tom_19d

Thanks shadow, I was trying this and amending my reply above as you were posting, you are correct, it works slick.

I’m a little late to this party and fairly new to the Harrier, but everything I have seen says that the DMT-TV is a fixed 6x zoom, with no pilot options there. The WIDE/NAR on the DMT only relates to the LST. Although, that is based on the pocket guide, which has some things wrong, haha. Also the TGPD works just fine with IRMAVs. I just loaded up a quick “3 tanks in the desert” type mission, turned off the DMT, slewed the TGPD over the first tank in TDC, uncaged the first mav, selected it, designated, fired, uncaged, selected mav, slewed over 2nd tank, designated, fired, repeated for the 3rd, all in one pass.

Dr Vixen, this link shows what servers are running in real-time, along with their IP address. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/personal/server/#allservers

This is correct, Harrier is AIM-9M/CAP-9M only, thats the only one I can help with. Aside from being an unnecessary complication, I don't think loadout restrictions will change the style of the fighting on the server. Most of the kills I inflict/observe/suffer are indeed undetected missile shots, must often to the rear quarter, and come from one player's failure to observe the other, whether getting jumped outright or one loses visual in a turn. Even with the "all-aspect" AIM-9P5 of the F5 I almost never fire it from anywhere but behind an opponent. I don't see loadout restrictions changing this, and when I want turning gunfights in jets there are excellent Korean era servers. Of course, plenty of kills are inflicted on unsuspecting aircraft there too. Essentially my point is that in the visual arena we play in, I think gaining sight/keeping sight will continue to be the greatest determining factor in who flies home. Additionally I wouldn't want to see the strike planes defanged, it is already hard enough to get anyone to focus on the ground objectives. That said, nothing personal at all against anyone, just a contrasting opinion; everyone has their own thing. Cheers all and thanks as always to Alpenwolf for keeping the server so fun and engaging and being involved with the community.

Yea, I completely get what you are saying, but that is why I said “offensive IFF” in the first post. (Perhaps I should have used a different phrase there, I was trying to reference the ability to interrogate, which the A10 lacks.) Frankly I kinda hope ED leaves the system on the aircraft being interrogated simple. I am all for realism, but I could see a team kill epidemic on public servers because of people not reading the brief, incorrectly operating equipment, etc. However, wherever ED goes with this system, I’m sure the community will adapt. Cheers.

I don't think anyone who has spent any time in the F5 would ever call it overpowered, but GA comparisons might be selling it a little short haha. I would ask what your weight/drag index was in that climb, however, and why you needed to go so slow? No climb profiles are provided for a mil power climb at less than 285 KIAS in TO 1F-5E-1, and in fact it recommends "a minimum of 300 KIAS should be maintained except for instrument approaches, maximum range descents, landings, and tactical maneuvering." On a typical Caucus MP mission my loadout puts me at 20,000 pounds/130 drag index. I accelerate to 300 before turning and climb at max power to 10,000 feet, then transition to a mil climb to the mid teens, and I usually see 4000 FPM or greater in the max power phase. We're clearly both fans of the plane, and I'm not doubting your experience at 180 KIAS at all. I just think that excessive AOA/drag/ect at that speed (especially in a turn) are really keeping you down. Pure turbojet = "the faster it goes, the faster it goes faster" and all that. Anyway, cheers all, and I hope the OP enjoys the purchase.

Generally 24/7 unless Alpenwolf is doing maintanence. Highly reliable server. It was up this morning in the US, as well as this evening. (And the rest of the day I’m sure, those were just the times I personally looked.) Here is the link to see what servers are running. If you see it there and you can’t join the issue is probably on your end. As Dehuman said server is on open beta.

Check your mappings. The nose wheel turns with your rudder pedals when the NWS button is depressed. Make sure only one axis is mapped to the rudder. Then look at your aircraft in the F2 view to see how the nose wheel is behaving.

Part 4 of Appendix I of TO 1F-5E-1 is the “range” section and probably has the closest thing to what you are looking for. That is where the constant altitude cruise charts and nm per pound charts are found. Examples for the use of every chart in Apendix I are at the bringing of each respective part. Part 10 provides an example mission and goes through the solution from taxi to landing. It would take an afternoon to go through the whole process however haha. Have you thought about getting your own no wind numbers for quick and dirty calculations? Like loading up the editor with the aircraft stores you want and cruising constant airspeed/Mach at 5k, 10k,15k,FL200, etc, and writing down your TAS (F2 view) and fuel flow. Then cruise fuel would be an easy calculation for you.

