tom_19d

I didn't know that was possible Rob but that sounds great -- is there a mapping in DCS that lets you set a toggle like that, or did you have to use a 3rd party solution? In the attached screenshot I had my mouse cursor right over the crossing of the two runways, but the screenshot function masked out the mouse. Regardless, at the bottom you can see the MGRS readout circled in red. I'm not sure how familiar you are with MGRS so hopefully this isn't telling you something you already know, but a six digit grid will get you within 100 meters of a point and is generally plenty close for what we need. So in this case GG 323 360 would be your entry. As I think I mentioned in another thread I have been out of the A10 for a long time, so someone can fix me if I'm wrong, but I believe the entire Caucus map lies on the 37 T map sheet so you don't ever have to use those letters and numbers, just the two letter grid identifier than the string of numbers.

Hi Scuby, The F10 map works fine for me for finding coordinates for waypoints as well as elevations if needed. I find using MGRS grids to be much easier than lat/long. Write down the points you need, plug them into the CDU as waypoints, and off you go. TACAN is always an option too depending on where you are on the map, although line of sight limitations can be problematic if you are going someplace while staying down in the weeds and it makes complex courses harder to manage.

Ugh. I think both Eldur and Victory have it spot on correct. Mariner maybe you should tell us what RL type ratings you hold? As I said before...the book says the F18 stops shorter with antiskid on...why are you arguing against the AFM?

I'm not going to buy that argument mariner. If data is available that clearly shows ac performance under a given set of circumstances doing one thing in reality and in the sim it does another, there is no reason not to point it out. And the issue isn't brake fires, the issue is that standing on the brakes during rollout on a dry runway with the AS off should shred tires almost instantly, or at the very least should not allow for shorter stopping distances than landing with AS on. Since the data is available, the RL hornet drivers you speak of would probably say the same. I certainly don't consider this a game breaker or anything like that, but if people start using the "it's a game" excuse instead of pointing out issues that can clearly be defined in the frame of available data, I don't think that is a positive direction for the community or the devs. DCS seems like a special community to me and I would hate to see that change.

Sorry sir, I'm going to disagree here (at least for aircraft). By this logic airline captains should disable their antiskid if their factored landing distance is really close to the landing runway distance available. After all, they are by the very definition the "professional" operators you cited and this technique would allow them to stop shorter if that is true. I would like to see a source on the primary function of antiskid on an aircraft being directional control. I agree that AS systems are all about threshold braking, and when it comes to preventing tire blowout or flatspotting during maximum effort braking I will trust the computer every time. When it comes to contaminated runways, even more so to prevent wheel lockup. But if antiskid really did start out as a measure to prevent direction control loss on landing or RTO, I'll be happy to admit I'm incorrect. And thanks Victory, that explanation makes sense to me.

As expected. That answers that. 2nd the good catch to Ramstein.

I have never seen a single aircraft flight manual that reflects better braking performance with the anti-skid off. In fact, computed landing distances of 10 percent or (much) more are the norm, to the point that many aircraft do not even allow dispatch with an inoperative anti-skid system. This would lead me to believe that the Hornet should behave the same way during a field landing -- shorter landing distances with maximum braking effort when the anti-skid is enabled v when it is inoperative. Of course that is just speculation; is the F18 takeoff/landing performance data public knowledge yet? That would settle this quickly...

Hi Scuby, I have recently been getting back into the A10 a bit after a couple years away. I couldn't remember off the top of my head so I just fired up the weapons testing IA mission in Nevada. That setup has 6 Mk82 Airs on two TERs. Their default fuzing in their profile was N/T. The default config setting in the inventory page was FIXED HI. Using CCIP (both manual release and consent 5 mil mode), if I changed only the fuzing on their profile to NOSE, I would get an INVALID FUZING message on the HUD as soon as I dropped the nose to start to run in. However, after I changed the inventory page for the bombs to PILOT OPT, I was than able to successfully choose between chute/no chute using the fuzing option on the profile (N/T for the ballute and correct detonation, NOSE for low drag config and correct detonation - I didn't test TAIL). I only tested this on that one mission, but hopefully this could help point you down the road regardless of the situation.

Windy -- absolutely that happens at fields where there are humans running the navaids. The question at hand though is "why would DCS ever turn off the ILS at a field with only one set of equipment?"

I could never have been an avionics guy; way too much time standing on your head trying to force your hands somewhere they don't fit so you can work on something you can't see haha! Agreed.

