randomTOTEN

what map?

Correct. It does not measure distance. An upsloping hill, flat ground, a sheer cliff face. They all approach the unit at the same speed. They all produce the same doppler frequency shift. The unit will correctly measure the groundspeed using all of them. The angle of terrain doesn't matter. The distance calculation (of the route, not the ground below) is entirely internal. There is no distance measured to ground, thus distance measurement error from hills cannot cause errors. The system knows flight path attitude because it is gyro stabilized. It does not care what the orientation of the ground is. Ground orientation does not factor because it does not influence the doppler shift of the signal. The doppler principle eliminates the need for knowing the shape of the ground below. TERNAV is a separate system from the Viggen's Doppler Nav, so the principles are irrelevant here, as you correctly state this Hip (and soon Hind) don't have it.

The terrain is slanted, which I am referring to when I call it "uneven" I'm telling you buddy, it doesn't measure distance. It would not, because the system is gyro stabilized, and will cut out measurement when the stabilization limits are exceeded.

I think this is what lead to some confusion for OP too, It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the equipment. The unit doesn't measure distance. Thus distance measurement errors on uneven terrain cannot cause errors. EDIT2: Cool, I just realized there's a set of preflight tests using the aft panel I've never tried before! I gotta give those a go!

After thinking about it, I question if there's anything here that actually needs to be modeled. You assert that terrain contours and obstructions/buildings will introduce errors into the DISS, but I don't think I agree, and can't quite understand why you think that would be the case. Why exactly do you think these terrain features cause errors in the calculations?

That is a more modern way for the system to work, sure. But I know many of us have experience with systems that do actually rely on course info, so the current function is not a surprise.

Course should absolutely have an effect on the steering bars. The system isn't magic. It doesn't know what direction the localizer is pointing, thus could not calculate an intercept command without using the course info. In Desert Fox's 2nd picture. The steering bar is trying to get him to turn right so he doesn't get off course (it thinks he is about to deviate to the left from on the beam).

Because it's a flight director, not a course deviation indicator. Look at the image you posted. Even though the HSI needle is facing the opposite direction, it's showing the correct indication. You are left of the localizer beam for 21L. If you turned the aircraft to 000 at that same position you would show being left of the localizer, exactly as the signals you are receiving indicate. You are left of the localizer for imaginary runway 36. So ignore what's outside, look only at the HSI indication. It shows you flying away from the localizer, and it's off your left wing (to your right if you were pointed 000). To get on that localizer you need to make a left turn of 210 degrees. That is why the Steering bar is deflected left. Of course, as you make that turn you get further away from the real localizer beam, not closer as the Steering Bar is attempting to accomplish. It will soon break. This is because of the course error. I suspect the flight director system receives heading deviation, and course deviation, and processes both to output a steering command. I suspect this statement is not correct, but I don't know enough about the system to exactly say for certain. If it did not use course information it would just be another variant of localizer deviation needle. Huh? There's a numerical output on the top right of the HSI..... You can precisely set the value easy.

Your course is set to 000

I see a little bug, otherwise sadly I think a case of being "all wet." Yes, turn and pitch to follow the steering bars. I used your mission and they brought my very nicely to the runway. I don't know what you're talking about with CDI for TACAN and runway alignment. It appears to be functioning correctly in your mission. I couldn't get the identification of either station as well. In the A-10C II they changed the defaults on the audio panel so that everything is muted. In addition, it seems there is a bug where the ident audio doesn't actually play unless you adjust the volume, regardless of the fact it's already at full volume when you select it. Hope it helps. yeah i know it can be confusing.

Then you shouldn't have any issue using a simple mod to enable it.

