tom_19d

Hi LurkingBadger, I realize this thread is a little old but I just started playing again after a bit of a break. I am having no issues at all with UHF DF in the F5 in 1.5. I loaded the 1.5 mission you provided, as long as you change your beacon from FM to AM it works perfectly- i was able to hear its audio ID and track it all the way to its source where the bearing pointer reversed.

A Thanks Hi SeaQuark, I just wanted to say thanks, I installed SimpleRadio mostly to use this server and hopped on this morning to check it out quick- no one was out flying but I thought that was the perfect scenario for an introduction. The tower interaction comm script is great. Once I checked on with the tactical controller I had to venture quite far down memory lane (moveable card ADF navigation is looooong ways back for me) but finding my armor target without the help of own ship position on the F10 moving map was very rewarding. Sadly my recollection of weapons employment in the '86 was worse than my navigation, but once I get that rust knocked off with some SP practice I will be sure to be back to join in the fun. Kudos for the work you have done to create an immersive and dynamic server environment. It is appreciated. Tom_19d

Thanks for the reply Alpenwolf, I recently moved and changed jobs and as a consequence my times when I can play have changed as well so I am looking for games at different times then before-- I will be more patient going forward. And not that I have a huge voice in the community but personally I find the idea of being able to temporarily blind the enemy intriguing- if someone could ever coordinate a large strike package that could really pay off.

Hi all, North American player here and the server dropped off a few hours ago for me with a "connection timed out" message and I haven't seen it back up. Is this just a local problem for me or is anyone else having a problem? PS, thanks for all your hard work Alpenwolf and anyone else involved in keeping this great server going.

I too have suffered this problem sporadically; I think there might be something to the theory that it is related to lateral loads more than speed, although as Erk104 cleverly pointed out, side loads seem to pose no problems at all when landing. I did want to add a couple things to the conversation however- remember that the 230 knots tire limitation posed by TO 1F-5E-1 is groundspeed rather than an indicated speed (tailwinds, PA/DA, and temperature changes will yield large differences between IAS and GS). Fortunately the USAF was kind enough to provide the attached chart in TO 1F-5E-1 and it shows that for the airport and temperature combinations anyone faces in DCS we really should never have a problem below 200 knots, and in most cases much higher speeds. Also, just one other thought about some comments here relating trim position and weight- trim position is set as a function of %MAC rather than takeoff weight- the location of the stores is critical to the aircraft's CG and must be accounted for. Finally, Robert 31178, I don't really think people are flaming you for your comments, I just think that a large part of the DCS audience wants aircraft that behave as the flight manual says they should. While there is nothing wrong with a work-around that keeps a module playable while it is being adjusted, I believe the DCS community as a whole puts a premium on realism, and a perceived lack of realism is what is being attacked, not your methodology for working within how the game currently functions.

GregP, it is MS33558.

Hi Twistking, The statement that the aircraft stalls with the green AOA donut lit shows that something here might not be being interpreted correctly. An airfoil always stalls when its critical angle of attack is exceeded, regardless of airspeed. Generally speaking, if the green donut is lit, the aircraft is at its optimum angle of attack for landing (whatever that is in F5, in most civil aircraft the donut lights at 1.3 Vso AKA Vref). Therefore, if the green donut is lit, the airplane cannot stall, as the wing has not yet reached its critical angle of attack. That said, if the aircraft is climbing with the donut lit, you are using too much power. I would suggest trying an approach under the following conditions. Keep the aircraft light, maybe full gun ammo and 1000 pounds of fuel- definitely time to get on the ground, but still enough fuel for a go around if needed. Establish yourself on a long straight in final. Recall that a 3 degree glideslope would have you ~1500 feet AGL on a 5 mile final. Also remember that the above configuration yields a 12,000 pound aircraft, which equates to 146 KIAS Vref assuming 15% MAC. (Note the ref speed and the altitude at 5 miles are just for reference and to assure you are starting your approach from a place where you can make a reasonable descent). When you start your descent, try it in more of this mindset (one often associated for right or wrong with naval aviation)- keep your AOA donut lit with pitch only, and control your rate of descent with power. If your desired touchdown point is sliding up the windscreen add power, if your desired touchdown point is sliding down the windscreen reduce power. Also, since the F5 has a small, highly loaded wing, if you fly the whole approach right at the donut you might need to carry some power all the way to touchdown- coming to idle before that could lead to an excessive rate of descent in the flare.

Thank you for the interest AC. While I do not have any tables included now, they are planned for future revisions. My biggest issue at the moment is that I think the excessive altimeter lag that has been addressed in other threads is still an issue and I don't want to print things that I will later have to reprint when the issue is fixed. That said, at the moment my personal (YMMV) profile for slick 82 and 83s is 61 mil depr, 350 KIAS at roll in, 30 degree dive, 3000 AGL release at 450 indicated.

Thank you all, glad you are enjoying the products.

Bump, links added.

