bluepilot76

Roger that! Thanks for stopping by Wags. Good to see the ED team keeping an eye on The Wish List! hmmm, new maps for old theatres, or new maps for NEW theatres..I wonder..

Its a good idea, it would add a lot to the realism of the ATC. I wouldnt be sitting around waiting for a chopper though, those things are too slow and a shiny new A10 awaits at the base.

Your probably right about the updates to the TAD, I imagine the military are not so quick to update there TADS as for example civilian operators flying with certified Garmin databases. They ARE updated more regularly than the charts. It is simply impractical to make new editions of charts more frequently than say every 12 months. That only enforces my point that the airfields that are shown on the TAD exist prior to May 2011 or whenever the President (Re) opened that one. The ACTUAL reason why people still carry paper charts around is VERY simple. ...apart from it being a legal requirement to carry the chart....When all the electics go tits up, you still will be able to find out where you are, and get to where your going. Thats also why even the most modern aircraft has a good old fashioned compass.

Yes UK CAA aviation charts also show abandoned airfields, as long as they are still recognisable as such. East Anglia and the east coast of northern Scotland are littered with concrete runways left over from WWII. The UK CAA symbol for an abandoned airfield is a circle with an "x" inside. They make good navigation markers and many could be used in an emergency. I have landed at an abondoned airfield several times. You would hardly notice the difference, except the lack of landing fees. They would not show an airfield that does not exist yet because it would be unsafe to do so.

Yes Hender, I think you are right, it is obviously a tall order to expect the DCS world to match exactly the TAD map. I love the real life aviation maps in the TAD, I think they add a LOT to the realism of the cockpit, so I wouldnt want to swap an accurate but artificial map in any case. Just to add that even in 2003 (see google earth) the 2000m runay to the SW of the town was in exactly the same state as it is in the imagery I already posted (from 2007), to consider that this could possibly represent an airfield under construction is unrealistic. And to reiterate that they DO NOT put airfields on aviation charts untill they have opened. Saftey first! I wonder how old the maps are on the TAD in the sim...

making false quotes from my previous posts is not that cool.... and only mildly amusing... but I guess your the Moderator and ED Tester with 8000 posts and a million reps so you must be allowed to do that ...right?

You can say it as many last times as you like, wont make you right. The fact that an OLD airfield has been updated does not mean that there was no airfield there before. If you cannot see the difference between an old airfield and an airfield under contruction then I dont know what more to say, but I will try again... perhaps you could point out the bulldozers, piles of spoil, portakabins, roadways etc that usually occur as people start tearing up virgin countryside to make runways or roads? Could you also explain the ancient concrete runway with the helicopter pad markings near the middle? or the perimeter track that is all overgrown at the northern end..Maybe you are right maybe it was never used as an airport and they have been building it since 1939, just very VERY slowly! Dream on Viper!

errr no, I dont need to see grass fields, I only mentioned it as it appears fairly obvious to me and supports my theory that that airfield is actually very old. I dont NEED to see any extra airfields, I just think it would be better if the sim world matched the TAD map a bit more closely. I think you will find that it is much easier to update a TAD database than to carry an up to date map. Aviation charts are out of date from the moment they print them, and they dont print new ones every day, more like once a year. Navigation databases on aircraft seem to be updated monthly. beyond that of course the pilot has NOTAM information. Viper, the runway that has been foreshortened by the road IS the one to the SW of the town (that you keep claiming is brand new). That was the point of my posting the image; It can be seen to be an old runway.. And it is 2000 METRES not 2000 feet... I cannot view the runway to the N of the town because Google maps doesnt show that area in any detail, which is why I asked for the link to the mapping you showed a clip from.

Alright folks lets not start arguiing... just to set the record straight however, attached is an image of the airfield to the south west of Zugdidi. Now I dont know which one of Vipers no1 or no 2 this refers too, but it clearly has a runway that was originally 2000m long, later a road crossed the northern end of the runway leaving about 1600m that you could easily stick an A10 on to. BTW there is, to my eye, a probable runway (possibly only ever grass), that runs northeast-southwest as well. I would be interested to see the hi res image that covers the area north east of Zugdidi so I can look for other runway if Viper could kindly share the link to the appropriate mapping information?

