SloppyDog

You mean...back to the starting point? You have to pay atention to where you insert the last point in the route. If you insert it close to the starting airport and select Landing, it will move to the closest airport it finds.

As you were flying at medium altitude (~15,000 ft from the HUD), the system is saying you are outside Terrain Following Radar range. From page 285 of the manual: 3. NO ATF, displayed when the TF Couple Switch is in COUPLE, but the ATF is disabled (usually because the aircraft is outside the ATF limits and the system cannot re-engage)

Well, I love your products, the care and attention to detail is amazing. I have the P-38 and I really love the Hellcat, both gorgeous MSFS. That said, more Warbirds and more Cold War for me is better. The P-38 would be a welcome addition to the fleet. And one day, oh some day, I would like to see a F-111 for DCS. Enviado de meu SM-A127M usando o Tapatalk

I was having the same problem. What solved for me was to specify to the type of bomb, instead of using AUTO. Mission is attached. I didn't test it after 2.9, so maybe it does not work as advertised. Wingman Attack Command TEST.miz Wingman Attack Test.miz

I have a i7-4700K. I see that you have a "K" CPU as well. It means they have unlocked core frequencies, to allow overcloking. In gaming, mine tries to go full throttle to better run the game, but enter in throttling since the CPU gets too hot, and the clock has to be throttled down in order to protect the CPU, but the CPU clock goes up again in order to better run the game, then goes down again, and keeps its cycle during gameplay. It results in stutters. I don't know if it is possible in newer CPUs like yours, but what solved the problem for me was undervolting the CPU. This way you tell the CPU the maximum allowed power it can go, so it runs at the maximum allowed power, that you set, all the time during the game, with almost no spikes and stutters. I run in 2D, and yes, it is working better in Single Thread than in multi-thread for me as well.

Did you have this problem before 2.9? Yes, the Syria map is very heavy. It's amazingly detailed, but takes a toll in game performance. This is how I solved most of the stuttering: 1) Let the map load. Yep, mission started, let it load, takes about 1 minute (yea, it sucks, I know...) 2) Check if your CPU is throttling up and down. I have a 10700K and it tries to get the best performance to run any game, so it tries to run the clock as high it can to achieve that. But the CPU reaches max temperature, so it has to throttle down in order to protect the CPU, but goes up again in order to best run the game, but has to throttle down to protect the CPU, and so on and on. It was causing lots of stutters. And was making my CPU hotter than ever. The way I solved it was by limiting the CPU power input by undervolting it. Now the CPU knows what limit it can reach, it works at the maximum established (limited) power during the game, so no more throttling, no more stutters.

LOL. Amazing!

Hey, uh... Heatblur... Sorry to bother...but what about a mustache growing contest? Whomever has the best mustache by the time the module is released, wins a free license (hint hint).

From the manual page 317, it is Boat Switch Forward Short. However, I tested it and it seems it only works with the AIM-9. Did not work with the AIM-120C only. But it switches from AIM-120B to -C. Not ideally what you want, as a Step switch, but is what we have for now.

