randomTOTEN

You guys could just request campaign builders to not include AAR if you don't want to be bothered doing it. And not buy the ones that mandate it. Devs will get the hint by the difference in sales and cut it from the campaign... or make it optional. There could even be warnings in the product description. "This campaign requires air refueling."

actually he reaches 370ft at 315°, so 15 degrees of turn left for the groove. I think he was a little high still. That probably happened after the ship wake. Probably because of that little late descent from the 90, caused in part by the level off which broke the constant rate of descent. Just looked up the CQ pdf and the position between the 90 and the groove is "the 45." I forgot about the 45. I guess I just generally associate it with the ships wake.

hey man, no worries. I seem to be in a string of internet misunderstandings lately. I accept. Yeah it's incredibly satisfying to come back from a 100nm+ bombing mission just to have that warning sound over the ship's wake.. exactly where you want it. I should probably do some more laps around the boat myself. ...but check out that HUD video. I see something interesting on the 2nd viewing: @1:01 I can see the Final Bearing is about 300° DCS manual says Nimitz class has a 14 degree angled deck, but that seems like an excessive value. It doesn't match the HUD footage (boat not even visible) or the wikipedia. Can't find a value in the rl manuals. I've heard 8.5 degrees. Lets round it up to 10 for ease. 300+10=310 is the guesstimated BRC, and looks about correct for the video (@0:39) reciprocal of 310-180=130 downwind heading... the heading you should be at 600ft. 310+90=400. Subtract 400-360=40. So the heading which defines "the 90" is 040 on the HUD. This is the heading you should be at 450ft or 500ft. Now watch the HUD landing video again... with these numbers in mind. You can actually watch him working the numbers. @0:00 100° and 590/600ft. 30° of the turn is already complete still at the 600ft start height. Either a little high or late descent? What's his next target? The 90 at 040° 450/500ft. Watch, you can tell which procedure he follows. He realizes he's going to be low for the 90 so he stops the descent (@0:10). Some of that turn is level at 510ft. ICLS shows too high, he's ignoring it. It's not the target. The target is the 90. @0:16 he's at the 90 (040°) at 510 ft. See which policy he follows? You can tell. ICLS still commands a descent and it's still wrong. 4 seconds later he continues the descent. The 90 might have been 030° or those 4 seconds might have been aircraft response. What's his next target? The wake at 350-375ft. Looks like he wants 370 based on the altitude alert. @0:37 altitude alert sounds at 370ft. We presume nearly over the ships wake. ICLS showing descend the entire time, a little less now. Still no ICLS course yet. 3 seconds later and the ship comes into view. There is no ball call.. but I bet he saw it at the wake. That's about when I start picking it up. ICLS was calling fly down the entire turn, and didn't have course until you can see the landing area in the HUD FOV.

....apparently you want to take my comment out of context, and repurpose it as "flak." I don't discourage ICLS. I encourage altimeter use and timing. Yes yes...I know... that's not sexy. People don't buy a virtual fighter jet to fly precise landing patterns around a boat. To each their own. allow me to repeat that line within it's context again, I actually can see some benefit from using ICLS for perhaps the last 45 degrees of turn if you lack head tracking or VR. It could save you from panning to look away from the HUD at the boat. But I've never tested that to see if it's actually useful (I use TIR). That's still a very limited use scenario. Anyways... ---------------- Meanwhile, at the 90, I'm measuring my vertical position error to the nearest 10ft. How accurate is that ICLS here? Is it designed to even function in this location, with the aircraft pointing perpendicular to the final bearing? This isn't discouraging the ICLS. I'm merely offering (what I think) is possibly a better solution... you seem to know a lot about what "fleet guys" do. Do they yeet around the bend to the ICLS? Or do they follow USN published procedures? I'm no so sure here.... as you said. DCS is just a game, and people will find lots of creative ways to catch whatever wire on the boat (from whatever direction.) It can be very entertaining to spectate. You can fly it your way. I can fly it my way (that I read about in RL pubs)... and curiously enough I never really think about missing the ball, ICLS or no. Passing through the wake of the ship my altitude alerter sounds at 360ft ASL and I'm a little more than 3/4 of a mile behind the ship in a constant rate turn, at a constant rate of descent. It won't be perfect, but I'll be fairly close. And I won't worry about seeing the ball or not.. it's just a question of when I'll see it. Being in position to see the ball is just another target to fly through. Another set of numbers to work. Been trying to hit targets and work numbers since the initial at 3nm, 800ft, and 350KIAS parallel BRC. You wanna be dodging flak over an ICLS but I ain't shooting it at you dude. Too busy nerding out at the boat and making smooth approaches (probably gonna end in a bolter anyways). Safe flying.... play nice.

