randomTOTEN

You do understand it's early access... right? This brings up a good point that I had not thought up until this thread was bumped. 1. Why do users think the training missions are something they have to *pass?* Yes, in RL flight training under structured (paid/free) systems you do have to *pass* flight lessons. If you do not progress at a rate to justify the cost you are expelled from the program. But this is not the case in DCS. You run a cold start mission to learn the cold start. WHO CARES if you crash? Did you learn the cold start? Does crashing during the taxi mandate running the tutorial again? If you want to practice taxi procedures, you can simply load a takeoff instant action mission and taxi around the runway/airport. No fiddling with the mission editor required. 2. Why do users think they have to practice with training missions? Why does the UI/material not inform users that if they want to practice a procedure/technique that they can use many free flight scenarios instead of advancing through a tutorial. If you already learned the steps of the tutorial, and just want to practice 1 specific task, why not just load a quick mission and practice it? Unfortunately this is part of the process of learning these complex machines. There's just a lot of material to cover, and it's going to be a steep hill to climb at first. I agree, and think there should be more training missions to help, but unfortunately I don't think this problem can be totally solved. I agree with others that outside media can fill this gap. And my preference with a new aircraft (lately purchased before substantial training missions become available) is to set in a cold aircraft on the ramp and read the manual/ Early Access Guide/ Real sources. L-39 Kursant is an excellent example of it. I would have never thought I could do so much with that humble aircraft, or be so familiar with it. But I'm enjoying that campaign immensely. IMHO All NATO modules need their training lessons and any training campaign available on the Nevada Map, using the relevant ranges and airspace for maximum immersion during training. It's quite literally a map designed for military aircraft training.. why am I dropping MK82's on the X airfield in the Caucasus??? There should be at least the option of performing this lesson in Nevada. Again, early access. But otherwise I think you're correct. The community produces much more content than the developers possibly can. And frankly, it sounds like a lot of people either abuse or just can't tolerate the training missions. So it doesn't surprise me that they are less thoroughly supported. To see the quality difference, compare some of the earlier modules which have fully released, and their educational content. Never had to use such a program for any mission I've used. Just dropped it in the relevant file (heck even loaded it from the desktop) so not sure what you're talking about here. Probably indicative of the types of missions I'm using.

SME, it looks like you parked in a place that the simulator does not recognize as paved. Your sunken wheels do not look like OP's. I suspect Pixelhead blew his nosewheel tire (damage model still WIP?), and I suspect F16FLCS-SME parked in what is essentially gravel. Also your tracks are large because they contain all the audio and scripts of the tutorial mission.

I'm on the identical software version and have functioning trims in all 3 axis of control. The most recent update was the stable branch so we should all be on the same version. Can you try a repair?

yes, during mission design. place the F/A-18C on the map, and use the waypoint function to create a flight route for the aircraft. the waypoints will be translated into coordinates and loaded into the navigation system, and a SEQ will be built with them for you to display and use. When you load a mission, click the option MISSION PLANNER and it will allow you to modify the current flight route for the aircraft (if mission designer allows?). You can also add parameters such as waypoint altitude, aircraft speed/mach, and arrival time, and they will be transferred to the F/A-18C navigation system if possible.

Genius. Basically using the same system for 2 different modes, long range w/ no moving map, and moving map mode but you sacrifice the longer range of the DISS (beyond map boundary). Yeah I like that idea a lot!

I tried it as well with no success. Not even sure what it's supposed to do, toggle the chart on/off?

Am I reading that right? You're using your RC heli transmitters as a joystick for DCS?

"Improved" but not fully fixed. Good enough I feel, though I have TrackIR

You say, And you also say, These are all motor skills that require few button presses. Perhaps trim and flaps (gear is a single keyboard press so no problem). Carrier landings and AAR are skills you admit need work but require none of the work flow you describe on the keyboard. Neither does dumb bombing, air combat with heat seeking missiles, or air combat with guns. I specifically mentioned "basic maneuvers and weapons with" and your response is to immediately escalate to 4 vs 1 beyond visual range fight. You see the RC helicopter analogy? "You should stick with the Blade 250 you already own." "Okay, but what if I want to do the inverted backward flip inverted hover?" "But you just said you need to practice regular hover" You can also likely bind the major HOTAS functions you use to the joystick, but you probably don't yet know which ones to use, or how to bind them. Try finding the model of joystick you have, there are likely profiles for it already. I wouldn't suggest using them directly, but more for getting ideas of what kinds of control schemes are possible. Perhaps you can post your joystick here as an image. I bet somebody could identify it.

I agree, "muh score" Why should you get credit because somebody's internet cuts out? If they eject from the server you know what happened.