I don't think it works for SP either. I hadn't thought about the Mi-8's NGV's being fantasy until this thread. Many of us don't. We don't have experience with NODs. We perhaps think you can just plug them into a power source, clamp them to your helmet and are good to fly. Not realizing the lighting issues, the timeline issues for given aircraft. Or other details like storage or canopy clearance. We think that ED performed the research, and give us an accurate depiction of the aircraft. If a weapon can be used on a pylon, it can be used on a pylon, if the equipment is available, it must have been available. Often times we come across the truth in forum posts (and other sources) like this one. The problem is that in SP we are often mission and campaign designers. If I'm under the false impression that the aircraft had NVG, I'm probably going to design a mission around using them. Or the person who made the campaign didn't realize the "gameplay feature" and has attempted to create a realistic mission in a campaign which uses them. He probably didn't know. Okay, if he realizes it and makes the mission anyways, or I realize it and play the mission anyways. Some of this stuff is okay, and is a nice bit of fantasy to support the operations of similar variants without having to create an entirely new module. I.e. I can enable NGV and pretend I'm flying a newer version of the Mi-8. But it's also possible that these "gameplay features" can break missions for designers and players. If the designer makes the mission requiring the use of the tool, then it may become impossible to complete without it. Likewise, if the designer builds a mission around the real aircraft equipment, the player may wonder why it's so trivially easy when they enable a "gameplay concession." For the Mi-8 example, think of how you would build a night mission without NVG's vs with them. Or you take weapons the designer did not consider building the task for. Or they expect you to use weapons you didn't take because you don't think they're realistic. I just wish there will be some thought and consideration on these points, and how these decisions reflect the accuracy of the module, vs the gameplay benefits. And our ability to lean it be realizing the impacts limitations have on the tactics. Everything in aircraft is a tradeoff. Let us make it and realize the consequences.

Thank you for the kind words. I'm glad you had such a good experience with the explanation. I don't fly the Tomcat, so I can't comment on the specific aircraft procedures like speed and configuration. But otherwise it does sound correct, yes. I'd only like to make one little correction. The charts you've posted a link to, and which depicts the 119° Hdg after the WEST ENTRY CRP, are for the Flaming Cliffs 3 series of modules. If you look at the top of the chart you referenced, you'll see the remark, "all Tracks = TN." I don't know if you can set up the F-14 to indicate "true" directions, but that is the indicating system for FC3 aircraft, not DCS level modules which almost always reference "magnetic heading." The correctly oriented charts are in the kneeboard for each module, and I would suspect you would be using one which is noted "all Track = MN." You can also look at the general information/legend for the linked charts to learn more about the symbols, airspace depictions, and an explanation of what the charts are, where the come from, and how they should be used. Just a quick note on why I add quotes around "true," and "magnetic." In DCS the earth is flat. The simulation doesn't correctly reference either the True North Pole, or the Magnetic North Pole. But for the type of flying this is it's easy to conceptually understand what's going on by calling the different directions "True" and "Magnetic." Conceptually, I consider what the simulator is doing a form of grid navigation, which is a technique used in the arctics where the meridians converge. I think the accurate name would be Grid North, but True North is a lot easier to understand and you won't notice the difference unless you get deeper into navigation.

No, THANK YOU for making this thread. I think this is much more interesting than a *certain* topic overwhelming the forum tonight. I'm also a big fan of navigation (I come from civilian sims) so I'll try to do my best to help. I think it depends on the procedures for the air base. ATC may also give you instructions, or at uncontrolled fields you will time the break in reference to the traffic you're following (to keep spacing). It's good you chose a specific airport as an example, as it allows for more detailed answers. You probably made a data entry error, or it could be a chart error. When I've performed this procedure the positions have matched. Make sure you're using the correct coordinate units. The chart is titled "Visual Operation Chart." This means the procedures flown are visual in nature. You use visual references (combined with electronic aids if available) to navigate. Lets clarify on this example. "CRP West" is at the end of a stream running generally east-to-west north of Mozdok. Along the stream, west of the village of Uvarovskoye are two settlements at the end of the stream. You would identify this stream visually and the related population areas. Use their shapes, direction, and relative positions to identify them. CRP West is just north east of that little settlement at the end of the stream. "CRP North" is along that same stream, to the east of Russkoye, at the 90° intersection with another stream. "CRP East" is on the western edge of that lake/reservoir with the unique shape. It's along a road which leads east out of Mozdok city and parallels the main river to its south. "CRP South" is on the main river, southwest of Mozdok, and just south of Pavlodolskya. Look at the bends that the river makes. See the three islands? Your CRP is on the east island. The "Initial" CRP's are easy to locate. They are just on the final for the appropriate runway. If you fly the heading from the entry CRP and turn final you should be in a position you can call "good enough." I'd say correct for wind drift if it's excessive. The *correct* answer is to use a published procedure for these answers. Be at the altitudes it instructs, and maintain them until the DME readings it instructs. But I accept that's not possible for airports in the Caucasus which don't have procedures you can use. Outside of descent from cruise, and assuming you are in visual conditions, judge altitude and distance visually. You can fly in a circle to loose altitude if you realize you are just too high. Yes, it's called the "Three to One" rule. For every 1,000ft of altitude you want to loose, you should plan 3nm of distance. If I do a quick conversion, plan 2km for every 100m. Refreshing to see a fellow poster that actually wants to try increasing realism and practice skills in their combat flight simulator....

