Rongor

If it doesn't illuminate at all even while doing the test, it might be a bug. Depending on how a training mission is scripted, the flashing yellow instructor brackets might continue to light up in case you pressed a button "too early." There are training missions which are waiting for the event to happen only after the instruction text has come up, so cancelling a caution before might then prevent to trigger something the mission script is waiting for to continue the course.

Hey Ugra, in case you read this, please also include the radio navigation installations for 1980s Berlin: NDB: Lubars DLS 413.5 kHz N52.613899, E013.363600 Tegel West RW 392.0 kHz N52.545067, E013.151062 Tegel East GL 321.5 kHz N52.572316, E013.426114 * Helmholtz DBR 347.0 kHz N52.463688, E013.288902 Planter DIP 327.0 kHz Mahlow MW 309.0 kHz N52.344471, E013.387504 Schonefeld SL 299.0 kHz N52.392601, E013.570000 Gatow GW 370.5 kHz N52.469628, E013.138005 VOR: Tegel TGL 112.30 MHz N52.561512, E013.287567 Havel HVL 113.30 MHz N52.461115, E013.142778 Tempelhof TOF 114.10 MHz N52.473120, E013.405401 TACAN: Tegel * N52.461115, E013.142778 * Tempelhof TOF * N52.473120, E013.405401 * * - Tegel East NDB coordinates is wrong by showing the 1990s location. This NDB had been located just within West-Berlin close to the border in the extended TXL rwy 26 approach centerline until the cold war ended. I yet have to find its precise former location - I do have published approximate coordinates for Planter NDB though I still have to investigate its exact location as I did for all the others (literally pinpointing locations), will update when I achieved satisfying precision. - I am 99% TOF VOR had a co-located TACAN and 30% certain TGL VOR did as well. I'm still investigating for original maps featuring these 2 VORTACs. last update 06.02.2025

Schau an, jetzt wird mir auch klar warum Du mir dauernd die A-10C Bugreports abnimmst, wenn Du die ohnehin dauernd fliegst. Braucht ihr bei Gelegenheit Hilfe in Südossetien? Bin momentan stabil proficient...

Airspace was strictly handled according to the Four Power Agreements, under permanent control of a joint center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Air_Safety_Centre All allied flights had to follow the 3 defined traffic corridors between Berlin and Western Germany. No NATO aviation here, keep in mind this was based on an agreement between the 4 victors of WW2, not between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. While any failed deconfliction would likely have ended with a Pact/NATO standoff, it was a purely quadripartite issue. East Germany had introduced hgh pressure sodium-vapor-lamps to save electrical power consumption.

Not sure about this. When you look closely at all the other screenshots of the Berlin scenery, you will notice that there are sandbag barricades everywhere, so Ugra seems to create a city which is already prepared for or already in ongoing conflict. I highly doubt the border zone would've remained lit in this case. It would certainly look good and create an eerie resemblance of how these places looked back then.

Beyond transport flights there wasn't much going on with mil fix wings. We had 3 airfields operating in West Berlin: Tegel (TXL-EDDT) was obviously best known for being the civilian airport of West Berlin. Being located in the French sector, French military made some use of it, though nothing noteworthy. The military apron later was handed over to the Bundeswehr for use of the Flugbereitschaft of the DoD (government/state flights) Gatow (GWW-EDBG) was located in the British sector and 100% operated by the RAF. Tempelhof (THF-EDDI) in the American sector was operated by the U.S. military, yet allowing regional civilian flights most of the time. Naturally, U.S. activities were much more noticeable. In the British and French sector (I lived in the French sector until 1985) you could see the occasional patrol of an Alouette (F) or Gazelle (UK). In the American sector, the situation was remarkably different (had moved into the American sector in 1985). I remember vividly how it felt like there was almost always a U.S. Huey not too far away. The Americans certainly did several patrols a day with Hueys sometimes, a stark difference to what I was used to when being in the British or French sectors, where you didn't notice that much military presence at all. I can still remember almost daily battle sounds coming from the Grunewald training ranges, sometimes even tanks did some practicing. Good old times...

of course it's TMS yeah, looking good now. I guess its the same for the A-10C II. I do fly it as well, though currently I am doing some campaigns which only run on the non-II version so I couldn't test. There's some oddity still with the BULL/CURS option. If you select this one, the TAD will conveniently show the bulls bearing/range of the cursor, still the HUD symbology won't show the Bullseye (nor the cursor) as hook. In fact you can then still hook and unhook any TAD symbol as usual, which will affect the HUD symbology as usual. Only this won't be reflected on the TAD. So the TAD will neither show you which TAD symbol is currently hooked (or if there's no hook) and continue (as expected) to display the bulls/cursor bearing and range. In the other hand, the BULL/CURS option only shows bearing/range after any symbol has been hooked. Its unclear to me if 1. the ability to still "secretly" hook any TAD symbol to have the HUD hookship symbol guide you is realistic in this state, 2. this shouldn't happen (and is in fact a bug) or 3. if it should be hooked on the bulls or cursor instead by default, placing the HUD hooksymbol on one of these 2 as well...

