DaveRindner

NTTR ATC needs to be clear in runway guidance LEFT or RIGHT. Its a little confusing as which runway is active, and its not always one that lit. "Taxi to parking" ATC message needs to include parking space . I understand there is a basic rule, assuming recovery field is same as departure, that same parking space is used. But when recovering to another airfield, "Taxi to parking" is too vague. Also when will Caucasus map be back into 2.0.0. I realize that many are tired of it, and NTTR is great. But we should have choice of terrains. Be cool if Crimea is back into DCS. Caucasus and Crimea do form a contiguous theater.

No. But the turbine overtemp and fire shooting out of exaust is really a chronic problem. I have 1.5.2 and 2.0.0 side by side instalations. Startup in 1.5.2 is fine, no problems. Throttle at start position, starter sequence no longer then 40 seconds, and no higher then 40%. In 2.0.0 it catches on fire around 20%, and even if shut down, the fire never stops.

I know but it still looks kick-butt. Carrier operations in DCS don't have that oily, wet ,and soggy look, that is shown in Naval Aviation documentaries. Also there is no 'clutter' or business on decks of Kuznetzon and Nimits class CVN in DCS.

I had a office colleague who was engine (American variant of Pegasus), and hydralics Harrier II maintainer , as E-5 SGT in USMC. He told me about limitation of VTOL takeoff and landing. Water vapor injection into fuel mixture or into combustion chamber, cools the mixture, which allows more of it to be packed, hence more power. Inverse is hot gas ingestion during vertical landings, where hot exaust gas is ingested into intakes, which reduces power. Harrier's version of vortex ring (but based on different phenomena). Harrier carries water bottles with limited amount. So it cannot hover for long time. However I am not certain on time limitation. 90 seconds seems like a lot, while 30 seems like low. I am sure there is a manual on web somewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Harrier_II#/media/File:Harrier_Pilot_Prepares_for_Takeoff_MOD_45151641.jpg Please tell me that thats what the GUI of the sim will look like. I'll buy that for a dollar.

Thats fantastic! I am an American so naturally I would have preffered USMC AV-8B. But RAF and RN have retired the HarrierII, while USMC will keep it until F-35B is procured in sufficent numbers. Can't wait for viffing, and vertical landings. I am hoping for 30 second water bottle rule enforcement, and hot gas ingestion to be modeled. I am curious if the radar, compatible with AIM-120C, will be modeled. Any chance on amphibious assault ships or RN VTOL carriers? Now I am interested in what the differences between GR9 and AV-8B. Wikipedia here I come.

Well there is F117 in DCS already. It does not show on radar or EO of SU-27, and MIG-29 unless close in. MIG-21bis Saphire radar does not see it at all, neither do R-60/M lock on to it , except point blank from rear hemisphere.

I am former US Army, so I am fairly certain that F117 (though a USAF system) is mostly classified. However if F117 sim is really desired with a realistic flight model. Just look at how USAF trained F117 crew. Using A-7 (USANG variant). In F117 book, F117 test crew and early operational crews stated that F117 FBW software and law model was so good and stable that F117 flew and felt like A-7. So a good tradeoff for F117 sim is an accurate external model of F-117, plenty of public domain photos, with flight model that of A-7 which is unclassified at this point and well known. The flight instruments , landing gear, and HOTAS, are from F-15C. Except that stick may be from F-18C. I imagine that without stores, and landing fuel amount, the gross weight of F117 is similar to landing gross weight of F-15C. One flight system that is definatly classified is stealth pitot and air data computer. Those are specific to stealth aircraft, and are most certainly classified. Since any realistic flight model and instrument system in a sim has to realistically model pitot and air data computation, there would need to be a compromise. However back to A-7, as long as A-7 systems are accurately modeled, average user should be more then satisfied. Communication, RWR, and target designation, for F117, are likely to be still classified. Becouse those systems were evolved into modern deployed systems on F-22, F-35, B-2, and other platforms. Distributed aperture systems for radar, rwr, and optical , likely trace their development to F117 and before that to those weird things in 1970's around Groom Lake. So all in all. If we get a realistic A-7 sim with F117 external eye candy, that would be 'good enough' IMO.

Well now that we Nevada with Groom Lake, sadly without Papoose Lake S4 concealed runways, U2/TR-1 Dragon Lady would be a challenge. Since at altitude its stall speed and Vne is 10 knots apart. If that is still too classiffied. Need F-16C Block50/52, MIG-29SMT/K with EFM and systems, UH-72 Lakota, SEPECAT Jaguar, AV-8B HarrierII Something from China, JH-7A perhaps. With respect , F117 is still classified too sim for civilian market. Aside from F-15C landing gear, and GBU-12 PavewaysII, everything else is classified, and if available open source, likely to be incorrect. If considering new terrain; Point Mugu NAS (for anti-ship training) North Pacific (Alaska, Aleutian, and Bering Strait) Baltic Sea

The turbine never get off zero. But thanks anyway.