Bump!

my understanding is that they are just pre-defined points saved into the computer. You can see many of them are associated with cities on the map, there are probably others referenced to navigation stations etc...

CFrag this is a great set of tutorials, thank you for putting in the effort to create these! I'd like to give my thoughts from the perspective of a more experienced A-10A user. I've only done maybe 1/3rd of the missions so far, mostly related to basic flying. 1. Is there a reason you chose to not talk about using the AOA Indexer to set approach speed? 2. It doesn't feel right to me to be extending full flaps before the landing gear (I extend the gear first before any flaps), but I wonder what the rest of you guys are doing? 3. On that CCRP mission, I notice the jet starts at 135 knots. You probably did this for time before release. But it causes the aircraft to pitch nose up which obscures the target immediately before the active pause. Keyboard commands: As soon as I noticed you didn't reference any of the keyboard commands, I immediately knew why you did it lol. One of the greatest complaints about FC3 aircraft from new users is that they cannot remember all the keyboard commands, and don't like extensive use of the keyboard for these aircraft. Makes total sense that you wouldn't use them at all. But as others have mentioned, forgoing the keyboard is also kind of a struggle. I guess the best way to discuss this would be to give my real time feedback on the startup mission (where most of these issues exist for me). You ask me to set up basically every function on my HOTAS. Most people (including me) probably don't have enough room to assign all those commands. More importantly, in my opinion, I don't think a lot of these need to be mapped. Many of them are only ever used when the aircraft is either motionless, during periods of low workload, or are incredibly easy to use. Lets take the example of the landing gear: you ask me to assign both "Landing Gear Up" and "Landing Gear Down." Up is LCTRL+G, Down is LSHFT+G. So we have either 2 key bindings with modifiers, or 2 different HOTAS bindings for the gear. I've never used either of these. There is a binding "Landing Gear Up/Down," it's keyboard command is simply "G." It's universal to all FC3 aircraft. In fact, it's universal to every module I have in DCS (except the Mig-21/15) It's very easy, just press the G key to work the gear. Unfortunately for your mission it's incorrect, it doesn't activate the trigger. It's a keyboard binding common to possibly every flight simulator since Microsoft Flight Simulator 3.0 in....1988? Perhaps we can find a middle ground. Yes, the keyboard keys are complicated for FC3. But perhaps we could "teach" them to new pilots? Lets take some other examples. You ask me to turn on the battery using an "Electrical Power" binding. I didn't set it. Because I'm an experienced player, I know the binding is RSHFT+L. Consider these default commands together: Electrical Power Switch = RSHFT+L Illumination Cockpit = L Navigation Lights = RCTRL+L Gear Light Near/Far/Off = RALT+L Flashlight = LALT+L Notice the pattern? If it's something to do with a light, the binding involves the letter L! So since I've learned to associate "battery" with "lights" for FC3 (yeah, it's a stretch) I know it involves the L key. And I know it's RSHFT+L just from experience. The canopy command is different for many modules, but they all involve the C key. C=Canopy. F= it's got something to do with Flaps. Perhaps there is a better way to handle the keyboard instead of overwhelming new users or just telling them to assign everything. This isn't really directed specifically at you CFrag, but it's something I've been thinking about that's highlighted by your tutorial. We do some more lights stuff (I do have some of those bound), and call ATC. Excellent. Then you ask me to start the left engine. Just to highlight my experience and idea again. I know engines for all my modules use some modifier plus HOME to start. END is for shut down. I don't have these bound. The only time I'm going to use them is either when I'm parked, or perhaps after I have escaped a combat area, stabilized the aircraft, and have to shut down an engine. I know from experience engines are "usually" controlled with the modifiers on the right side (RALT,RSHFT,RCTRL) and you want me to start the left one, so of those, RALT is the farthest left. I press RALT+HOME and see the left throttle move to idle. Is there any way we can transmit that kind of thinking/experience to new users instead of just dumping key commands or HOTAS bindings onto them?