Thanks. But as I said above, literally in fact, I am well familiar with BC approaches. I'm not quite sure what is going on here Frederf, I agreed with you by name in post 19 of this thread about your points about the nature of the wind/ILS problem but you seem to want to give me lectures on instrument flying theory. I just came here to try to help someone who couldn't get an approach to work.

It might be typical in DCS but I am simply saying (and I think you agree with me) that it isn't satisfactory for the situation you and I both outlined; there is no good reason to turn off a field's only ILS since you can always circle or land with a tailwind within aircraft/company limitations. I'm well familiar with BC approaches and would love to be able to do that in this situation, but I can't because they are turning off the loc. Also in the A10 its not reverse sensing since you have an HSI. Just set the front course and steer towards the course bar like normal.

Okay I figured something out - and I should have started reading this discussion closely from the beginning because Ramsay touched on it pretty hard early on. (Gray before this I did try landing out of the instant action, shutting down to a cold aircraft, and restarting like you suggested. It had no effect on the ILS to 8.) First, that 108.5 ILS feather showing up on the ME map -- I can't get it to do anything even with the wind favoring it so I will leave it aside for now. As for the ILS 08 on 108.7 - it works with dead calm winds like if you start a mission editor from scratch. Then I looked at the instant action mission in question in the editor; the winds are favoring 26. I turned the wind around in the editor, started the mission, and voila, ILS to 8 working perfectly. So my apologies to Ramsay (and Frederf) -- if I had read deeper into the threads you provided I would have discovered this sooner. Despite Creech not having an ILS serving both ways, they shut off the ILS to 8 with any tailwind...and to echo comments made by Frederf in another thread, this is not satisfactory -- circling minimums are still published for ILS's and there is nothing wrong with shooting the ILS to VMC with a tailwind and circling to land into the wind, particularly if no approaches are available in the other direction. Also it should be noted that I didn't see any of the other threads discussing this issue at Nevada, so that could be useful information to devs. And Eagle, at first brush I thought you were making a joke with the L39 getting its ADS-B done, thinking maybe you were adding the 430 module to your L39 DCS module. Then I reread -- are you the owner or are you an avionics guy? Either way, cool stuff.

No worries, I have a feeling my presentation probably comes off with a much harsher tone than I ever intend so that is my fault (something for me to work on). I'm also usually the first to jump to pilot error (because honestly that is usually the case) but this one is making me think that there is an issue, even if it is just on the one instant action mission. Maybe someone else could just fire up the "weapons practice" instant action at Vegas and try their luck on 108.7 for the ILS to 8, you pretty much start the mission airborne in the Creech terminal area...

Gray, I'm not sure if this was directed at Eagle and I or at the OP. The OP seems to have left the thread and admittedly the last few posts are moving a little bit away from where Condor started. But if your question was going towards Eagle and I, I don't think a switch problem is the case. When you have no identification tone and flagged instruments on one frequency, ONLY change the frequency, and are able to receive audio ID and unflagged needles that pretty much rules out an aircraft issue. (That is also why I posted tracks with detailed descriptions). I also stated in my track descriptions that I was able to receive an ILS during both tracks. Again, that rules out an aircraft equipment issue. As I stated before, I don't think there are systematic problems with the ILS nav radio on the A10C OR the ILS ground equipment on most DCS airfields. I was simply pointing out one very specific instance (Nevada, instant action weapons practice mission, Creech AFB) where there appears to be a problem and backed it up with a detailed description and tracks. I didn't know beforehand that Eagle had been having the same problem in this exact situation, but that is what appears to be the case.

I agree with Ramsay that the Creech ILS 08 is working from the mission editor. HOWEVER, I think something is going on there. I say this because this morning I ran the instant action A10 weapons practice mission. Going back into Creech afterwords I remembered this thread so I fired up the ILS reciever on 108.70 and set up for 08. No tone, all flags displayed. Without restarting, flew over to Nellis- the ILS to 21 functions perfectly. Now intrigued, I started up the ME and got to looking at Creech. The ME actually shows two ILS systems to Creech, the ILS 08 on 108.70 and an ILS 13 on 108.50. No wind with ATC calling 08 the active, ILS to 08 works great. With the winds howling from the south (180 at 30+ knots) ATC calls visuals to Rwy 13, but only the ILS to 08 is functioning. I am not particularly familiar with the Nevada airports (at least not in DCS) but are the ILS systems to Creech new additions? The (awesome) 476th TERPS pack doesn't have any ILS procedures published there. Civilian resources, which normally show the ILS systems available at military airports (in case civilian aircraft have emergencies) show no ILS systems at Creech (KINS). If so, could this be an issue of... -at least one of the ILS systems working in the ME (108.7) -the other ILS (which doesn't show when you click on Creech in the F10 map OR in the CDU divert page) showing in the ME but not yet functioning AND -an older mission created before the ILS systems were added is having a problem utilizing them The last point there is the one I have the hardest time with, my understanding of the DCS system is that mission files would only have the unit locations, objectives, ect, and that changes to the NAVAIDS should update as the map updates...but I am not sure there. Eagle, which ILS at Creech were you trying to use? I did attach two track files, one from the mission editor, airborne start, the ILS to 08 is working at Creech, no ILS working on 13. Second file is the vanilla instant action weapons practice. I turn back to Creech, attempt tuning both ILS's there to no avail, and after ONLY changing the ILS frequency, fly to Nellis and capture the loc/gs there. All tests in A10C 2.5.2.20143 (most recent stable client) ME to Creech.trk Instant Action to Creech.trk

