wernst

Under OBJECTIVE of mission #2 (amongst a lot of emotional scenic blah-blah) there is only one short indication to the challenge: “…over VLADIKAVKLAZ you’ll decent to the nap of the earth get lost from radars” I’m sorry but this task doesn’t make sense. Nap-of-the-earth (NOE) is very low-altitude flight course used to keep below enemy radar coverage. It means, flying in the “Radar Shadow”, below the radar line of sight, the “Radar Horizon”. This “Ground hugging” has to be performed in a more or less plain terrain. Another very efficient way keeping below enemy radar coverage is exploiting geographical features e.g. valleys. Flying in a deep valley ensures per se that the bird flies in the Radar Shadow, extreme NOE flying isn’t needed here. Another bothering issue is that the “mission failed” message is explained as simple as “deviation from course”. What does it mean? Deviation from course line shown on the kneeboard map? How much navigational degree of freedom do I have when flying through a narrow valley? I’m sorry, this mission #2 doesn’t have a logic design, it challenges flying skills of unknown background. And it doesn’t tell you, why and how you have failed the mission task which is essential to avoid these mistakes in the next attempt. No learning curve means not to make any progress in this campaign.

If you have successfully managed to pass WP 3 the next “mission failed” message will appear. After passing VLADIKAVKAZ you’ll start flying “tin can high” along the river and later in middle of the valley. But regardless how you do it you shouldn’t be surprised that, again, a “mission failed” message pops up: “deviation from route”. I don’t know which kind of challenge is meant here but it’s not related to flying skills. I truly don’t know what goes wrong here. Flying not low enough? Flying off the route line given from the kneeboard map? How do I fly the bird safely in a narrow valley? I'm sorry but it's a bad design of the campaign. It is basically meant to challenge flying skills, is it? But it seems to comply with bureaucratic flying rules of unknown background. In real life (in the past) each mission which had been given to me, had a dedicated task. (I was German Jet pilot: T-33A “Fürsty”, F-86 and some hours F-104G) Each Air Force mission was defined well with detailed information how you might encounter problems and how to fail to comply with the mission task. Flying low is a challenging task by it's own, I know what I'm talking about. Which else flying skill does this mission require here? In real life flying: If the task is unknown or hasn't been given in detail it’s not a mission but a trip to hell.

You are right, Art-J, I tried the following test: Overflying WP1 with take off heading but not immediately turning according to course line shown on the kneeboard map until the ATC confirmation pops up. Done. Conclusion: The trigger zone doesn't fit well to the kneeboard map waypoint and course line.

Thanks, Shahdoh, for your inspiring instruction. So far there wasn’t any helpful solution in the first thread. Overflying WP1 with the aid of the kneeboard map plus position marker will give a “mission failed” message at WP 3. If something is wrong with the trigger zone of WP 1 why "mission failed" message only at WP 3? This issue is still unsolved, as well in the first as here in the second thread.

yes, THIS here is the dedicated forum.

same here. Always "mission failed" at WP 3. Dzen (DCS) in the thread above says it is because not passing/missing WP 1. I definitively passed WP 1 because I can see the outer marker antenna building from the air. In the above thread I have posted an image of this antenna buliding. Why does the "deviation from route - mission failed" message appears on WP 3 and not WP 1 ?

Now I know what went wrong with my missing ATC take-off clearance. I stopped about 20 m before the entrance of the runway, at the so called "runway holding point 27". (Which has not been simulated here) I was used to it as I have to do it in real flying, it's a must. Recently I have seen a video of #2 "Airferry" where the pilot did not stop before the runway. He continued taxiing, turned and entered the runway and stopped there. Immediately he got ATC take off clearance. This is not real world flying. In real flying world you are never allowed to enter the runway without ATC permission. Strict rule. You must hold at the runway holding which is a mark of two yellow lines and two dotted lines. Depending on the ATC clearance you get you may either advance on the runway and stop there or you may get a take off clearance directly from the holding point.