Much better. Lending your suggestions, how about this: Of course this version is longer, Though I think it could be worth it, as it pretty much contains everything especially a new player might need to understand the whole concept at once.

The problem with this thread you created here is that you put up a wrong claim as basis. If you would actually go by the FAQ, there would be no room for any of your assumptions and "concern". Not only do you incorrectly point to the FAQ for your claim, the FAQ actually outright states that the module will not be based on guesswork. Your made up 85% are entirely fiction. Triggering unnecessary concerns by commenting on made up stuff is the only thing concerning here. It's the main reason there are so many others

The houses seem to be gone in this build which provided the background for Wags' AMA YT video thumbnail. Of course the forested area should rather be a park

Exactly. You are focusing on a situation in which the current SPI has been designated by a hooked TAD object already. Which the manual also seems to expect: It's actually claiming "Hook Mode (TAG: OWN, BULL, or CURS), rotary OSB 18. This OSB function is only displayed when you have hooked a TAD symbol with the cursor", which is worded problematically, as you really don't have to have a hooked TAD symbol for the Hook mode to display on OSB18, you only need to move the TAD cursor over any TAD object, regardless hooked or not. SPI'ing is neither a requirement for hooking nor is the manual addressing the SPI status at this point. The problem isn't the manual mentioning how the SPI will move from one hooked object to the next if it has been designated on an initial hooked object. The issue is the manual providing this info at a point where the reader expects to learn what happens when an object gets hooked. The optional prior SPI'ing is left out in this explanation, while actually being a precondition for the claim the manual is making. So either the "SPI is moved over the hooked object" should be dropped from the text entirely, or it should be added further down as an optional use case for when the pilot has designated the current SPI by any hooked object. Designating a SPI by the TAD isn't required to hook anything. Only precondition for hooking is setting TAD as SOI. The manual doesn't mention this requirement. Instead it claims hooking would place the SPI over the hooked object. Which is not the case. So it shouldn't be mentioned this way in the first introductory paragraph as if it was.

I think this thread entirely runs on subjective feelings and has nothing to do with anything factual around what ED is doing. ED and its 3rd party devs are creating modules for DCS, depending on the access of documentation. Nothing has changed. Just carry on and enjoy DCS.

Not on my end. Even with TAD as SOI, hooking any object won't make it SPI. The reason for this is hooking being performed by DMS up short. Only DMS up long would set the SPI at that currently hooked object. The green part is correct though.

page 308 claims the SPI would be placed on a hooked symbol This is not the case and it would annoyingly affect a current SPI if it was.

These videos are regularly mixing any DCS assets and are not intended to focus on modules supporting only a specific timeframe. Since map modules are separate from aircraft modules, its really up to the players and server hosts to decide what to mix and what not.

These houses shouldn't be there at all, not even in the 70s. I think after WW2 rubble had been removed, no houses have ever been there. Btw (common misconception), Alexanderplatz is on the other (east) side of the railroad, the area north of the Rotes Rathaus which includes the TV-tower is west of the railroad and not the Alexanderplatz.

unfortunately not yet, hard to narrow it down Judging by this still image from the video, we can expect an 80s version. This Terminal at then Berlin-Schönefeld airport (east German) had been opened in 1976 I think, so the possible time frame is from 1976 to 1989

All good fellow pilot, as a Berliner, I'm happy to help. Imagine my excitement about this map coming, great times!

Doesn't matter as I've lived in Berlin during Cold War times already and the width of these roads didn't change. The segment shown between Siegessäule and Brandenburger Tor has been this wide since before WW2 as it had been part of the Ost-West-Achse in the infamous Germania layout. You will find cold war pics showing the same width, I only chose recent pics because they are much easier to find.

These civilian airliners seem to represent Lufthansa colors. This would be historically inaccurate, as Lufthansa and any German airline wasn't allowed to service West-Berlin during the cold war. Only in October 1990 after reunification Lufthansa could commence to fly to West-Berlin, yet flew to Tegel, not Tempelhof.

I know we probably shouldn't expect the level of accuracy but the roads in these 2 pics actually aren't so narrow. In real life these are really grand boulevards with up to 4 lanes per direction and 6 around the Siegessäule roundabout.

The SA-8 is locking me while passing waypoint 3 already. Wags then says we will continue to the NE. The SA-8 maintains this lock. Upon reaching waypoint 4, Wags suggests to turn west. This would turn us directly towards the SA-8, which at this point even when you turn south instead will launch on you. I find this mission narrative pretty problematic because your wingman - who supposedly introduces you to the mission area - seems totally unimpressed by the SA-8 and completely ignores the present threat. Any player will end up confused, wondering why the wingman is providing familiarization instructions but completely ignoring the air defense threat on the RWR. The only way to avoid the SA-8 attack is to outright disregard the instructor's orders, which also regularly could mean ending up with a failed mission. This is bad mission design in my opinion. The necessity of repeating this mission could be totally avoidable.

