tom_19d

No worries, welcome to the forum!

Per page 1-118 of TO 1F-5E-1, the floodlights are normally powered by the left AC bus, which requires the left generator to be operating (or GPU I suppose). When AC power is not available, the floodlights are powered by the DC bus (battery) through the ENG INSTR rheostat, bypassing the FLOOD knob. I am not by my machine to test, but by the description you provided it sounds like the aircraft is performing just like it should.

Really enjoying the logistics of the new mission Alpenwolf. Hats off for all your work.

Sounds great Alpenwolf, excited to try it out. How will we know what side holds each lake; will it use spawn soldier "markers" like some of your other maps?

Hmm, that is a strange one. Were you in cockpit or external view? Not that it should matter I guess. I tested in external view, both on the ground and in the air.

Just flew 3 ILS procedures to a full stop in 1/2 SM vis. ILS 09 at Senaki-Kolki (LOC 108.90/IB 089/DA 239), ILS 08 at Kutaisi (LOC 109.75/IB 069/DA 350), and ILS 07 at Kobuleti (LOC 111.75/IB 064/DA 260). Good ident tone, working flight director. Running latest OB. In all three cases wind was 090 at 10 knots. The issue is probably this one that has been covered in this thread. DC does weird things that don't happen in real life with regards to wind conditions and ILS procedures. From what I can tell though, nothing wrong with the ILS receiver in the A10C. Working at Senaki, Kutaisi, and Kobuleti.

Neither my landing nor taxi lights appear to change in intensity with the intensity of the position lights. They do deactivate if the position lights are off, which is correct behavior. Per page 1-117 of TO 1F-5E-1 (Change 9), landing/taxi light operation requires gear down as well as position lights on.

I haven't seen this issue. Are you doing your programming in the profile page of the DSMS or by selecting the stations from the main DSMS page? My understanding is when you program after just selecting the stations it is a temporary selection -- so unless you are adjusting the parameters in the profile page this is a feature, not a bug. I'll try to take a look later when I am near my machine to verify. Edit : Fired up quick, it is working as it always has. By editing profiles in the profile page, I was able to modify the profiles, create new ones, ect. All settings stored correctly when accessed later through the HUD rotary/UFC. If I just selected the stations and edited those, they were listed with a M/ prefix, meaning they were a manual entry that would not be saved. I didn't see anything different from how the A10C has always (correctly) been.

Directly from the RL Garmin manual: "The CDI key is used to toggle which navigation source (GPS or VLOC) provides an output to an external HSI or CDI." I'm not sure what you mean by "GPS Mode doesn't use the HSI" but regardless this conversation doesn't have anything to do with the CDI button. As the Garmin manual states, the CDI button only controls what data the Garmin is pushing to the HSI. The question at hand is how the HSI handles data from different nav sources and if the factory HSI is even capable of accepting output from a Garmin without modification. Eaglecash actually works on avionics and he laid out some excellent examples of L39s he has observed or worked on. In none of them did the airplane retain the Russian radio equipment and add western avionics. And in the airplane he has experience with that retained the factory HSI, he never got into the wiring between the Garmin and the HSI. Do you have evidence of this? Sure they look similar to the pilot but when it comes to actually plugging in the wires are you implying one could simply hook up a Garmin and it would work? Because Eaglecash said above he wasn't sure if that is the case and he does it for a living. What I am saying is ED does nothing without documentation. If you can find a picture of an L39 with both a Garmin in the panel and the original RSBN, both of which can send data to the factory HSI, and have a wiring diagram of the components that were used to accomplish the retrofit, I can see progress. Like I said before, I would love to see full integration as much as the next guy, but frankly oversimplification without evidence or documentation isn't going to get the community anywhere. Edit: Also welcome to the forum Ernstxic. There are a ton of really helpful people here, its a great community. (And one or two people like me who probably come off like a jerk most of the time, usually not meaning too haha).

I’m not sure I’m following, but maybe you are referring to putting the CDU up on the MFCD? Either MFCD can mirror the CDU screen by selecting the CDU option at the bottom of the MFCD, just like you would select MAV or DSMS or TGP. If not, if you post a link to the video I’m sure we can sort it out.

Good point QuiGon! I saw that thread but forgot all about it.

Not true on my end- like I said, latest version, I was playing last night with no issues. I use TARGET and my mic switch is bound to a key press, which I use both in the air and on the ground.

Welcome back to sims Mark, I just wanted to throw in my two cents, since I commiserate with your position. My folks still ranch in a situation that sounds quite similar to yours (wonderful place to live, just not broadband friendly), and so when I consider building a house there at some point I have to "wargame" how to feed my sim habit haha. The point I wanted to make is I wouldn't necessarily sweat the patches too much -- IF you would be willing to forgo the F18/F14/other early access airframes for a bit. At current state, the patches roll out approximately every two weeks (once a week for beta/once a week for stable), but they are only really critical IF you want the new features of the new airframes OR you need to stay current so you can play multiplayer. If you went with a well established airframe like the A10C and never needed to play online, as long as your DCS is able to "phone home" as feefifofum mentioned to affirm your copy protection, you will be able to play. And just learning the A10C alone and playing its excellent single player content could keep anyone busy for years and years. Like others have pointed out, your system might need some updating, but as long as you are able to get the initial install sorted out, don't care about multiplayer, and are willing to fly an aircraft that is already complete, I wouldn't worry about your internet connection so much. Also, since satellite internet was brought up, as someone who has experienced it I would advise caution. While the downstream bandwidth can be decent, some providers place fairly significant data caps on your downloads. Furthermore, even with strong upstream and downstream performance, the latency is usually unacceptable for gaming. I have used Speedtest at many user's homes and usually latency is around 1000ms, but of course some people might have had better or worse performance. Good luck!