because DCS sees it as a joystick, and assigns it default flight controls

They don't even have to do that right now. What you're asking for is pretty much already a feature. When you plug in a joystick, DCS automatically does what you ask. It assigns pitch and roll axis, POV, and I believe the trigger. Automatically with no input from the user. Or something along those lines. If DCS detects the device is a TM Warthog HOTAS, and the module has a profile, your entire HOTAS will be automatically bound with ED decided controls. No user input required. Now the control schemes are still separate, it's just a copy paste for each module. But I'm telling you having common bindings is no fun. You don't want it. I just told you with several examples they are not the same from the pilot's perspective. I have different saturation for the I-16 and F-16. There can be no common control binding for both of them, or it would just be inferior. It so much easier to just spend a couple minutes binding the controls the way you want them, with what works with the airplane in question, and the controllers you have available. Once it's done you don't really think about it again.

Because every other sim has to have all kinds of silly workarounds because they lack it. Module provided custom input programs, users running multiple hardware profiles. The DCS system eliminates all the conflicts that make all that extra work necessary. Every aircraft is completely different, every hardware device is completely different. The specific profiles can be saved as files for backup and future use. It detects hardware changes and applies the saved profile automatically. Beautiful. It already exists in DCS, and most people with any experience don't like it. It treats all hardware as a joystick, and assigns basic flight controls to your throttle and rudder pedals. The first thing I do when I get a new module is delete the default/generic profile. Its fine for it's purpose (brand new people with a single joystick), but you quickly move beyond. No they don't. Excellent example btw. The sticks are physically different. The control actuation is different (cable vs force sensing). The locations in the cockpit are different. The physical deflections are different. I have different profiles for "the most common controls" for each of them. DCS keeps them nice and separate. No worries. Beautiful. It takes...what... 1 minute to assign the "most common controls" for a module? Is this really such a burden for you? I think you don't realize how much of a burden you'll have when you get to enjoy control conflicts across multiple modules. No thanks.

When using the mission planner, the "Changing Coalitions" button is still visible, and allows me to change coalitions during preflight planning. I don't think that's intentional. I changed the coalition of a country and units at my home base started attacking each other lol.

No thank you. I think this is one of the strongest features of DCS. Perhaps your wishlist can exist as a wizzard to overlay the current interface, but I see this as a downgrade.

