Ahmed

EHAM and EBBR have no EMCON concerns. Also, unlike ILS, ICLS is a microwave based system.

For both carriers and airbases it would be a great idea

Thanks for the lecture on airplane instruments. FYI: I do land safely on IMC conditions out of NDB approaches (and other non-precision types) on a weekly basis.

You have ADF and you have TACAN... I don't see the problem if the real Lot 20 doesn't have it...

And for the 5th time too, stop trying to justify the presence of an inlet icing warning in clear air regardless of the temperature (to be honest I dont have a clue about where the inlet temp sensors are located).

Jet engine icing happens only in a narrow margin of temperatures and requires moisture in the air (i.e. clouds, mist or other kind of visible moisture). We are talking about roughly about the 0 to -20C (static air temperature) margin mainly though it may still exist at lower temperatures (up to -40). That's the general consensus. Current caution goes of several thousand feet above the nearest cloud with the ENG page reporting 22 degree inlet temp. So the icing model at least is wrong. But in one of the latest updates they commented that some changes were coming to the atmosphere model as some of the wing vapor effects were going to depend on humidity, so maybe the icing model will be revamped too.

For icing to develop you need a temperature range AND moisture. At the moment the advisory is going off when clear of cloud so the logic is definitely bugged

The activateBeacon command could benefit from having a power parameter like the radioTransmission does. That would allow for the mission creator setting up beacons with the appropriate range

I wouldn't call it 'easier', it just allows you to use a different technique that you may be more familiar with in flight sims. Personally I found it more counter-intuitive than PA mode. Whether the behavior of the FCS/FM in gain override is correct is for the former drivers to judge. The PA FCS and FM may still need some iterations to refine them, and don't forget that one of the big challenges of carrier landings, the burble, is not present in the sim currently, with the closest workaround being including some turbulence into the mission to make it a little bit more challenging.

Thank you guys for the help, with your advice I managed to get it done :thumbup:

Hi, I am wondering if there is any way of sending a text message only to clients tuned to a specific frequency If this is not the case, can it be added into a feature wishlist for a future update? Regards

IRL they don't have the "Fly again" option if they end up swimming with the sharks

No, it doesn't.... at all.... :smilewink:

Congrats ED/BSTK, the FM/FCS feels so much better on PA mode after the update!

I had this bug after today's update as well. Step to reproduce: 1. Create empty mission 2. Add carrier on map (it automatically gets TCN 1X action assigned) 3. Add Hornet 4. Fly, select TCN 1X, no receive, select AA, receive. I checked the mission file and found this ["action"] = { ["id"] = "ActivateBeacon", ["params"] = { ["type"] = 4, ["frequency"] = 1088000000, ["callsign"] = "TKR", ["channel"] = 1, ["modeChannel"] = "X", ["bearing"] = true, ["system"] = 4, }, -- end of ["params"] }, -- end of ["action"] I checked a different mission where I had manually removed and re-added the activate beacon action and it includes the following param, that is missing above ["params"] = { ["frequency"] = 1016000000, ["type"] = 4, [u][b]["AA"] = false,[/b][/u] ["callsign"] = "CV74", ["channel"] = 55, ["modeChannel"] = "X", ["bearing"] = true, [u][b]["system"] = 3,[/b][/u] }, -- end of ["params"]

just scan meatball -> AoA -> deck centerline over and over again. Practice a few dozen passes and you should be alright. You will need constant lineup corrections. Don't deckspot with your VV as that will work in sim but is not the correct technique IRL.

Hello, Im wondering if you are planning on including the option to have a GCA view attachable to the carrier, aside than the airports. And also if, as I saw someone requesting before, you plan on introducing a manual option to set the final approach course and glideslope angle manually for land-based approaches, like we have for the minimums and LSLLC.

