Zenga

Hi Niclas, you got PM ... :smilewink:

That's a great pit! How did you make the black hood above/aft of the Fire Handles? That looks just as stolen from a real Hog... Keep up the work...and inspiring all of us!

Hi Deadman, I'm interested in the Gun Rdy/NWS engaged, the Marker/Canopy indicator and the 3 Gear Status indicator. I would take them complete with frames and lights and labels if possible. Most of the other indicator are mounted on the canopy frame which I don't plan to replicate. Hope some others want these too so you end up with a reasonable amount of labour :) As you know, time is not pressing on me since I'm not starting with my pit earlier than May this year...so I can wait some months

Hi Lumper, yes, it does. Thanks. Indeed, I completely forgot about the adjustability... So in that case minimum and maximum values would be helpful. I will not replicate a seat 100% like the original ACESII seaot though. But I want to have similar, if not the same dimensions as IRL to have similar ergonomics.

:thumbup: That's exactly what I'm looking for, too! Also, if someone has data at hand for the height of the seat bottom (where you put yor butt on), relative to the pit floor and/or stick mounting floor, that would be awesome. I'm starting to make something that, in respect of the efforts all the pit builders here, doesn't really earn the name "pit". It's more an "assembly" of the hardware I have bought until now which compromises the TM Warthog (soon to be nicely extended thx to metalnwood :thumbup: and lovely covered thx to Deadman :thumbup: ), TM MFDs and the Saitek Pro Rudder Pedals.

many thanks Deadman, appreciate your efforts Cheers, Zenga

just guessing: perhaps the question was whether you start making (and shipping) the covers right now for those people that have already paid (like MaceUK...and me:) ) or wait until all your ordered material will be sold and THEN making them all at once.

Metalnwood, you got PM :)

Thanks Grimes. I was under the impression the refuelling task was reserved for tanker aircraft, meaning actively refuelling other aircraft, not "to be refuelled" by a tanker. I'll also try the "RTB on bingo" option. I always asked myself what it really is for, since I thought setting this to false might force the aircraft to stay airborne until completely out of gas...(then crashing). At least when there is no tanker around I assume the aircraft will really crash. Very senseful option... :huh:

Hi folks, well, the subject says it all. Is there a way to get friendly AI refuelling at the tanker iso RTB (and not coming back...) ? I'm sure I once had two F-16s doing AAR in one of the default "Georgian Hammer" missions, but since then, all my friendly air assets RTB on bingo even if a tanker is closer than their airbase. Is there a way to "force" them doing AAR? Cheers, Zenga

Apart from the pure distance to the target, whether the Maverick locks onto the target also depends on the contrast that the target has relative to its background. So, for the IR seeker versions (AGM-65D and -G in DCS), a (recently) moving tank on a snow covered field provides great contrast. Obviously, that's not true for a truck that hasn't moved for several hours (so has a cold engine) and that has just been pulled on a hot asphalt road on a sunny afternoon in July... So don't be discouraged when your target is within the effective range but the Maverick still doesn't lock on when pressing TMS UP for the first time. Try some more presses. Normally, you should get a lock-on latest at around 5-6 NM from the target, at least that's what my experience tells me.

when I remember correctly (not 100% sure), the tanker once asked me to stay 1k below (and 1 mile behind) when his reply to my refuelling request was "chicks in trail"...he already had have two other clients he was about to refuel. As long as that is not the case, I think he gives his own altitude (without -1k).

payment sent! Cheers, Zenga

Thanks, gents. Yes, I also assume the system determines the active runway upon mission start and leave it like this for the rest of the mission, just wanted to know if anybody knows for sure. I'll try if I can get the wind in my previously mentioned mission to turn further until there will be a tailwind component on the originally determined active runway. Might take some 3 hours or so, but in the mission there is a lot do in the meantime :D However, I might not be able to test it the coming days since I'm about to leave good ole Europe for one week holiday in California tomorrow...I know there are better times to go there than January, but it shouldn't be my last time there... ;) Cheers, Zenga

That's what I meant with my earlier post. All VOR and NDB approaches today are practically flown by using the RNAV overlay stored in the FMS. So in fact the INS/GPS is the primary sensor in use although the prodedure title indicates this would be a ground based Navaid. Of course they have to crosscheck against raw data and one is not supposed to fly the procedure when the required ground based Navaid is U/S. Needless to say there are good reasons why they use the FMS overlay... just in case anybody feels I'm trying to say they should do better :smilewink: But I hesitate to say "fly an NDB approach by hammering in an NDB-substitute waypoint and steer towards it"...simply because I can't crosscheck with raw data. I just don't see the difference to a pure RNAV approach then - in our simulation, I have to add:)

Hi folks, getting a grip of the dynamic weather engine now, one question came to my mind: I returned from a 2h mission and noted the weather had changed a bit on my base since I departed. Upon takeoff, I had moderate winds from 092° with medium to light snow. Once I came back, the wind had turned to 024° and the snow was now light rain (after that mission I fell in love with the dynamic weather engine - it's soooooo great and by far exceeded my expectations)! Although the changed wind did not change the landing direction (runway 07 in both cases) in use, I wonder if ATC would have assigned runway 25 for landing should the wind have turned further. Or is the runway-in-use a one-time decision by the system upon mission start that does not change even though the weather might change drastically? A related question: Has anybody ever been cleared for an approach other than visual in a Single Player mission? I'm just starting to use the dynamic weather but I haven't had a situation where a visual approach was not possible due to low visibility. Just wondering if ATC would ever issue a TACAN or ILS approach in case the weather requires.. Thanks in advance! Cheers, Zenga