Good Evening, I just uploaded some files I use in my personal flying to the DCS store user file section. There is a checklist for printing, a navigation/briefing log, and cards to use with a set of Thrustmaster Cougar MFDs. Each file has some notes and instructions on the download page. Checklist https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2321351/ MFD Cards https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2321358/ NavLog https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2321354/ Tom_19d

With regards to the paired rockets from the LAU3, according to page 1-95 of USAF TO 1F-5E-34-1-1 "Aircrew NonNuclear Weapon Deliver Manual" for the F5, in single mode two rockets are fired with each impulse from the intervalometer so I believe the current behavior is correct. Happy New Year all.

Sure but that isn't ideal for training, particularly as a mission to be distributed to other people I fly with. If you can set it up through the editor a random element is possible, for example, left v right engine, failure prior to or after V1, ect. The element of surprise adds value to the training event.

The more I think about this, maybe saying I disagree with Erk104 was too strong. While I am pretty sure the nosewheel is swiveling, maybe the issue with its behavior is that is doesn't feel like it is swiveling freely enough- I don't know how to quantify this though, and without being able to find something in print in an actual aircraft manual getting the aircraft behavior changed might be a tough sell.

Hi VIKBELL, I too have searched through USAF TO 1F-5E-1 can cannot find any references to what the nosewheel should do specifically when the button is released, other than that nosewheel shimmy damping is still available (obviously). Notable here is that is provides LESS information than the Belsimtek manual. I disagree with Erk104 however; just because a nosewheel swivels freely doesn't mean its natural tendency is to straighten, particularly when a turn has already been started. If this were the case it would be impossible to taxi aircraft like the Cirrus SR22 or the Grumman AA family that have strictly free castering nose wheels. I am traveling for work so I can't check myself but I think the best way to check if the nose wheel is indeed swiveling freely on the F5 would be to leave the NWS disengaged and attempt to use differential thrust and braking to turn. If the airplane can turn using this method, the nose wheel is swiveling freely.

Has anyone found a reliable way to forcibly fail an F5 engine? For example, I would like to be able to cause a catastrophic failure just after V1 (or "critical engine failure speed" as TO 1F-5E-1 calls it) for training purposes. After trying the various failure modes available in the editor none of the available powerplant failures cause an instant roll back. And if no such feature is available, would this be something the developers could incorporate going forward? Thanks

This is is the last one, I promise- ran across it today looking for something else. Item #38 is the ground crew interphone receptacle.

I would also add for the purposes of the DCS manual, this device, whatever it is, should probably be left out. I don't see why it should be mentioned by name if there is no way for the player to interface with it and its function is completely autonomous.

Hi Lino, Right on, I understand and respect the pursuit of knowledge you are talking about- and I have used your beacon map in the past so thank you for your work on that. I did just a little more digging on this intercom question for this reason- even if there is no in cockpit interface for the intercom, I believe there has to be a piece of equipment on the aircraft to blend the audio from each audio source (UHF/TACAN/AIM9) into a signal that can be run to the pilot helmet jack. In this case an "audio panel" or "amplifier" might be a more apt name for this device. Of course, if this is a true blind installation with no pilot interaction, it might not be of any consequence to you. So, here are the two pages in question from the USAF aircraft manual. The first page describes the "intercom" system and the second page has the table showing the AIC-18 and the AIC-25 as installed. Here is a datasheet for the AIC-25 from the same company that made/is making the AIC-18. As I read it, it is basically an amplifier that would be capable of blending multiple audio sources. http://www.andreasystems.com/specs/AM1965F_Spec.pdf Also thank you for the video, that was interesting. I agree hand signals appear to be the only form of communication being used. However, that might just mean that hand signals are more efficient for everyday operations, particularly with a multiple person ground crew. I promise I am not trying to argue with you, I am just sharing all of the information I can find. It is my belief that there is a device on the aircraft that is combining the audio sources into a usable signal- whether or not this device rises to the level of "intercom" that would be worth mentioning for your purposes is surely debatable. Best of luck, the screenshots of your latest project in progress look great.

This was in U-Tapao Thailand and it is one of many ways to move around an F5. Or maybe some P47's in WW2 getting ferried to the Pacific theater? They could take off from the carrier given the right conditions and enough room but were loaded by crane because they never could have landed on it.

Thanks Rob- I agree that the gunsight is behaving functionally (ie it is reacting appropriately to changes in flight path and range) as it should in radar mode, as I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary on my machine or from anyone else. I agree completely if the pipper were to move when an adjustment was made to the wingspan knob in radar mode that would indicate a problem, but I have seen no evidence that is happening. Your idea about the slugs' velocity or the gun alignment (I am picturing an incorrect boresight type of situation) would make perfect sense. College physics was a long time ago for me so I wouldn't venture into trying to do any of my own math but if you had a set of parameters in mind (removing as many variables as possible and all that) for test firing I would be willing to set something up quick and get back to you with my results. And although I get the gist of how you could work backwards to a muzzle velocity from the rounds' impacts on the ground, I am a little unsure of how you would isolate or measure the firing angle. Wouldn't the angle of the bore in relation to the ground be of paramount importance here?