It seems to me that there is some magic bitch riding my Mustang. The time between I get to the RWY holding point and the “F10” prompt appears, changes from time to time, but it's never within 45 sec. How close do you stop to the RWY? This wouldn’t be an issue if not the coolant temp rises over limit while I have to wait that long. The coolant temp issue has already been reported to the support. Meanwhile I have flown the #2 Campaign created separately in the Mission Editor, with all environmental conditions (wind, time, season, outside temp) set exactly as listed in the Campaign description. Und this condition I had no coolant overheat issues, even long waiting at the RWY.

copied, in this compaign I may not request take-off clearance from "stock ATC". But during waiting long at the RWY holding point for take-off clearance from Campaign ATC my Mustang COOLANT TEMP rises over the 150 deg red line limit. When getting cleared the engine dies soon after take off. I have posted this issue already here under "P-51D High Stakes Campaign"

you may not miss outer marker (WP 2) you'll see it from the air [ATTACH]139490[/ATTACH]

going left to RWY 27 in order to have enough space for take-off. I have never heard that one has to taxi into the wind in order to keep the coolant TEMP low. What if no wind is blowing? As said before: I passed challenge 1 where I did the start-up as I did exactly many times before.

Challenge 2: "Airferry" Start-up procedure as done more than hundred times before - and exactly as done in challenge 1 Carb air to RAM AIR Coolant and oil switches to AUTOMATIC (also tried switching several times from CLOSE to OPEN) During taxiing coolant TEMP rapidly reaches red line (over 150) before getting to the RWY. Coolant Temp overheat appears even before the engine Temp reaches 60 deg. Sometimes the engine dies at the RWY holding point, sometimes right after takeoff. Taxiing always with less throttle keeping engine at low RPM. I already passed challenge 1 of this campaign where I did the start-up procedures as usual - no overheat issues. Hwo can I proceed with the campaign when I'm stuck on the ground ?

Yes, maps are important. I'd like to have the maps printed out in advance keeping them in the hands while flying. I'm used to it in real flying having paper maps on my real kneeboard. As well as the briefing docs. Where (in which folder) can I find those kneeboard maps and briefing text .doc files for each challenge? Would truly be helpful for good flight prep.

1. ATC start-up clearance before engine running: o.k. (though I didn't change any condition than before, it's a miracle) 2. checklist items which have to be covered: o.k. (truly helpful) 3. last question: What is meant by "pitot heat test" ? I can switch pitot heating ON and OFF. But how can I test functionality?

Meanwhile I found: If calling ATC for start-up clearance BEFORE engines are running ATC won't answer. If calling ATC just after engines have cranked up fully ATC will give clearance to start-up (which seems to be non logic) The check list requires an ATC call for start-up BEFORE engine start (as the name implies) Another question: The checklist is quite extensive. How do I know which steps of this list have to be done (are must) in order to pass the test? e.g. "clock = SET", is this a MUST?

I have purchased and successfully installed the new A-10C BFT on DCS 1.5 beta. Where can I find the documentation package (checklists, maps etc)? Before start up one has to call ATC for start-up clearance. This doesn't work in BATUMI before or after engine running.

Yes, Mike, you got it!! The 3-way HOTAS mic switch was the reason. The down position was bound to UHF not VHF AM as needed for ATC. Stupid error. I didn't notice the "UHF" on top of the COM menu. Thanks for thinking along. :thumbup:

sorry, my remark "Why would you . . . " was meant as pure irony. An huge AFB as such must be open with landing lights on during all night. Most of the middle sized fields in the USA (as far as I, German) know, which are not operating during night, will switch on landing lights when pressing MIC button with radio set to TWR FREQ. Is it?

Yes, I know, ILS CAT IIIC with dec0/vis0 is not implemented anywhere. What I wanted to say is that I FELT like performing a fully blind landing without any aid of landing light - and without any special licensed AP. I got an answer from DCS regarding this issue: I would have to contact NELLIS ATC for landing in order to switch landing lights on - which I did. I called Radio, F5, F1, F1 "inbound" but neither response nor light. Did I miss anything?

yes, that's what I found a minute ago. With mission editor set "taking off from RWY" at NELLIS at night you'll find both RWYs illuminated pretty well. 21L has the special landing light system for ILS precision approaches. Everything o.k. - unless you want to arrive NELLIS from another airbase at night. But why would you . . .? It is a bug, no problem if I know it's one. I almost got crazy when I flew ILS from CREECH to NELLIS at night with heavy snow and clouds. I could see the RWY only when the steering wheel landing light illuminated the ground. Most the times the ground was not the RWY . . . Even ILS CAT IIIC landings are only possible with special landing light systems.