Well, dont know if it is the same bug, but the other day I created a quick mission with an E3 with just its start point, orbit task on that start point and a landing point and it just dove straight to the ground from 30kft on mission start. Later I created an additional waypoint in between those two and it worked. Unfortunately I didn't save the flawed mission or track file.

It wasn't 'decided'. Just a few users gave that (inaccurate) response and RAZBAM never gave an official response or even acknowledged the bug report. Even if SBAS/SAAS systems would be programmed to try to eliminate such behaviors (that they are not, as the A stands for Augmentation, not Diminishing), they would be constrained by the aerodynamic limitations of the control surfaces they have authority over, and the airplane would eventually exhibit its design 'conventional' aerodynamic behaviors. Also, as bkthunder pointed out, if the FBW/SAS system were removing these trends, you should see them actuating to counter-act them, and you do not see that in the DCS Harrier. Additionally for the "FBW/SAS excuse", some of you are probably aware of the existence of certain other F-16 sim. That sim actually has a superb flight model and realistic FCS simulation of a FBW equipped aircraft, and it responds as expected to a sideslip condition/gust. The only DCS aircraft with questionable FM rudder behavior are, coincidentally, both RAZBAM modules. I remember that the Mig-21 initial open beta was released with a similar bug. Its developers, however, quickly acknowledge the bug report I made and within weeks they professionally released a fix. I hope that the RAZBAM Harrier soon gets a FM that its "DCS" brand tag (and price) deserves.

The flight model is already a complete disgrace in horizontal flight, starting from the airplane not exhibiting a rolling moment in a sideslip condition, and a totally unrealistic rudder control (similar to the M2000C FM, and well below the standard of other developers such as Heatblur, BSTK, and of course ED) I wouldn't be surprised if in jetborne flight this is even worse as the force interactions are way more complex. I hope that RAZBAM really start investing resources into creating a realistic EFM/PFM as my Harrier has been parked on the hard drive since the first release due to its arcadish FM feel...

What needs to be done to have a proper way of scripting SAM behavior is for ED to provide a function that permits changing the radar usage behavior of the AI controller. So far air units have an option for that, but ground groups do not. Some scripts like the IADS script work around this by using the alarm state function. This 'hack' sort of works for fixed SAM sites but it causes some undesired behaviors too, for example in mixed tank battalions with SHORAD units. Hopefully in some future update they will implement such an option.

SAS and FBW don't work in the same way. But anyway, try any system you want at a high enough AoA and you will see what happens... basic aerodynamic design features will manifest no matter what, unlike in the DCS Harrier with or without SAAHS. In any case, this thread is addressed to RAZBAM to report what I'm sure is a flight modeling bug based on many thousand hours of flying experience. Now it is up to RAZBAM to investigate and, if/when confirmed, get it fixed, like other devs teams have always done in the past. Basic handling info can be found in A1-AV8BB--NFM--000 "11.8 SEMI--JETBORNE/JETBORNE FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS" Seeing that it takes nowhere, I wont be engaging in further cluttering this thread. Thanks all

No stability augmentation system will remove a basic (and desired) aircraft handling characteristic... :doh:

Hello, Rudder deflection during horizontal flight does not cause any kind of roll coupling, giving rudder inputs a very unrealistic feel. https://books.google.es/books?id=GB1Cdqf433wC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=yaw+roll+coupling&source=bl&ots=yg9cPNJgoH&sig=u9VTxRqZ4RWsYZsImXrJtGxJcMU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD8N-Zy5PYAhXEtRQKHQ_nCcUQ6AEIYDAK#v=onepage&q=yaw%20roll%20coupling&f=false Any conventional aircraft is supposed to exhibit such behavior, the Harrier being no exception.

Guys you seem like kids.... If the product is not ready, let it mature and be released when it is ready. It is that simple. Or do you rather get an incomplete release full of bugs and/or with lots of missing features? Release date estimates in IT (or any big projects for the matter) can never be taken as firm. And spoiler alert, I wouldn't be surprised if nobody gets a Hornet either this Christmas.