Ok, I'll chime in. Don't face it as I'm trying to berate you. I am, as everybody else is, trying to help you and others. I believe, or I'm convinced of, that you bought a product expecting something and when playing/flying it got something else entirely, and it brought you a lot of frustration. So, based on that belief, I don't want to assume that you are a troll trying to have a good time at the expense of others. However, I'm assuming that you are confused by what you have on your hands and is not entirely convinced about it. So, here we go: It is clear that you are a big fan of the F-15C, and I believe that you expected the F-15E to be a full fidelity version of the F-15C. As many stated here, and in other topics, they are not the same aircraft. Not at all. The F-15C was designed to counter the Mig-25. Big, powerful, air superiority fighter. The F-15E, on the other hand, was designed to replace the aging F-111. Low-level penetrator/interdiction/strike aircraft. Totally different mission sets. Yes, they look alike. Yes, the F-15E can carry air-to-air missiles and a has a powerful radar. And that where the similarities end. I strongly recommend that you read the companion book to the F-15E: "Be Afraid of the Dark". It can be found on your Doc folder inside the F-15E main folder. In there you will have lots of information about what the F-15E is and how it become to be. I'm reading it and it is a great book. About the performance of the -E compared to the -C, don't take my word for it. Below is the transcript of the book, from the test pilots flying it: Page 23, second and third column: "We also wanted to look at the CFTs to see what aerodynamic penalties we would pay for carrying them. Did they put us at a big disadvantage in the air-to-air arena? So, we flew air-to-air against as many types of adversary as we could. We did what I would call VHNs – Very Heavy Nose – where you have just come off a tanker and are full of gas. We then reduced the weight to a half fighting load and then further reduced it to an ideal fighting weight. We had never flown this heavy before and I wanted to see what would happen when we did.” Page 23, end of third column, and Page 24: "When we flew the air-to-air portion of the tests in a VHN condition it did not perform like the C model – it couldn’t, it was just too heavy. Once down to a half fuel load though, it would start to fly like a C or D model."

Oh sorry. In order to latch the view in place, you first press RCrtl+Num0. wait a moment, then press Num3. Now you can manipulate the TACAN controls. Same works for other views like screens or radios. Once you enter RCrtl+Num0, you can change the views by pressing Num1 to Num 9. To move out of the views press Rcrtl+Num0 again or just Num0.

Use Numpad 0 + NumPad 3. You can also make your own custom views

I believe BradMick was refering to this: He is one of ED's SMEs and his videos on the Apache are invaluable.

@KlarSnow thank you. This is really a great feature.

Unfortunately, couldn't find anything by making a search on the internet either. I assume they work similar to the Hazard points in the Apache.

EDIT: Put together all the information, including @KlarSnow invaluable help. Works like this: 1) Create your route, as normally is done: these will be points 1A, 2A, etc. 2) In order to create alternative routes you create a new Nav Point in the Navigation Points Section and name them 1B, 2B, 3B, etc... Or you can name them 1C, 2C, 3C... it doesn't matter the sequence, i.e., you can create a point 1B then a 2B, or a 1B then a 1C, it works the same. 3) The alternate routes will not appear on the ME, but once you are in the jet and on the TSD page, press the the squared A at the bottom of the screen and you will see the alternative routes (B or C). 4) In order to create Target Points or transform a waypoint into a Target point do as follows: For the main route (A) add a #T before the point: Example Waypoint 2 will be written as #T2 in the waypoint name window. For the alternate routes (B and C) add a dot after the waypoint number as 2B., 3B., 2C., 3C., etc. To create offset points for these points you write them as 2.01B, 2.02B, 3.01B, 3.02B... 2.01C, 3.01C, etc. 5) You can also add Markpoints, by adding a navigation Point and labeling it M1, M2, M3... They show up on the TSD and Radar pages as small triangles. 6) The radar can show the alternate routes points on the screen, but in order for them to be shown the route has to be changed in the UFC first. 7) You can also add a Base point for airstarts by creating a point simply labelled B. Attached is a mission I made to test/show the alternate routes feature. F-15SE-NEVADA - New Routes-TFR TEST.miz

Well, this one went below the radar (pun intended): If you add a route, and then additional Navigation Target Points with names as 1B, 2B, 3B...1C, 2C, 3 C... the additional routes will appear on the TSD, UFC and HUD. The Auto Pilot does not steer automatically to them as soon as you select the new routes in the UFC (By pressing 1A, 2A...1B, 2B, etc.). Unless you find yourself in the general direction of the selected point in the new route, then the A/P will steer to it. Very nice feature! Thanks Ed and RAZBAM! F-15SE-NEVADA - New Routes-TFR TEST.miz

The title in the Special Tab for the Harrier is wrong. It shows the name as being the F-15. A minor, minor bug, but nevertheless...