A well flown turn makes more of a difference.

Flying the targets: 600ft at the 180 450ft at the 90 (500ft if you follow the revised procedure)...take a peek cross the wake of the ship at 350-375ft fly the ball. I barely care what my vertical speed is through the turn. Vertical speed required is dependent on approach speed, and wind over the deck (headwind). Approach speed is dependent on aircraft weight, WOD is mostly out of your control. You really have very little control over the VS required. KISS: Fly the targets. What is the next target? How many degrees of turn remain until the next target? How many feet of altitude remain until the next target? I don't vary the turn rate for the first 90°. It needs to be kept stable. So the question then is: what will my altitude be at the next target? If I will be low for the 90, I reduce descent rate and reassess. If I will be high, the opposite. If I am abeam at 690ft I know I have 90° of turn to correct and loose 240ft (or 200).. that's gonna require a steeper descent. I can't continue that descent for the 2nd half of the turn or else I will be over 90ft low. But I know what the next target is, and what my trend is. As A.E.W. said, "work those numbers." Make 'em work. Repeat it to yourself, "work those numbers!" the peek at 90° is to judge a undershoot or overshoot of the groove, and adjust the turn rate in response. 2nd purpose is to visually check the descent planning. You want 350ft at the start of the groove? that's a little over 90 degrees and only 100(or 150) ft to go. Fly your targets, work those numbers. What's the VSI number? Don't know... don't care. If you fly the numbers, you'll fly it tight, fly it fast (interval), and barely have time to care about the ICLS needles either. By the time you can start using them you're seconds from looking for the ball anyways. The targets put you in a position to see the ball. Fly the targets, work the numbers, have fun.

Probably the A-10C_2, purely for the reason it requires the original A-10C, which has a ton of content for it.

I guess you're right. If I don't care that all the weapon, seat, and gear pins aren't modeled, why should I specifically need the functionality of an EPU pin. It's just another pin after all...

Have you ever busted a tank with a Mk 82, using a fixed depression sight, a bombing table, and a precisely flown attack pattern? Is that something you thought you might want to try doing? How comfortable are you relying on visual reference, map reading, compass+clock, and TACAN? Are you reliant on the realistic version of the "quest marker" projected on the HUD or MFD? Can you shoot a TACAN instrument approach down to 300ft AGL below a cloud deck to the airport for a safe landing? Do you know how to trim an aircraft? Do you know how to accurately fly a high performance agile fighter jet with the absolute minimum stability augmentation? Are you reliant on Fly-By-Wire? As somebody who has a lot of modules and still flies the F-5, I see it as having two major roles in my sessions: Light Fighter or basic Combat Trainer (Western). As a light fighter you can represent the capabilities of a lesser equipped military and realize the limitations and techniques they could use to accomplish a mission. To depart the air-base, navigate and identify the target without TGP or INS, to attack it using profiles and a fixed sight with unguided bombs/rockets/gun, or to use those skills and a JTAC for terminal guidance with a GBU-12. Use AWACS/GCI to engage appropriate resistance, or use them to evade superior threats. To use the same skills to navigate back to base and land, refuel/rearm and do it all again. To better realize the tools you have with other aircraft, when they are actually needed, vs when they're actually just a layer of redundancy. Or practice the exact same skills in a fine training environment like Nevada. Replicating the type of flying perhaps conducted by the T-38 (current USAF training aircraft, and a twin-seat F-5 variant). Or fly the realistic departure and arrival procedures to real USAF bases. In real airspace. Or perhaps BFM/ACM in a jet that barely holds your hand. And barely holds your hand while you take off and land. Do you have problems with AAR in your modern FBW jets? Flying an F-5 in formation, or practicing precise flying could expand your experience and help you build skills you can transfer. I think the F-5 makes an excellent training aircraft. And for those that have started with their "dream" modules first, the F-5 can still serve that excellent training role that they prhaps didn't realize they wanted.