Like Svend says, a track would probably be best...one last idea which will also sound condescending but people have managed to make the mistake-- you are loaded with live AIMs, not the captive trainers?

As for the AIM-9 -You said "armed" I'm assuming that means master arm to GUNS MSL & CAMR? -Did you have tone from the missle? -Were you holding down the bomb/rocket button (pickle)? A tap on the button won't do it. I know those sound obvious but I don't want to sound condescending, this is just a strange one...

Morning All, I apologize, RL has kept me out of the sim for a few months now but I am trying to catch up. -Vinnie, that shouldn't be a problem, I should have some time tomorrow to give that a try. Just strictly to satisfy my curiosity, may I ask why that color scheme interests you? -Rem- that should be fine. If you want to PM me we can figure it out. Thanks for the interest.

This.

Great link Mav, I had never seen that one but it is a great tool. Thanks.

Not sure what the issue is but it is not across the board. Just fired up nav training F5 in the Caucus. DME, bearing pointer, and CDI perfectly functional. 2.5 update 4 w/HF.

While TARGET has its uses (there will be lots of people here who disagree with that statement) I am not sure why you need it for the A10 - DCS is already configured for the TM warthog. Turn off Target, launch DCS, and you are good to go.

Flood lighting and other cockpit lighting issues have been noted and are being addressed by ED. As for the NVG performance, this has already been covered in this thread and is completely realistic. NVGs don't autofocus, the wearer chooses a focus distance. For most military operations (flying, driving, night observation or patrol on the ground) this means an infinity focus is most useful. So as things get closer to the wearer, focus is lost. In the case of flying with binocular tube NVGs, you simply look under the NVGs to see the panel (think of it as wearing bifocals). The "new" 2.5 NVG system allows this and is realistic. Unsafe? Insomuch as flying at night at low altitudes and high speeds is generally less safe than daytime flying I guess you could make that claim. I would much rather have NVGs than not, however.

I will quote the calls exactly from the mission. "Dodge 11, Wizard. Target is at a heading of 345." The target is flying a heading of 345. AWACs either report contact positions relative to bullseye or in BRA (bearing, range, altitude) format. "Dodge 11, Kolhi. We confirm that the Hercules has been splashed. Return to base along a radial of 280 at 30,000 feet." This really cannot be misinterpreted. The mission is complete, you intercept the 280 radial and fly it towards base at 30,000. Also, your briefing graphics clearly depict your RTB routing. 280 radial inbound. Cross the 60 DME at FL300. 30 DME radial at 12K. Offset slightly south (right) and join the 268 radial inbound. Cross 8 DME at 2400. As for the loadout question, it tells you in the briefing. Under the heading mission data. Or is you miss that just take a peek at the rearm/refuel ground crew option while they are hooking up the start cart (you have 3 150 gal DTs hung). All of that said, of course some of the briefing information on these single player missions could be more detailed; likewise some of the radio commands during the missions. But I believe Belsimtek has provided enough information to get the job done, particularly since these missions rolled out right with the early access release of the airplane and were more meant as a showcase for a new module. Plus, I always try to keep in mind that, at least as far as I know, English is far from their first language as a company so I generally am grateful for whatever content in English we get. Frankly, I am much more concerned with the quality of their modules (which I have found to be excellent) over the quality of their missions. I'm not saying as customers we should just be happy with whatever they do, I'm just saying that this customer hopes they keep prioritizing module development and fixing existing bugs over mission content. I realize I probably sound like a real jerk here, but I don't mean to, and certainly am not meaning this as an attack against anyone. After doing nothing but MP for a long time it was fun to look at some of the single missions again.