I guess I'm not sure why the FAA would be concerned with what Canada does with their military aircraft does but okay. This thread comes up over and over with someone claiming autofocus NVGs that let you look right through them at the gauges and can somehow focus through a canopy at distant objects without causing massive focus issues/eye strain/latency/ect are being used. Then the members of the community who currently or in the past have used NoDs to earn a living explain their side. But never once has anyone provided any documentation showing operational use of such autofocus goggles. Not that any of this matters anyway, since our vintage F18 would have been using NoDs that operate just as Eddie and Sniper have already described. I'm not trying to be a jerk by calling you out Ace, I just wish we could definitively answer this question so as to have a thread to link to when this comes up (again).

I believe draconus is spot on for the default mic switch binding. If that is what you are using we are probably going to need a track. I flew the F5 extensively last night in .22877 (yesterday's beta/today's stable) and had no issues with the comms. You are saying the comm menu won't display at all? That shouldn't be related to anything the Nellis tower did or did not say. I believe the mic switch on the right throttle should be clickable, did you try it? The NWS switch also doubles as a mic switch airborne, although that one would be harder to see to click on. Are you using the simple comms option? I have never used it, so someone else would have to chime in if that could be at fault.

Hi Everyone, Available now for download is my F86 printable overlay for the TM Warthog throttle and printable cards for Cougar MFDs. DCS User Files - F86 Throttle DCS User Files - F86 MFDs If you like this content and also own the F5, see the below links. F5 Throttle Overlay F5 Cougar MFD Cards F5 Lineup Card / NavLog F5 Checklist

Could you share the make/model of these NoDs? I have never seen anything suitable for operational flying use that incorporates autofocus so I would be interested to read up. When you are looking through the canopy how does it know if you want to focus on the building/target/ect three miles away or the smashed bug on the windscreen you hit during takeoff?

I agree that it would definitely be a desirable feature. I also agree (sadly) that I don't really think that further cockpit edits are unlikely.

Like most warbirds, the vast majority of L39s in the US are registered in the experimental category so when it comes to avionics upgrades essentially you are limited by your imagination and your checkbook. I'm not sure how it works on your side of the pond to be honest... I hear ya, I'm just saying that it probably isn't that simple. Some people might want to retain the RSBM and just have the 430 for situational awareness. If the option was set in the ME as previously suggested, how would it work in multiplayer where people have different equipment installed? Yes, the CDI button on the 430 flops the VLOC/GPS setting, but that only determines what the 430 is putting out to the HSI. It assumes the HSI in question is only connected to ONE navigation source. Honestly the most realistic option, considering that the L39 HSI would not be compatible with a 430, and assuming a complete panel overhaul wasn't in order, would be to find an empty place in the panel and install a simple CDI nav head. Although it complicates the instrument scan slightly, it wouldn't be anything worse than the setup hundreds of thousands earned their instrument tickets in and would be IFR legal. Such a setup would be true "integration" of the 430.

I’m not the OP. I never asked for anything. Did you read the whole thread? Since I’m not an avionics technician by trade but quite sure the 430 cant interface with the existing HSI I said this earlier If you had read the whole thread before jumping on me maybe you could have realized that we are in agreement with what is actually possible with the L39, I was just trying to get there with the original posters through discussion, rather than coming right out and saying they are asking for something unrealistic. I was the one pointing out the whole way through why the 430 doesn’t suddenly start showing you ILS needles just because it is in the panel and turned on. Also the link you sent is irrelevant. As if someone who bought an L39 and wants to “westernize” it would have just one choice of HSI. Please. All that said @Ramsay, thanks for all your work trying to run down and report the TACAN issues DCS is experiencing in your other thread.

Okay, but it hamstrings the airplane. What if you do a cross country training sortie from A to B in weather where A has RSBN and B is served by ILS? Or battle damage shreds the RSBN, but the recovery field has a GPS approach? Solar flare knocks GPS down to unusable (doesn't happen in DCS but is a consideration)? If the aircraft has the means to receive different types of navigation signals best shown on an HSI it shouldn't give one up to exclusively display the other. When panel mounted GPS units first started getting installed, the solution to make them play nice with a navigation radio was a switchlight that usually read "GPS / NAV" or something to that effect to choose the source of data for the HSI. That is the most realistic and most sensible choice here.

Fair enough. How does the HSI know if you want it to display RSBN nav data or 430 nav data?

No idea if there is a plan in the works to display 430 nav data on the ship's RMI/HSI. That said, I don't own the integrated 430 for the L39, but I believe an installation that would allow it to communicate with the existing RMI/HSI (if that would be possible) would also require a switch to be modeled in the cockpit to select input from either the RSBN-5S or the 430. At least if you want to maintain usability of both radios. I do agree that such a feature would be welcome.

With regards to the KA-50 question, as I recall player flyable aircraft are available for every faction. If you want a faction that has access to every unit (aircraft/ground units/ect), I believe "USAF Aggressors" can access all of them. I am away from my gaming machine for the weekend, but if I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me.

I can confirm this, just tried it on the latest stable 2.5. I have a TM Cougar MFD with key mapped in TARGET to power on the RWR. It is a press and hold until released map of the default RAlt+P. Pressing the MFD key will turn off the RWR, but it won't turn it back on. If I hold the MFD key in the RWR starts its power up, but as soon as I release the button, the RWR goes back off. It is essentially like the switch on the panel isn't modeled to "stick" when pressed in by a keyboard command. Pushing the key combination on the keyboard presents with identical behavior, even when mapped to a different combination. As the OP said, function of the switch is perfect when clicked by the mouse.