Here's my advice. Use the stick you have and wait for the prices and availability to improve to the point you get the hardware you really want, at the price you're comfortable with. If you're new high value hardware isn't going to be much of an improvement. You need to build the skills first, and I don't know the condition of your stick, but if it's at all functional it will be good enough to learn basic maneuvers and weapons with. It's probably the same with RC Helicopters (I was a fixed wing guy decades ago). There's really no point rushing into a expensive aerobatic model if you can barely hover. If you have a functioning helicopter and can't find a high quality one, that cheap model will probably be good enough to learn the basics. And you can probably have fun with it until the better models get restocked.

I have fun with my Logitech Extreme 3D Pro, what model is your "crapy old flight stick"?

How about an option for the F-16 in the mission editor? You click on the unit, click a box, and it allows HARMS and AGM-65s on the inner pylons? Same could be done for the LAU-88. You could then implement weapon and launcher restrictions on a per-aircraft basis, and a per mission basis...

This mission is still an absolute blast, even in 2020. It has minor issues (and/or user errors) but my experience with it today was incredibly satisfying.

That decision could simply be above your pay grade. The designation of a runway under calm winds is dictated by other factors than just ILS. Concerns like terrain, noise, nearby airspace, traffic flows for different airports. Not saying this is correct in DCS, but I'm saying these are concerns when deciding the "default" traffic flow when weather isn't an issue. And they might not be the same concerns which control the placement of the ILS. They may want the majority of landings to be in a certain direction, but can only place an ILS for arrivals from the sea (perhaps due to terrain). I don't believe DCS AI ATC can factor in visibility to make it's runway decision, so you probably will get in situations in which the ILS is required, but because of the AI limitations it won't be enabled. I guess in that scenario you just have to divert, or accept the AI limitation and build the mission to avoid that problem. These concerns aren't entirely unrealistic. I've made a diversion from an airport with a functional ILS, because it couldn't be used due to traffic restrictions.

I believe that is the same control in the MI-8, it defines the course direction, not the North direction. yeah but don't see it yet. This is the zero cost solution, and probably accurate. But the map pieces are square, and I see no mechanism to rotate the map, which leaves me to believe they must be cut in the correct orientation during planning. And any slight error will result in the error of the crosshair. Yes, but you would need to translate that into the map display as well. If you travel 000°M the moving map crosshair will move straight up the map oriented to True Noth but the aircraft is not traveling True North, and after a while the crosshair will indicate an incorrect position, even though the rest of the DISS is functioning and indicating correctly. The other solution is to just orient the GMK to True North, and deal with True courses/headings only and use map pieces oriented to True North.

How does the DISS resolve the difference in direction between the paper map and the aircraft compass system? Presumably the map will be inserted with True North being vertical, but the GMK is aligned to Magnetic North. How do you tell the system the current variation+deviation so that it moves the map crosshair in the correct direction?

How much gas and weapons did you have when you landed?

Not any more it isn't.:music_whistling: Yes, that was incredibly awesome. I don't think it's a stretch at all to deduce that the development of improvements for the A-10C directly translated to the new A-10C II product. Either both cockpits were developed simultaneously, or the A-10C cockpit provides the starting point for the A-10C II cockpit modifications (deletion and addition of panels). We know flight model and HUD depiction changes are common (or duplicated) across both modules. We also know that an installation of the A-10C modules actually mandatory to use the A-10C II upgrade... not just a license. They share code. How much of this new cockpit is identical for both aircraft? 75%? 90%? The new cockpit model mandated completely new textures. The unweathered textures were still custom created for the new cockpit. How much of the "Aged" cockpit texture is identical to both aircraft? 75%? 90%? You can perhaps understand why I would infer that there is a chance that the aged textures would be applied to both aircraft? As I said, this isn't any kind of deal breaker. It was just a hope on my end. I can agree with this. And I look forward to it, and appreciate his work. It will be interesting to compare both weathering jobs.

I'm not talking about the A-10C II

Many of us have learned a lesson with other aircraft and their systems. If you keep your mouth shut your opinion doesn't get counted. So here's my opinion, and my thread to count it: Let users get used to to the new HOTAS functions before you give a gameplay concession for a potentially unrealistic command. If the real A-10C "suite" got rid of TGP Cage, the designers chose that function to loose for a reason, and there's a realistic way to work around this loss of functionality. Users: Please practice with the new HOTAS and see if you can adjust your flow before asking for a gameplay concession. You may find that there's a method to the madness, and there are other (better?) ways of doing things with the TGP/HOTAS. Give the jet a chance guys...

What if you use the HUD cursor as a stand-in for the TGP caged, slew it to the intended point, make SPI, then slave all to SPI? Seems it would be better for everybody if we could have realistic solutions before needing to add simulation concessions...