Yep, old stuff is nice to fly. I have the PMDG 737 and the DC-6. The 737 is ok, was good to quench my curiosity for new, modern airlines, but what you do is just fly the route, align with the ILS and land. The DC-6 gives a greater challenge, since it is manual and you have to be on top of those engines.

It depends heavily on the developer. Flying Iron and Got Friends are the benchmark now for WWII planes. Modern jets I would go with IndiaFoxtEcho. All the others are purely deception. There are lots of reviews of MSFS aircraft on YouTube, if you have any questions about a certain plane, it is probable that someone somewhere already reviewed it. I do have Flying Iron's P-38 and Hellcat and both are amazing. Also have Milviz Corsair but it was pure disappointment. Like @Gunfreak stated: there is no curation or care from MS or Asobo to what is sold and run on their platform. Anything goes. It is up to the customer to search and know what they are investing their money and time on. Also, as @Art-J said, in MSFS they don't need to be that detailed. In DCS, on the other hand, taking from many sources, the developer must reach some standards: 1) have the documentation, 2) making sure that said documents are not classified (or at least not classified beyond a certain point), 3) having a decent 3d model, 4) having a decent systems model (ED's or proprietary), 5) having the commitment to maintain the product up-to-date with ED's new software. That takes time. An average time from a DCS module announcement to release (in early access) takes about 5 years. And companies like Flying Iron's do take their time to make things for MSFS too, because they have this concern to make a good product. Others churn out so many WWII aircraft because they just port FSX/P3D old models into the new game, add a new cockpit (or worse, use the cockpit of some default aircraft), slap a price tag on it and sell. It is a wild jungle out there in the Marketplace.

They have the special 'Pete Mitchel" clearance. They can take a jet to a spin anytime, anywhere, with no fear of reprisal or court martial. They are that good.

Thank you. That's what I meant. What I said is a very simplified explanation to help answer Avio questions. And I understand that the advertised rates are only an average, a ball park, to help understand system drift. By the way, the oscillation you mentioned is Schuler tuning. Just another layer of complexity in a already complicated system. And I don't know if the game simulates that. I don't think it does.

How does it drift though? I believe it will get to a limit and stop. I agree that the rates are not that big, and commercial aircraft lived fine with that, with fewer and farther updates over time. But in game, it seems to drift faster than it should. in the same mission, when getting to Creech, I make a position update, to attack the targets at Waypoint 2. but 5 minutes later the waypoint and offset are way off than they should be. Maybe a DCSism.

No, no. Without the GPS the INS will drift ad eternum, with the errors being accumulated over time. To the best of my knowledge the INS erros accumulate, getting worse and worse. I really don't know it this accumulation is linear or nonlinear. To answer your second question, in page 270 of the manual it is stated that the INS drift is 0.8 nm per hour. And NotSo in the Discord channel has confirmed that as well. What this means is that for every hour the INS will distance itself 0.8 nm from the aircraft real position. So, within two hours, you would be 1.6 nm off from the real position that you should be. And that accumulates over time. So, to answer your first question, if you setup the INS drift to 30 min at the start of the mission, it means that the system position will already be 0.4 nm from the real position. And this error will get bigger and bigger as the time passes. There is no automatic reset. The radar operator will have to do a PVU, and then a INS update using offset points from time to time, as NotSo shows in the video. For older systems, or non radar equipped aircraft, the INS update was made using ground reference points or other navigation equipment (VOR/TACAN). Way more difficult, much imprecise, but that's the way they were going to fight a nuclear war. I had made a mission to test the effects of iNS drift and this option in the system. The Mission is attached below, if someone want to test it. If you look at the map picture in the mission editor, for Waypoint 01 (for the air start aircraft) I created two offset points: 1.2 at the runway intersection at Creech Airbase, and other, 1.1, at the hangar closer to the runway intersection. Now compare these points to the HRM map of the same region. You will see the Offset points in the radar map image way off to where they should be. And that's with 30 min INS drift setup in the mission editor. F-15SE-NEVADA - NO EGI Practice.miz F-15SE-NEVADA - NO EGI Practice.miz