled after every flight in a manual, it is probably for some operational precedent that revolves around combat readiness and low turnover. Considering the A-10 can be "hot" fueled and rearmed (meaning the pilot never has to shut down the engines while the ground crews scramble to get the plane ready to go), quick turnaround seems to be a philosophy that the USAF had in mind when developing SOPs related to this airframe. I don't know that this is true, it's merely speculation on my part, but that seems to be another good explanation for why the Air Force would refuel their A-10s as a matter of course, whether or not they were going up again immediately. It streamlines procedure and gets the "ramp rats" in a habit of doing the same thing, the same way, every time. Just a guess.

With the A-10, I find that lighter is better. It's tempting to burden your stations with triple racks of bombs and laser-guided rockets, and pack on heavy, drag-inducing CBUs, and six Mavericks, so on and so forth, but you're only making an already slow airplane slower. Moreover, you're denying yourself one of the advantages of the Hog's survivability: its ability to maneuver. When you're loaded to the gills with standoff weapons and bombs and full gas tanks, you're going to have to jettison all of that the second an enemy airplane gets within firing range so you can hope to survive. And if you're caught off guard by a MANPAD or SAM launch, you're essentially just a flying whale and might as well eject to save yourself the (virtual) trauma of a missile hit. There's nothing more satisfying than going in light, getting the job done with fewer munitions, and having to RTB to refuel/rearm with all stores expended and the gun's ammo counter at or near zero. I find the more laser-guided stuff I carry the better, since a friendly or JTAC on the same objective can also help buddy lase targets for you. So GBU-54s as opposed to -38s, for example, since not everyone is able to pass you an accurate grid reference that you can program for your bombs. The "packing light" advice especially goes for PVP servers, you're just a cherry on top of an ice cream sundae to sweet-toothed enemy jets, don't let them get the best of you! Happy hunting.

Just out of curiosity, what is the advantage of having the speedbrake behave in this manner? Is it just your limited number of available bindings? I would not want to have to hold a button down every time I land to keep the speed brakes extended, same if I am trying to slow down upon reaching speed-restricted airspace (such as in a terminal area). I realize, of course, this is just a game after all, and therefore there are no "right" or "wrong" ways of doing things, I'm just wondering what your perceived advantage is in changing the fundamental control behavior. Thanks in advance.

Greetings fellow simmers, Today I have come to nitpick a small, but prevalent technicality in the phraseology I hear used commonly in multiplayer servers where there is no local controller "staffing the tower," as it were, and the airfields are essentially "pilot-controlled." I say "pilot-controlled" as it is the preferred nomenclature that encompasses all sorts of non-towered operations. A "non-towered" field is a bit of a misnomer, since many airfields do have towers, but their towers do not always operate 24/7/365. They have published operating hours, and when the tower is closed, it doesn't mean the whole field is shut down. You just use the tower frequency as a CTAF, provided there is no discrete CTAF frequency published in the chart. This also distinguishes the term from "uncontrolled fields," since that is also not technically accurate. So if tower is closed, and there is no ATIS to designate which runways are in use, how do you know which one to use? The easiest answer is any one you like. In the real world, we can make use of things like the Airport Facility Directory (AFD), which has all the information that is too much to fit on a chart. This usually has things like the tower's operating hours (if applicable), traffic pattern altitude, preferred runways, noise abatement procedures, and so on. The preferred runways are also sometimes interchangeable with the "calm winds" runway(s). Winds are considered calm when below 5 knots in any direction. In calm winds, you could technically takeoff or land from any runway you wish. Of course, it is always best practice to choose the runway that most closely aligns against the wind, Sometimes this isn't possible, and you have to accept either a left or right crosswind on departure. So in these situations where the runway choice is ambiguous, which runway is "active"? All of them. But also, none of them. There are no "active runways" during pilot-controlled field operations. Active runways can only be designated by a local controller or specified in the ATIS message. At pilot-controlled fields, all runways can be "active." So when you say "taking the active" (where are you taking it, by the way?) or "clear of the active," you're not doing anyone any favors, because they don't know which runway you consider active. Always use the runway number when you're making a call that references a runway. It helps everyone listening on the frequency develop their mental picture of where you are in relation to them, and what is happening on the field, and in the traffic pattern. Always remember that pilots listening on the frequency might not be visual the field, or they are at the field but they can not see you, either because of ground obstacles or you're outside their field of view. When making your CTAF calls, pretend that you are talking to the blind. That is all. Thank you for listening to me quibble about this trivial thing!

Hello, It is indicating the source of your present SPI. By default, your SPI is always your steerpoint. When you set whatever you are look at in the TGP as SPI (TMS up long while TGP is SOI), you will see STPT replaced with TGP.

Thank you again, this use of ITT makes more sense and reconciles with my basic understanding of turbofan operation. I had not considered formation instrument departures, nor did I consider that such procedures might exist since formation flight is dangerous enough when you're not in soup. My thinking was a group flight would depart individually, and rejoin once VFR-on-top, or trail at a set distance.

Thank you, @ASAP and @Yurgon, you have answered a lot of my questions and pointed me in the right direction. I had ballpark ideas and clues to a few of the reference speeds based on the same cockpit indications as mentioned, but it never hurts to seek verification. This is curious to me, why is ITT the chosen metric over %RPM or fuel flow? I understand the concept of "flying the engine" from a piston perspective, but for turbofans there is no "leaning" so why would ITT matter from an operational perspective beyond evaluating engine health, and to make sure you never exceed a certain figure determined by the engineers who tested it? As you mentioned, the ITT values will change, but I don't think you meant to say location, perhaps you meant to say OAT or ambient temperature?