Source for this? Because it contradicts the USAF aircraft manual. Also the USAF aircraft manual and the Belsimtek quick start guide say to strafe with a mechanically caged sight. And when the sight is mechanically caged the LO/HI switch has zero effect on its depression. Sorry to have so hijacked your question here BSS_Sniper. I too think that the gunsight isn't providing enough deflection and I thought that a discussion to ensure we are using proper procedures would be useful (it has always seemed to me the mods and devs are more likely to look at something if you can back it up with evidence that the aircraft or component thereof isn't behaving in accordance with real world documentation) but this is just turning into conjecture and I will back away before this gets any more off the rails. I'm not trying to be a jerk but I don't think the devs will look at gunsight issues if the gunsight isn't being used as designed (and not to say that you aren't, BSS). Safe flying and hopefully this gets a look or someone has an insight for a solution.

Right on, I am definitely not trying to argue with anyone's technique or talk anyone out of what works for them. But are you saying that you can say definitively that moving the wingspan knob is moving your pipper when you are radar ranging? Can anyone else collaborate this? It certainly doesn't move mine (1.5.5, latest build). Because based on the points I laid out in the post above, I believe that if the wingspan knob is moving the pipper that would be incorrect behavior of the sight and could perhaps explain why people are having problems with it. On a related note, while reading the USAF TO for the sight I ran into a discussion of the target speed switch located on the pedestal by the gunsight selector switch. Apparently it puts in a lead adjustment for aerial gunnery. "LO" setting when the speed of the attacking aircraft is greater than the target, "HI" setting for aircraft near the same speed, and "TR" for drogue training at low speed. I had never used this switch, but moving it from hi to lo does move the pipper, so this is a feature that might need some exploration.

Elmo, Are you talking about the wingspan lever on the sight moving the pipper up and down the gun snake (or funnel) or the throttle twist? Because if you are saying adjusting the wingspan dial on the gunsight moves the pipper when using radar ranging, I don't think that is how the sight is supposed to operate. When used air to air, the A4 sight is compensating for 2 factors to provide a gunnery solution as far as I understand it- G (or deflection) and range. Deflection information is provided by measuring gyroscopic precession within the sight and range is provided by the radar . Assuming your previous example of flying a constant 3G turn, if the pipper did move up and down the gun funnel when the wingspan lever is moved, that would imply that an adjustment for range was being made- which would not be correct. Range data is supplied to the gunsight by the radar, assuming the radar is operational and the throttle twist is full counterclockwise (its spring loaded, default position). The wingspan lever should have zero effect on the range sensed by the radar, and therefor in a constant g turn should have no effect on the position of the pipper. Basically, if the sight knows how hard you are pulling and how far away the target is, it has everything it needs. Why would the target's wingspan matter? This is collaborated further in USAF TO 1F-86F-1 on page 4-24 which states "Positioning the wingspan adjustment lever wheel or knob inserts target size data into the sight when using MANUAL ranging control, varying the reticle image circle diameter in proportion to target size." (My emphasis on manual). When radar range data is not available the throttle twist control can then be used to frame the target in the circle of diamonds to generate a range for the gunsight, which when coupled with the sight's gyroscopic reading for deflection, a solution can be generated and displayed. To test this, I went out in free flight and established a constant 3G pull. I then moved my viewpoint so as to hold the pipper exactly at the bottom of the sight glass and spun the wingspan lever- the pipper stayed right at the bottom of the gunsight glass. I then loaded myself up in trail behind a non maneuvering target and achieved a range indication from the radar. Holding the aircraft steady and moving the wingspan lever, no movement of the pipper could be seen. Finally, I set the wingspan lever and moved the throttle twist. This DID move the pipper up and down, as it should do if you were using manual ranging. If I am missing something here I would welcome an explanation, because I can find no documentation to explain why the wingspan setting would have any effect on the pipper position when using radar ranging.

Hi Lino, I have never seen an intercom/audio panel in the F5. Consulting USAF TO 1F-5E-1, the AIC-18 and AIC-25 are listed as intercom options on page 1-84. Under "control location", it states that the pedestal is the location in the 2 seat F models and there are pictures showing a simple intercom volume knob on the front and rear pedestals on page 1-85. For the E models, however, the "control location" is "none" (this is not to say the equipment isn't installed, I think it is just saying there are no accessible controls). Would it be possible that that intercom on the F5E's was a blind install? What I mean is that besides communication with the ground crew through an external headset jack, all of the other audio sources (UHF, TACAN, AIM-9, ect) have their own dedicated volume controls. Clearly a good audio panel/intercom interface is beneficial in aircraft flown by two crewmen, but would it be anything more than another point of failure in a single place airplane? (And before someone jumps on me with pointing out that the A10C has a fully featured audio panel, bear in mind that is an airplane with 3 comm radios and 2 nav radios. And I stand by assertion that having two controls with an identical function (ie two FM volume knobs) is adding a possibly unneeded point of failure). And just out of curiosity Lino, is there something you wanted to be able to do with the intercom?