Thanks blackeye, yes, that's how it looks when snow and moving clouds are blocking your vis. Dramatic. Meanwhile I learned that neither weather settings nor ILS issues are spoiling my fun. I have done what I should have done earlier: I did an ILS APCH into RW 21L at day light with clear sky. I found that the ILS works more or less o.k., still with some unexpected jumps of the bank steering bar (while HSI remains stable) But one could manage a safe ILS APCH to the RWY. So far so good. And I did an ILS APCH into RW 21L at night with clear sky. I learned why I couldn’t see any landing lights at RWY 21L: There aren’t any - initially. The AFB is simply dark, some vague blue taxi lights are visible. Of course I prior have contacted ATC “inbound” hoping for switching on landing lights. Nothing. But as soon as the aircraft touches the ground the landing lights switches on. Irrational! After takeoff and another approach to 21L nice landing lights were visible, even with the row of sequenced flashing lights, which give perfect guidance to threshold under lower limit IFR conditions. Like your 2nd image, an almost perfect landing light system. The question now remains: How did you manage to get the landing lights system to ON when coming from an external base?

TO NELLIS (KLSV) ILS APCH RWY 21L LOC 109,10 APCH CRS 209º INIT ALT 5000ft (13 nm) decent to 4200ft at FAF (7.2 nm) SPD ~160 kt IAS at FAF mission editor default weather set to: “Winter, heavy snow & clouds” Time: 23:00 I have done quite a few ILS approaches under these challenging IFR condition in DCS world 1.2, always with safe landings. The most annoying issue is the missing of any landing light system. NELLIS should have at least medium intensity Approach Lighting (if not ASLF or SALS), system length min. 1,400 feet. I'm not even talking about sequenced flashing lights which is ICAO Standard for a precision approach. When arriving at the IM (at the latest) I should be able to see clearly any approach lighting which gives final (precise) guidance to the RWY threshold. With the aid of a high intensity landing light system I will be able to compensate any inaccuracies either from pilot error or faulty IL system. (too high, off course - NELLIS RWY has more than 10.000 feet) Sorry, no trk file. It hurts when I ran my beloved Warthog into the ground near the RWY - again and again. I'd be glad to hear from your experiences.

That trk file only would prove how I missed a safe landing but not the reason for it.

In world 1.2 I and 1.5 was able to complete quite some ILS approaches with A-10C to different fields - always successfully. All landings have been performed in difficult vis conditions, e.g. even below IFR limits at night with heavy snow and less than 1 nm vis. I’m sorry to say but so far I have no luck with world 2.0. Each A-10C ILS approach e.g. to KLSV or into LAS Intl. provides serious issues for a save landing at night under IFR conditions. During final approach from outer to inner marker the HSI begins to bounce up and down giving useless guidance. And the CDI doesn’t give any trustful indication as well, as I’m always 50 to 100 ft off to the RWY when touching the ground. And, even more frustrating, the landing light system doesn’t not only comply with ICAO standards at all, it’s simply not present. It feels like if one would try ILS CAT IIIc landing: RWY visual range: “zero” and decision height: ”zero”, just blind. If (at night) ILS indication gives not precise guidance one would need even more safe and clear light guidance for the final touchdown to the ground.

Push button status lights of NMS panel are not visible at night In night flying mission all panels and instruments are enlightened well - except the pushbuttons of the Navigation Mode Select Panel (NMSP) when activated. Any button stays dark when pushed (activated). The green triangle which indicates activation (e.g. STR PT, EGI) is not visible. This is in contrast to day light flying, then the green triangles of the push buttons are clearly visible when a function is activated. Only when setting the monitor to extreme contrast and brightness a hint of green triangle indication light on the push buttons is visible (barely). The brightness control knob FLT INST has no effect when turning to max BRIGHT. Strangely, two function of the NMS panel are illuminated well: PTR (ABLE<->STOW) and HOMING.