I'm under the impression that our Block and era doesn't field MK-20s

I think there's a skill mismatch here. I'm presuming when you're flying the Ka-50 in "Simulation" flight mode, you still have the various AP/FD channels connected. If flying an extremely automated helicopter is considered a challenge to you, AAR might just demand more controls coordination than you're presently prepared for. You probably need more of a buildup. I spent more time practicing the carrier landing in the Hornet than I did AAR in the Hornet. I've been stuck for months on the "Unguided bombing from a half loop" mission for the L-39 Kursant campaign. You think AAR is difficult? The hornet is Fly-By-Wire, you can sit behind the tanker at 1G for as long as your fuel remaining allows. When you connect that limit gets extended. Either you're wings level or in a shallow bank. Really the only limit is your patience. In my L-39 mission there are no stability computers. The mission task is performed immediately after an 2-3G Immelmann. You have mere seconds to accurately place the aircraft's nose, while in a 180° roll from inverted flight. There are only 2 chances to drop the weapons on the target before the mission fails. That's not to discount AAR. It is in no way easy, and I think for many people they don't want to commit to the practice required to become proficient. Nearly everybody who was put in the time can see that quite clearly. But it's certainly not impossible (there are probably 2 users for which that may actually be true). Otherwise it's months of forum posts of "this is impossible," "we need a cheat mode" followed by a post exclaiming with excitement you've completed a refueling event. And the cycle continues with fresh blood... here we are again. The procedure itself is not "hard." It's quite simple. The "hard" part is developing the skills of precise aircraft control. Both in the hands and in the eyes. People come to AAR without being able to accurately control their aircraft, and without caring about accurate aircraft control. They slam the jet down on the pavement for landing, they don't care about smooth accurate landings. They don't care about accurate pitch on takeoff, or accurate speeds and headings on the departure. You can spectate many players in MP and when the jet runs out of fuel they just eject. They don't care about tight position control in formation flight, don't care about an accurately flown Carrier pattern. Accurately flying the ball, and trying to catch the 3 wire. Suddenly you place yourself behind a tanker, and those abilities you didn't care about suddenly become required. I watched a track of a user trying to AAR and his formation control was so bad he slammed into the tail of the KC-135. Three times in a single attempt. A mid-air collision. He declared his formation flying "needed a little work" and blamed his problems on the boom operator AI. And I'm pretty sure we can all relate. It becomes a frustrating experience for everybody that tires it. And I can tell you the progress will be extremely slow at first, and you will be immensely satisfied when you accomplish it. And you will accomplish it. Then it will still be a challenge, and you will feel "out of practice" some times, but you'll have otherwise very little issues with it after the initial hurdle is crossed, and you cement your new skills. Then if you stick around you'll see how many of these posts there are. I learned on the A-10C years ago. I don't touch the rudder on any aircraft I AAR. I still think this is rationalization by people who haven't developed the coordination and visualization skills yet. It's entirely possible to accomplish it stationary on the earth looking at a screen. It's 100% a visual procedure. You have to learn to control your aircraft precisely in relation to another aircraft purely by visually judging it's relative position and motion. Many many many real pilots let their inner ear and sense of pressure lead them to their death, and I think desktop pilots convince themselves that these are helpful, because the realities of the experience of motion are so obviously missing from their experience. Speculation fills the void. Perhaps VR users have the case for 3D vision and judging close distance and relative motion, but I found it sufficient enough to adapt using purely 2D references so I don't accept that it's necessary for success. Perhaps it has a benefit, but I also read the downsides of this simulation interface. It's not supposed to be a substitute for the building of an entirely new set of skills. It only solves the fuel problem. The fuel problem is given as an excuse to implement an entirely new set of code which exists to bypass the building of new skills. I don't think the fuel is ever actually the issue, seeing as how this option is so effortlessly rejected, but so perfectly suitable. If you want immersion of fuel management during a mission, you also have the opportunity to experience (probably) the most realistic AAR experience available. Get up there and experience it. Or divert to a land base. Those are both real options if you want real fuel management. But nobody wants to actually practice AAR. Some other poster was complaining that he didn't have time for AAR due to his limited schedule. His sorties ran in excess of 3 hours every week (requiring AAR) but it was unacceptable to dedicate any of that time to building a new skill in his hobby. Nobody likes running training sorties, even when they actually need them. And then people complain there's nothing to do on the training range... What "standard"? The tanker exists or it doesn't. The mission requires the skill of AAR or it doesn't. The player joins the server, or runs the mission, or they don't. The server/mission enforces unlimited fuel or it doesn't. Why are you getting behind tankers? Most of us already know the "rigorous training program." It's been in place for over a decade now. We know the drill. It's repeated numerous times, and it will be repeated. You're going to do it too. Nobody needs to "develop it." Eagle Dynamics already did. It's rooted deep in the flight dynamics (and to a small extent) the AI code. It's buried deep in your brain. Your psychology too. The sequence of events is nearly universal. The time taken at the identical various stages is the main variable. I can watch a replay by a person I've never met, never heard their voice, never seen their face. I know where they are, I know what they feel. I don't know the language their profanity is. Nope, it's the same for every single airplane (at least so far). Or you can place 2 aircraft on an empty map and accomplish 99% of what these missions could ever offer. For the Hornet, the Case 1 instant action mission already has a tanker orbiting the boat. Literally all that's required as of right now (TODAY) is to load that mission and call it up. Fancy triggers and dialogue won't somehow magically make that go away. You might think that daunting week is a total waste, but I can argue improvements were made. Maybe at the end of the week you found the tanker, how to call it, or even just generally figured out what way you were going. Nobody flies a week trying to build a skill without making some improvement. Even if they don't feel like it. When flying AAR you need to be looking at the tanker, not looking at the HUD, not looking at text on the screen, not listening to a voice, not thinking about the dialogue. Flying the tanker. The levels of expertise and progression are basically handed down from God. 2 jets on a map does this. You're speculating about a lot of this. You're speculating because you're probably at one of the early stages, looking at what feels like an impossible barrier of skill to even approach the next step. Thinking there must be some secret skill, some hidden technique which allows other people to make it look so easy. If they could just show it to you, or tell you how to do it, then things would just go so much faster. Because you keep trying and trying and it never gets better. It can't be like this, there has to be a better way. Sorry OldFalcon, guess how those people got to where they are now? yep. settle in. it's a slog and it's gonna really try your patience but I assure you there's a light at the end of this tunnel. And you just thought you were gonna shoot missiles huh...

