Ventus_Clu

the island hasn't changed much since the 80's, I was there for 6 months in '14 and the majority of the infrastructure was built in the late 80's. Even the stuff that was built to be temporary, like the accommodation, is still there!

I really like the idea of a free "trainee" slot, I think there are alot of people put off of dcs by the complexity of dcs and feeling they have to learn it on their own, but they could be enticed into dcs if someone was there to guide them. Then they could purchase the combat varient and be fully capable to fly it.

The reason you don't find many docs on this is because IRL it takes in so many factors, the formulas mentioned above as you pointed out will give you 0 additional fuel, so on top of this ,IRL, you would work out how much fuel is required for an additional Instrument Landing Circuit (ILC), the fuel required to transit to the diversion airfield, and fuel to carry out 2x ILCs. This would be your so called "reserve fuel" or sometimes called FOG (fuel on ground) and it is expected you do not go into this fuel ever. If you do then IRL you'd declare an emergency for low fuel. If you knew from your previous calculations that you are likely to dip into this fuel, then you could declare a "fuel priority" to hopefully bump you up the queue, or an emergency if there was no way you could no dip into your FOG. But thats only if you play MP. Or roleplay.

This just means you get mm of mercury as your pressure settings (QNH or QFE) and nothing to do with what pressure setting the approaches are based from. We give hPA as standard but can give In.HG whenever requested (usually by the USAF) or, because were clever and think on our toes, we know thats what they will want and we give it to them in the first place. Same as if we get a civil aircraft (excluding GA) we will give them QNH instead of QFE (which we give as standard). This is just how we operate and civil airports in the UK operate very differently. But I guarantee controllers all over the world will have a good idea of what different aircraft they're controlling will require and adapt accordingly where procedures permit.

The British military almost exclusively use QFE/SAS for terminal control except for the transport fleet which the newer aircraft (C17, A400m and KC30) actually require QNH for the nav systems, even during circuit work. All charts for UK military aerodromes include heights and altitudes. So it hugely depends on where your flying as to what is used. Military and civil ATC operate with distinct differences in the UK and I assume the rest of the world. Edit: typo

I think the bigger issue with the F15C being made into a DCS module will be cost vs profit, as was said, A-10C and F-16C came from previous military contracts saving a lot of time and also money. F-18 was obviously seen as the first major modern "fighter" and so will also scoop a lot of money. However you then spend "full money" on developing an F-15C with all it's modern complexities, I highly doubt it'd turn much of a profit. Not everyone buys every module, and those who have F-18 and its multi-role capabilities and spamraam ability, how many would actually purchase an eagle? Maybe it will come in time, but only after sales of hornet have tanked imo.

Tbh, since the harrier could only carry 1 per pylon I started carrying G's only a while ago, bigger boom for no loss of pylon space.

yes, before you have been detected, otherwise you will give away your position and/or presence, additionally some weapons have "home on jam" feature which will zone in on your singnals.

As a guess I'd say all new modules for FC4, as the J-11A is free to all who have FC3.

Yeah you could do what's called an IAA (Internal Aids Approach) where basically you set a waypoint on the threshold, and conduct a typical TACAN approach then when you're on final you use the waypoint marker on the HUD to guide you in by flying it on a 3 Deg glidepath. It's still considered a "non-precision approach" but will do the job if you have nothing else.

yes, it's correct that the hornet doesn't contain an ILS (US Hornets at least, some other countries opted to have it installed in lieu of the USNs version of ILS). However the majority of fast jets that are ILS capable are still restricted to CAT I approaches only, even if the airfield is equipped with a CAT IIIB ILS. This means the aircraft can descend to 200ft above the threshold before requiring to be visual with specific references, and the runway visual range needs to be 500m. So even if the hornet did have an ILS installed and conditions were particularly bad it would have to divert anyway. Diversions are obviously continuously checked to ensure they are not suffering poor weather conditions and the pilot will be informed about how much fuel they must hold in reserve in the event a diversion is required (not just for weather, an aircraft incident on the runway making it unusable would also cause a diversion). I have known in the past some poor weather crossing the country changing a diversion to an airfield in another country causing the aircraft in question to go into a "mayday fuel state" because they didn't have the required amount of fuel so had to cancel the remainder of the sortie and land with over half the fuel remaining. although this is rare. The hornet will be capable of TACAN approaches but these are "non-precision approaches" and have a higher height/altitude that the pilot must acquire the visual references the minimum height for non-precision approaches is often 400ft above the threshold. Civilian airfields typically don't have TACAN however. I am unsure if hornet has the capability for VOR/DME or NDB approaches and less unsure if the pilots are trained/qualified to carry them out (RAF Pilots are not IIRC). PAR as mentioned, is another possibility, but has the same limitations on visibility as the CAT I ILS approach, AFAIK it's also the USN's preferred method of instrument recovery, and not available in DCS.

I believe it was mentioned by someone (I think wags) that because Steam users miss out on the discount, it will be discounted for the first week its available on steam... I can't find the comment however to verify.

After a bit of research into the MiG-21, it uses a mix of gyro sighting system and radar rangefinding, using simple maths you can get very accurate data on where the bomb will hit, if you add wind and drop from higher altitudes then you will find you will be further off target as there is no wind correction. I dare say, from what other devs have said, that ED's QA policy means that any systems modeled must be backed up by evidence by the 3rd party to ensure it is being simulated correctly. So the I am confident that the ARBS will be well modeled in the AV-8, and if the A-10 is anything to go by, then you will not always hit your intended target, as you won't right now provided you add wind. Without wind it is a very simple calculation, so quite simply, in the mission editor add a sensible amount of wind at the different levels and you will suddenly find your bombs going off target. In all aircraft, unless you are using precision guided munitions.

Personally, I believe the training should be in NTTR and a campaign in Caucasus. Immersion would be greatly improved if it were this way. But again just my opinion.

The input data will come from the INS/nav computer which isn't modeled in the EA version, but will in the final version, it works in the same way as the A-10. As for the MiG-21, AFAIK there is no CCIP mode, it used a gyro sight for dropping munitions, which is modeled.