about -20C.

I did, yes. It still failed to clear.

I can at least think of one still outstanding issue. In the UH-1H, 2 pilots sit side by side, interacting with the same cockpit (which works well). The door gunners only see a flat static image for the instrument panel (looks identical to external). In the Mi-8MTV2 it's 3 crew in the same cockpit.. and a lot more switches and systems. But Mi-8 gunners have no view of the cockpit at all... but a much larger cabin.

It's still advertised on the store page. remember the UH-1H came out before the Mi-8MTV2

you're looking for the USS John C Stennis.

Scroll down on the briefing page (the one that is displayed before you start the mission).

They do for some modules in some conditions. Why do you keep asserting otherwise?

Yes, The official ones. (it is a playlist). Here are the same videos organized a little better (also a playlist).

I found luck with opening the fuel valve as soon as I command starts. Gets it started in frigid temps on the Mountain Farp (~6,000ft) in TTI MP server.

Optimistic for distant Las Vegas lights at night. Not expecting it, but would be a nice surprise. Uh-1 milticrew is excellent, door gunners is incredible, the change coalition can be an excellent tool for Nellis operations.. I am incredibly excited, great job guys!

Thanks for the explanation. Yeah I have a much better understanding now. If it helps there is a way to move profiles across modules. In your A-10C_2 profile, click "Save Profile As" and name the file and put it somewhere easy to find. Then navigate to the A-10C(I would probably clear the present profile first) and click "Load Profile" and it will populate. You will loose all modifiers and switch states so those will have to be rebound, and I would check to make sure that everything is still bound correctly. But that should get you well on the way of running the tutorial missions if you haven't already solved all this already. Enjoy, hope the issues get sorted.

I'm going to make some educated guesses for Frederf's acronyms, and he can correct me if I'm wrong. DTC=Data Transfer Cartridge SLT=Sea Level Temperature I have only default missions for the A-10C 2... this "Caucasus summer noon ramp" is not one of them. It's title doesn't even make sense, you're not on a ramp but in a HAS. The OAT isn't reasonable for the climate and geography. Where did you get this? At least we know the engines can start by advancing the throttle with extreme OAT. I want to ask, since you're so new, why are you running such a complicated script to start the A-10? You know you can simply modify missions to have it start with a hot aircraft, not just a cold one. You also have an in-game auto-start system (RWIN+HOME). Why did you make this, and why are you using it? It seems needlessly complicated and redundant considering what's currently available.

50C OAT? Where did you get this mission? The scripted autostart can't get the engine going either.

There's supposed to be cockpit controls for that, but they haven't been implemented yet.

Welcome, Can you post a short track?

Vision I think you make a good case. Yeah that could be a nice expansion... I would be even fine with Lemoore being a highly detailed airfield surrounded by a couple miles of nice scenery, then the most basic mesh and textures to transit to NTTR and back. If that's really such a frequent thing that's done. Yeah including NFL and China Lake would be nice expansions if they really are used that much. Wouldn't that also suggest including their relevant airspace (and ground) as well?