Hmm... several ways to do this. I think I'll just answer specific points I can. STEP 1: READ THE MISSION BRIEFING if you read nothing else from my reply, you will have an immensely better experience if you read the briefing provided by the mission creator. It answers your fundamental questions of "where do I go, and what do I do?" There is also a screen called "Mission Planner," open it and explore around. Get familiar with the sortie you will take. Excellent, good for you! The Jet fuel is free, so are the A-10s. Accept that you're going to get shot down a lot for a good while. Enjoy. The best source for this info is the Mission Briefing. Baltic Dragon can only tell you how to fly Baltic Dragon's missions, his missions are going to have briefings. If I build a mission for you I need to tell you how to complete it. Don't know anything about that stuff sorry. I assume it's related to VR. I make notes on a piece of paper and pen. Sometimes I print off documents for really involved missions. So am I. Good, let me give you the TL;DR. 99% identical to the civilian world. The A-10C II is a regional jet until you get into the target area and take the safety off. Once you egress the battlefield it's an airliner back into the chocks. Routing and navigation is more VFR than IFR. Airways aren't really relevant unless you're in Nevada, and even those are visual. SAM and AAA occupy engagement envelopes that look suspiciously like terminal airspace. There's gonna be some terminations in there if you're not careful! You're not gonna like it... Read the briefing. I don't know what. I can't read the briefing in your hypothetical scenario. I don't know who DARKSTAR is. I don't know where he is. I don't know how to use him to accomplish the hypothetical goal given in the hypothetical mission briefing. Is he JTAC? Is he AWACS? Is he ATC? What information is it? How does it relate to the mission briefing? JTAC workflow is decribed on page 667. AWACS on page 674. page 654+ I think you're thinking a lot of hypothetical situations that will be pretty self evident once you get into a couple missions. Other assets are resources you use for SA, ADM, TEM, and CRM. Your wingmen are your crew. Yeah just have a look at the entire "Communications" chapter. I'd also recommend you skim the "Flight Fundamentals" chapter. Yeah you're a RL pilot but you don't spend much time doing max performance turns to avoid threats. Just a skim. A well made mission, with a well documented mission briefing is the way to go for now. You're welcome. have fun.