Yes.... so the chart key says there is a runway there and they dont put airfields on charts unless they exist already, otherwise a pilot might fly there and expect to find one. Have a look at the GE image, it doesnt take "Time Team" to establish that it has been there for donkeys years! Anyway whatever, s'just an idea!

Yes probably,... the one on the map that I attatched a post or two back, if you look at the location in satelite mode of GE it is fairly obvious that it has been there for years, I wouldnt be surprised if it was originally WWII era. I should think that they are actually upgrading it to re-open in 2012. The fact that it is on the TAD map, which is clearly just a scan of RL aeronautical chart also indicates that it most definatley has existed as a airfield of sorts prior to 2012.

Actually Viper, are you sure that is the airfield that is shown on the TAD in the game? It doesnt look anything like an airfield to me, possibly a technical area, but Im sure those tracks arent the runway. When I zoomed into that area to the northeast of Zigdid with google maps the resolution was terrible. Have you got access to your own U2?

hmmm, I can see your point, however this is a wish list, so it is not my concern about whether there is more useful things for the developers to be doing. There are tens of things I would RATHER see in the simulator than gravel strips.. I think, at least in terms of aviation objects / facilities, the map should match the simulated world. Maybe the runway is too short, but thats how things are in RL. it would add to the immersion, just because you see a runway, should you land on it or try and get to a bigger one? as it currently is as long as you can see a runway you know you can land on it safely. In real life landing on roads is probably a bad idea, they nearly all have power lines along them, which is one of the most important things you should be looking to avoid whilst doing a forced landing. 500m of gravel strip followed by overrun at 30knots is also a lot better than landing in a field I would think. The airstrip to the south west of Zigdidi is more significant, I am sure a lot of the other missing ones might be as well. Anyway, yeah its not a big deal, I would much rather have various other things improved or fixed first.

YES!, I actually forgot I did this untill now, but I hit the print screen as I came in to la.....crash... See attached.. It was at Zugdidi. There was one to the north and one to the south west, they were only visible on certain levels of zoom . I am sure I have seen others as well.

Just quickly in reply to Ethereal, Lack of forum traffic> Yes I think your right, I hope so anyway Online Activity> Certainly there was many servers that I couldnt get in without a password, I think there may have been only one where a freelance pilot could enter. So not such a good experience. Joining Squad> I would love to, I just dont have the time to commit to a squadron unfortunately. I snatch my flights here and there. With an hour to fill I will probably end up in a Sopwith Camel shooting down newbies over a lake somewhere. I could use a offline campaign however, my work involves me being a way at sea 6 months of the year. The internet is too slow for online gaming but there is usually plenty of time for offline gaming. My final thoughts on the subject... I also used to play KA50, and tried to advance through campaigns there. I became bored when I realised that if I survived long enough, all the troops would fall silent. then I could fly around mopping up. It seemed that the campaign had run out of triggers or something. Like everyone had knocked off because it was 5 o clock. Not very warlike. I pretty much stopped flying the KA50 when I realised that was the depth of the campaign. (And because the trim kept locking up and causing me to pile into a hillside). In those days I never went to forums so rather than asking questions about what was wrong I just started flying something else instead (sopwith camels probably) Anyway I dont intend to stay on here whinging about why I cant have a dynamic campaign, it s not THAT important to me. ED have made a fine simulator, no doubt about that, its there baby and if they dont want to do a DC then thats up to them. Who knows, maybe the alternative WILL be better than a DC (although its DEFINATELY not at the moment IMO) I really hope they are right. PS. Ive seen this argument about the F4.0 DC being just a table or something, not actual events. Well sitting in the F16 at 25k and watching all these other related and unrelated flights passing towards and from the battle or some F5s pasting some MiGs, well I had no clue it was just a table somewhere, to me that sucker was REAL. If thats how they did it then good on them, sounds like they thought of a BRILLIANT solution.

I dont know, why dont you start up a thread to ask? This one is about dirt strips.