I get ya, I was just pointing out that the GBU-12s don't appear on that picture haha. Anyway thanks for your service.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe Fer wasn't looking for the ability to plot a call on the moving map; aside from that requiring a lot of head-down time he was just looking for a continuously displayed radial/distance from the bull. As it stands, you have to use the plus two/minus two, plus/minus 180, or whatever mental tool is your favorite to make the bearing field into a radial and he wanted a way to bypass that step. That being said, the method you described would work to generate a pictorial display if that is what you are after, I just don't know how practical it is in a single pilot tactical aircraft. As for a BRAA call, sure you could plot that too but much as before I would advocate looking out the windscreen in that case.

Are you sure that is where you want to stop all debate? I like my GBU-12s in team play, I would hate for ED to take them away:). In all seriousness a comprehensive and appropriate list is easily available for the finding, it just runs afoul of rule 1.16 to post a snap. (And sadly it will still show only 2 sidewinders allowed).

Thanks Tiger!

Quick question to make sure I am understanding the control system of the F5 correctly (sorry OP, not trying to derail, I'll make a new post if this isn't a one-answer deal). I thought with an all-flying hydraulically actuated horizontal and an electric trim system that just adjusts the spring feel system to the stick, the full 17 degrees of up elevator should always be available, so elevator authority should have nothing to do with trim position. (IE, stick force would be higher, but the mechanical stop of the stick should be reachable even with more nose down trim than required for the current flight state). Am I missing something here? Thanks.

Good deal.

No need to get angry and threaten my poor digital pilot. Its the bug section. If you claim bugs without evidence and then actively protest the constructive advice you receive, you might get called out. But I concede the point that kicking dirt at each other probably isn't the best use of the bug section either and certainly doesn't help the aircraft or the community. Cheers.

You are the one that reopened it after almost 2 weeks in post #5. I guess I just figured something new had occurred... Sure you did. Right here.

Weird. -I would start with a repair of DCS -what joystick are you using and do you use any profiling software? -can you map any of your other joystick buttons to trim? -is anything weird on your key mapping screen? grayed out boxes, ect I'm no control profile expert (I lucked out and was unaffected by the profile issues that hit a ton of people this fall), but those are my initial thoughts. Hopefully those answers can get the ball rolling so someone else who knows more about control mapping will read this and be able to help you out!

Porkchopper, my experience is that people who are going to use public voice will be on SRS, when the server is busy SRS is well populated generally (at least for blue).

Hi Tiger. Is it only an issue mapping the joystick button to the trim function? What if we start at a more basic level, are you able to map a keystroke to the trim function and then test that in engine? If the F5 is on the ground and the engines are running the stick should move fore and aft as you apply pitch trim, as well as the pitch hat on the stick moving (naturally).

That's a fair and reasonable assessment, I should have offered to try the tutorial myself as well. Thanks Baaz.

Hi ViFF, Fer and I were just discussing this a couple weeks ago here. As it stands, to my knowledge there is no way to display bearing FROM with the current DCS implementation. The problem with adding such a feature is that the actual Garmin 430 has no data field to show the radial you are on, only bearings to a fix (chapter 3 page 3 of the Garmin Pilot's Guide). So I guess the issue then becomes, "will ED implement a feature that doesn't exist in RL." Even though it would be a simple feature (or as simple as such things can be) I can't see ED adding things that aren't there in real life. In the mean time, you could always create a user waypoint at the bulls location, command direct to, and then use the bearing/range provided. Of course you just have to find the reciprocal of the bearing shown (+2/-2 method , +/- 180 method , whichever you use) to get the radial.

Yes, reinstalling an operating system is always a surefire way to fix module bugs. You use two variables to try to troubleshoot problems when you are using "science" right? Oh, wait... I never claimed to be an expert. You did. I simply tried to help when you asked a question with a problem scores of people have had with F5 switchology, not the module. You keep claiming the problem is with the F5 itself and aren't willing to admit the problem was on your end. But if a track shows otherwise, I will of course admit I was incorrect. Some people can admit mistakes and grow. Some can't.

Keep lecturing all you want. You are still the scientist who wants everyone to take you completely at your word without a shred of evidence. That's some weak science. Going right to "its a module bug" with zero proof except your word doesn't sound like a very scientific way to go about things. But, if you really are interested in documenting bugs in a way that helps the devs (since you are posting in the bugs/problems section), here is NineLine's guide. It lays out a well defined, nicely structured way to make the report. Tracks of the "bugs" will be required though.