It seems there are several options. Myself I didn't have the patience to orbit WP3 all the time. So I gradually went closer to WP4 again with each orbit. There is indeed some loitering time while the helos are inbound. Sometimes I received further tasking which I didn't get in other playthroughs. In one occasion I was supposed to kill inbound enemy helicopters to prevent them from killing the paratroopers our own helos had disembarked before. In another attempt they called me to RTB while the enemy helos were coming. After landing the enemy helos seem to have killed the paratroopers and the mission was announced failed (although I simply strictly followed orders), I still scored 100% in the mission debrief though, so I didn't care much.

After finishing the Basic and Advanced Campaigns, which I enjoyed pretty much, I am now 5 missions into the TTQ. Unfortunately the TTQ is not on the same level as the other two. 1. The voice acting in the TTQ feels awkwardly weird. For some unknown reason this campaign's instructor is yelling all the time. He can't sound neutral. He is either hostile or overly enthusiastic, never "normal". The loudness of his voice would be appropriate when he'd try to shout from a neighboring trench while us being under heavy artillery fire. His voice would fit a long retired guy who has for some weird reason been recalled into active duty and is now trying to overachieve vocally so we younger guys agree he is still up to the game, while constantly approaching his next heart attack. Why would one shout on radio to convey simple regular messages like SATTLED! and STRIPPED! (his voice almost flips over with the last one)? This is distracting, annoying and feels totally unnecessary. BTQ and ATQ were much better, they felt just normal, calm, precise, disciplined. This here isn't and it hurts the immersion. 2. There is plenty of mission documentation available, which should be a good thing. Only its often inaccurate, presenting wrong frequencies and callsigns and many times overloaded, drowning the important information in walls of text and tons of data you won't really be interested in. I can imagine this might aim to mimic real world briefs, only in real world briefs, you would - still highlight the important factors for your flight and - very likely not present the wall of text format. The mission cards apparently try to remedy this, yet even in these frequencies and callsigns are wrong in some occasions (seems this has been reported already) I am in the 5th mission and none of the briefing material has actually been briefing me about the upcoming flight. Maybe the aim is to throw me into unforeseeable situations, to practice handling ad hoc situations. Still at least this is something a mission brief would explain to me. In the first missions I had no idea in advance what my IP would be that the IP will be available on WP51 in the CDU which other units I will get in contact with Necessary frequencies weren't preprogrammed as presets in the radio. I had to pause the flight, go into the mission briefing, look across the wall of text to find the callsign my instructor told me to contact, then translate the TAD number in the frequency list, then adjust the radios. The whole idea of returning to the IP after each mission and receiving the next tasking there had never been explained. The ingame mission briefing did contain the chart of the Vaziani training range, though the map is just overloaded with all the IPs there are (while needing only a very single one per mission). A familiarization flight would have helped btw. The training area has questionably close limits to the IPs, so any orbiting at banks less than 45° will have you violate the MOA and end the mission with a hostile instructor. 3. Sorry but the mission design has serious issues this time, unlike its 2 predecessors. There are cases in which the targets called in by the JTACs are that close to your IP, that its virtually impossible to spot them with the TGP because your optics' field of view is just too narrow already. Together with the problems arising from the lack of real mission brief, it often feels like the campaign intends to present a challenge (which is good) by generating such unfair situations (which is bad). In the 4th mission (SEAD), you don't even arrive at the IP before the SA-3 is already tracking you. Your instructor will tell you to hit the deck (while still flying at 8000 ft) seconds before the SA-3 launches its first missile on you. Its impossible to anticipate when starting this mission for the first time. So its kind of necessary to experience these failure moments to then focus on getting low and scouting the target with your TGP in advance in following attempts to fly this mission, before your RWR and eventually your instructor will alert you. The loadout had 2 mavericks. You put one on a Shilka in the first task, a second task demands one on a moving convoy consisting of a ZU-23 truck and an SA-9, so naturally I aimed my 2nd Maverick on the SA-9. Only this one didn't track and missed. Since I had no guided weapons left, I could abort the mission at this point. When I finally ended the 4th mission "successfully" (no complaints by my instructor during flight), I was given an Unqualified for not killing all targets. Which targets I allegedly missed will stay secret with my instructor forever. I only know the FACs didn't have any further taskings for me. I just aborted the 5th mission in frustration. After 2 successfull JDAM drops, I was told to egress. While peacefully heading out, my instructor suddenly says that the mission will only count as success when an After action report supports it. No idea what he would want from me now. He already confirmed I killed the targets when we were departing the target points on his order. Should I scope these locations again with my TGP? Who knows, its not explained anywhere. Following the flightplan lead me to the fence out waypoint. Shortly therafter my instructor yelled at me I would have exited the MOA without authorization. Ok. Well I am kind of done of being kept in the dark. The rapid chain of JTAC/FAC tasking is good practice and fun. Yet the whole mission around it isn't. It feels carelessly assembled, not saying it has been, but in its current state its just not solid anymore. I'd really recommend this whole campaign would be reviewed completely. The amount and level of issues seems beyond what some quick corrections here and there could fix. The previous two campaigns did a brilliant job to enforce practicing and relearning stuff. In contrast and unfortunately though, this TTQ campaign (in its current state) is far from this level.