Hi Elnocho3, seems we got a very similar background...:)

Hi jp203000, I assume you're flying in Single-Player moder, right? Try "Engage with...", then specify the type of target (armor, artillery, utility,....), the weapon you would like your wingman to use and optionally, you can also specify the direction to run in from. Works very well... Note there is no need to actively broadcast your SPI ("SPI ON" note on TAD) before triggering the radio command. Once you have set a SPI with any of your controls and you ask your wingman to engage it, he get's the information about the location of your SPI automatically. Cheers, Zenga

Yeah, what really would be fun is if we could really shoot an NDB approach with its inaccurate and "jumping" needle... Replicating the NDB with a waypoint is basically nothing else than creating an "RNAV overlay" for the NDB approach. But the technique and accuracy in the guidance is of course the very same as for an RNAV approach itself. Flying raw-data ("chasing the needles") is of course more tricky and may provide more joy. But from an operational standpoint, I just want to have an instrument approach procedure that allows me to access any airport and any runway end in IMC (at least down to a reasonable minimum...).

@effte: Understood now, I just oversaw the post you reffered to. Thanks for enlightening me :) Since there are some issues still with the command bars on the ADI (which in fact act as a sort of repeaters for the ILS, but works fine in EGI-NAV-mode), I'm thinking of creating some RNAV approaches for some bases I usually operate from. Although there are none published IRL for any of the Georgian airports, it shouldn't be too difficult to calculate and design a simple straight in approach with vertical guidance. As you know, in the CDU you can define a vertical angle to be flown to a waypoint (WP subpage 2/2). So all we have to do is create a fix at the threshold position with an altitude of 50 ft above the threshold elevation (TCH) and with a 3° angle on it. For enhanced usuability I will also create a final approach fix at 5-10NM on the extended runway centerline with the corresponding (electronic) glide path interception altitude on it. This could especially be usefull for those bases/runways where you don't have an ILS approach available but still want to have some instrument approach "procedure" (it's actually not really a procedure but just two waypoints). For now, I have to determine all threshold coordinates and elevations for my major bases. I have all this data available from the Georgian AIP, but I doubt they match 100% with those in the simulation. I'll do some trials later and - if anyone is interested - can provide feedback to the community. Cheers, Zenga

What's the point? Of course I could do mission for nothing else but training ILS approaches in whatsoever weather. But what is so wrong to shoot an ILS approach in good weather after returning from a live mission to stay familiar with the procedure? Again, not to LEARN how to do it but to stay familiar with it. When one reads all the posts in this thread, it's clear we're talking about HOW to fly and enhance an ILS approach with the Hog, we're not talking about the WHEN... EDIT: Lane, I love your first pic! Looks exactly like an early morning approach to the place where I live (LSZH, Zürich, Switzerland)... I love the sight of diving into the fog layer in early morning. Cheers, Zenga

Sounds perfect, PM sent. Cheers, Zenga

Loz, true, I just want to point out that - in my opinion - it's not really a deficiency of the Hog not to have an HUD that supports ILS approaches as nearly all airliners and other planes doesn't have it either. So flying heads-down on final until or close to minimums is not unusual at all. And when I compare the Hog to an F-16 on final approach (solely based on my brief sim experience, though), the Hog is much more stable and easier to control at slow speed and we don't have those crazy high AoA on final as the sexy jets... I think the Hog is actually much closer to the small plane which you might have originally trained IFR approaches on than those fast movers. My 2 cents, Zenga

What really helps me in a poor visibility approach - in addition to the ILS bars on the ADI - is the steerpoint symbol in the HUD. Just make sure you're aligned with the runway centerline at a reasonable distance and maneuver the plane so that the TVV just overlays the steerpoint symbold located on the runway and keep it there. Using the pitch ladders in the HUD, you can see easily adjust your descend rate so the steeerpoint symbol and TVV are between the 0° and 5°DN ladders, ideally at 3° (standard angle for most ILS approaches). So even in the Hog the HUD can be helpful. However, just keep in mind 99.9% of all civil aircraft still flies ILS approaches without a HUD, so - in a bad weather approach - the pilot flying has to keep his head down until close to minimums anyway. (Ok, they also have autopilots for this...but hey, we're Hog drivers and not lazy airline captains :-). Cheers, Zenga

Jona33 and Megagoth1702, thank you two for your replies. I got the Patriot now working fine, just as desired! Turned out I had the radar unit placed in the opposite direction (the front of the trailer was looking towards the target area, but not the radar antenna itself which is mounted in the opposite direction on the back). I'm sure I saw the radar unit placed correctly in an earlier try, but perhaps I made something else wrong that time. At least I got them now...great to relief the fighter pilots a bit (and have them clearing the airspace for us mud-movers :smilewink: ) Thanks again for your help. Once again I have to say I really appreciate the friendly, speedy and most important helpful replies of this community! Thank you guys. Cheers, Zenga