WHen running a manual start up. The engine turbine fails to start or starts but on fire. I guess OVERTEMP. Same start up routine in 1.5.2 of DCS starts fine. There is a change in how Huey turbine reacts in 2.0.0.

I go through same start up procedure as in 1.5. But the turbine never ignites. The starter generator just keeps humming until battery is drained.

Aww qwapp! I sware I recall that it was 1.5 and 2 compatible. Is all good. Nighttime is better in 2.0.

I got Nevada map. Installed fine in 2.0, but 1.5 does not see it.

Viggen would be nice.But! I don't know if there is or not a serious attempt to module Viggen. If it is I welcome it, and would likely purchase it. But if its not, and its just exploratory I think there are better, more important' late Cold War aircraft to module. First generation export version (less classified) of Grippen would be more interesting. Yugoslavian Soko J-22, or SEPECAT Jaguar. LM A-4R Skyhawk would be really COOL. Skyhawk but with avionics of F-16C Block 30 , except radar, is another fantastic potential module. Chinese PLAAF/PLAAN Xian JH-7 would be an interesting departure from status quo. One aircraft we must absolutely have for DCS is LM F-16C Block50

Took me some time also. Here is what works for me. -Fuel below 1K. 700 if bringing back stores. -Align with runway at 10km from threshhold, at 500 meters above ground, at 400kph IAS. Thats a Go-NoGo decision point. If you pass through an imaginary point 10km away from runway, 500 meters AGL , and at 400kph IAS, you are good to go. If not, correct, or go around. -Cockpit picture of runway threshhold just above nose. -Gradually slow aircraft down from 400 to 300kph , while keeping to the above cockpit picture. Carefully watch descent rate on variometer. -Speed at runway threshhold of 300kph. -Gently touch down at 290kph, with 1m/s descent rate. -Pop the drag chute, and apply wheel breaks. -Turn off front gear break (handle down) , release chute,and taxi aircraft to parking. Approach IAS speeds of less then 290kph require higher angle of attack , which blocks runway visibility.

After the latest 1.5.1 update, odd problem crept in. SU-27, Mig-29C, and F-15C work but not work anymore. Weird as it sounds heres whats happening. Lets say a mission is F-15C ,MIG-29S, or SU-27 as player aircraft. Mission loads and starts. Joystick axis do control aircraft, but nothing else works. Keyboard commands do not work, keyboard is nonresponsive. Even ESC key is nonfunctional. Sim has to be ended through Task Manager. Other modules appear to work fine.

Looks like the dispencers are under the wing. I recall in 1.2.5 they were aft of the trailing edge.

Has it been noticed that chaff/flare CMS dispensers have been moved forward to under the wing. SOme time back, they were placed aft of wing trailing edge. I believe that cartridges are ejected upward. Which would make them collide with wing.

Yep. USAF constantly rebuilds the airframes , via Boeing. AMARC has so many retired B-52 airframes, they can keep B-52 flying for centuries. Today USAF uses B-52 as cruise missile and JDAM, JASSM truck. The aircraft is very fast and can haul vast amounts of munitions. I'd bet that B-52H will be the launch platform for Prompt Global Strike hypersonic cruise missile, the air launched version of it. Boeing and Northrop modified wing hardpoints tp carry dozens of Harpoon and SLAM missiles for naval anti-surface mission.

OK thank you. Crosswind landing in MIG-21bis, in DCS is still a bitch and a half. SU-25T is easiest to fly and land in DCS; MIG-21 is hardest A-10C is easy F-15 is more difficult to land then A-10C but nowhere near as hard as MIG-21 Both KA-50 and UH-1H as relatively straighforward to learn and fly in DCS. Provided noone is shooting at you.

Thats not a could, it has already happened in USAF , RuAF. USAF - three gens of USAF officers from same family flying B-52 and KC-135, and T-38 RuAF - Three gens flying L-39, TU-95/142

OK here is my understanding SFM->EFM->AFM->PFM Stnd Systems Modeling -> Advanced Systems Modeling.

Yikes. 50 years of operating MIG-21bis. Still on active duty. Talk about sqeazing every second of service life. Here I tought that 50+ years of USAF operating B-52H, KC-135, and U-2/TR-1 was pushing flight hours. One of those 'duh' moments is when it is realized that service life has climbed with cost of procurement, and cost of development of new systems. F-16, F15, F-18,Typhoon, Mirage, Raphale, MIG-29, and SU-27 are all expected to have 40-50 year service lives.

EFM is nice. PFM+ASM is much nicer. OK that said. I am having landing issues with large crosswinds. Smoke stack smoke 60 degrees from vertical as guide of m/s cross. The aircraft literally flies sideways, with full rudder deflection. The visibility of runway threshhold is seriously compromised. If this is real , OK, don't change it. Then Fishbed is really tough to land in high cross. In my case, full rudder deflection with bank into cross, to keep velocity vector aligned with runway. The aircraft is still pushed sideways. More then once, though I did not crash and burn, I bent up the leading main gear. Hard to get the timing of rudder just right, due to visibility issues of a screen.