1) If my plane still has throttles, autopilots etc etc, I probably aint going to eject, but ride it home so I can get to the bar quicker. 2) Hey I love F16s! How can anybody not! Must have the best view and seating position of any fighter jet. Coolest jet plane around. Anybody get bored of theirs I will take it of their hands for free. Who wants to be circling around at 25k all day in there big fat F15E while the rear seater plays with GBUs on his TV screen. Can do that with B52, even B737 is goin that way soon. . Give me something with shorter legs, shorter wings, less bombs, The more refuelling, landing taking off the better! Whoops thread creep!

Set piece vs dynamic campaign Seems to me that the way the current ME is setup, it is probably quite good for constructing realistic campaigns, but only in the sense that GW1 and GW2 were played out, as a huge complex operation where we have everyone doing a specific role. I doubt your F18 SEAD flight pilot would be deviating much from his flight plan and specific mission objectives. So not so much of the random action. UNFORTUNATELY this is actually slightly boring. AND not actually what is happening on the battlefields of today, at least from what I have read on various books about Afganistan. In Afganistan, the situation is fluid, British AAC Apaches were (are?) working round the clock, over their hours, forming a strong bond with the guys on the ground as battles planned for several hours turned into several days. True battlefields exist out there. It seems to me that for this scenario we need something much more fluid than what we have in DCS, we need a randomiser campaign generator, similar to the one in F4.0. This would also be the case for an all out world war, the set pieces would rapidly fall apart, command and communications would be split, individual flights would battle it out with the enemy on a much more local scale. Other battles would be visible off in the distance, it would be chaos. It would certainly add some spice to things. I find it hard to get excited about getting in a cockpit to more or less rerun the same mission I have already flown many times. Once you have been shot down a couple of times you get to know where the SAMS are and then deal with them, its all a bit linear. There is a lot less activity on the Forum these days, I wonder if people are getting a bit bored? I dont believe they are all on multiplayer. I tried that recently and there was only a handful of people on there, most of which were just flying individual missions because noone seemed to be on teamspeak. If so it is very sad, undoubtably this is a fantastic simulator of an A10, but it is seriously lacking something. I want to feel a need to get the job done, to get the plane back, to fight another day, to attrite that column of tanks before they obliterate Osan and Mandumi! As it is Im not that bothered..

There are several airfields shown on the TAD, depending on scale, which do not exist within the simulated world. It would be good if these strips were modelled, even if they are just short strips of gravel, similar to the emergency strips that were in Falcon 4.0 I tried to divert to one earlier but of course there was nothing there and I ended up having to eject.

Yes this has been in the wish list before, where I expect this thread will be going shortly! I have been away from the community and when i saw the video on YT I thought it might have been implemented, dissapointed that its not. I want to be able to plan my mission in the bunker, walk out into a truck, get driven to the aircraft, do a walk around and then get in and fly it. After landing, get out and walk around, checking out the damage. Maybe get into another aircraft, or even into a KA50.

I saw a video on YT where the pilot walks up to the extended ladder of the A-10 as if he is going to get in that way. Has getting in and out been implemented now or would this just have been an ejected pilot walking about?

Hi nomdeplume!, Thanks for looking at it for me, Im glad it wasnt something I was doing wrong in the cockpit! I will be careful to avoid that option in the ME next time I try it!

OK .miz and track attached! hope it works! SAM SA 8 PRACTICE.miz DSMSerror.trk

The PMDG 737 is really well done. Part of the new breed of flight simulators...DCS series is one, RoF is the other.. I had to dust off my FSX installation when I saw this PMDG 737NGX had been released. I originally found FSX horribly buggy, and gave up on it very soon after buying it.. but thanks to some good advice over at AVSIM I have got it running fairly stable. Problem with FSX is its not really a £39.99 simulator. You could throw money at it forever and still not be satisfied...You need to buy the weather, the traffic, the scenery, the airports, the airplanes, the GPS, the graphics, the trees, the rivers, the roads, the night lights. It never ends! In the end I still find myself flying around going, hmm, well, what shall I do now? The key might be to fly online, but problem is its a really big world and you might be the only one in the sky. It is quite usefull practice for IR procedures I suppose.

Rgr that, should get them up around midnight UTC. BTW Im not bothered about "fixing" the missions, Im just getting used to the editor, I was more concerned that there was something in the cockpit that I was doing wrong / didnt know how to do..