Recoil16

I'm pretty sure Incirlik AB is much more commonly used.

Correction: Rota does not have ILS. But yes, Andersen has ILS on all runways, Guam Intl (Won Pat) on two and Saipan on one. I'm not sure it does either, to my knowledge Navy aircraft do TACAN approaches at land bases and if the minimums don't suffice for that, they do PAR (precision approach radar) approaches.

GRD mode on the MPG switch is for transmit & receive on guard, BOTH on the function selector switch is to *listen* to guard.

Putting light and beacon activation at airfields under mission creator control either via the ME or mission scripting would be a huge step forward regarding this issue, absent a more realistic implementation. It's a complicated topic that would require a lot of logic to implement in a smart and realistic manner, so giving mission creators a simple on/off switch would cut around a lot of the nonsense without the trouble of considering the dozens of variables that go into deciding active runways and which systems should be activated. Of course I would be happy if the default behavior would be modeled more realistically nonetheless.

BOTH is not for homing, BOTH is for listening to the guard receiver while at the same time transmitting/receiving on the main frequency. ADF is for homing.

I've put my findings in the CB forum. For the record of this thread though, it's not a map issue. The Andersen ILS 06L is perfectly fine.

Correct as is. In is off. Out is on.

If you read the FAQ, you will find that that is already planned:

None of the airports in the Marianas have SIDs or STARs.

Besides, nothing stops you from placing a waypoint there to land, just not a mission editor "landing" waypoint. Nothing stops you from using a takeoff from ground to start there either.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that this has nothing to do with the map.

I guess I have to ask, what prevents you from using it as-is? You can use invisible FARPs to add rearm/refuel capability and for spawns you can just use ground starts, no? The map is a 21st century version after all.

Ultimately, you can't win. So really, ED should just do either a 100% real ATC with local procedures or a "simplified" version that just picks based on wind. Either way, I think having the option to have a mission designer override ATC would be a great addition. Either in the ME or (even better) with scripting.

Because then, as previously stated by @Nealius, ED has to research procedures (i.e. preferred runway configurations) for all airfields in the game. It's not as simple as "just use the runway with the headwind". Many airfields (e.g. Nellis, Incirlik, Andersen) will use specific runway configurations, even if that gives slight tailwinds. It gets even more complicated when you involve airports like McCarran (I guess now Harry Reid) that have very specific configurations that are used depending on weather/wind. Unless ED is willing to do the leg work for that and make the ATC 100% realistic when it comes to local procedures for each field, lights and ILS should not be tied to the ATC, because that gets frustrating real quick for people who want to follow real world procedure.

I'll try and see if I can figure something out that is actually reliably reproducible. Could take until next week though.

This one sounds like a different issue to me than the one this thread is about. If you think it is related to the map, open another thread for it here in the MI subforum, otherwise if you think it's an M2K issue, open a thread in the M2K subforum. Either way, a track showing the issue would probably be helpful.

Reproduced. Although the fix should really be that both PAPIs are continuously lit during hours of operation, not only after contacting ATC. The PAPIs are also currently not working during the daytime btw.

Since it is commented out, it stands to reason that it is not being used (i.e. nothing else calls it). And since it doesn't get called anywhere, uncommenting it will not have any effect.

Oh, I see what's happening now. The miz file you attached in the previous post was converted from a track file, which is why it has the Config folder and the track data in it. Nevermind then. Misunderstanding. If you ran a repair after deleting the Server.lua file and everything works you should be good now.

I just want to be clear that that is not what I recommended and that messing with files in the install directory is most certainly not recommended and can have unintended consequences.

Yeah an hour is somewhat long. I've noticed after a couple more tries that in the F-15 if you don't intercept the glideslope from below in a certain way, it acts kinda wonky. This seems to be isolated to the F-15 though, so not sure if it's really a Marianas issue. When I fly the GS below minimums all the way to the runway (which shouldn't be done in the first place), it puts me right about behind the thousand footer (about 1000-1500ft from the threshold), which is at least to me looking as if it is working as intended. Note that the 6.9 DME (in USAF charts 7 DME) is in reference to the UAM TACAN, not the ILS, since Andersen does not have ILS/DME. The F-15C doesn't care though, it always references ILS/DME even though it may not exist. In my A-10 I get near-perfect GS interception at 7 DME/2200 ft:

Unable to reproduce, I'm getting glideslope in both the F-15C as well as in the A-10C. Can you attach a short track showing the issue?

Known issue, already reported

The issue lies in the miz in Config\View\Server.lua, line 6: CameraTerrainRestriction = false I assume the person who created the mission file modified their view settings to allow passing through ground (maybe to create cinematics), and that made its way into the mission. Deleting the entire Config folder from the miz should do the trick in order to get "normal" behavior consistent with your settings.

I would recommend that you take this to the P-51 subforum (or maybe a mod can move it over there). This is a) not a bug and b) not really a Marianas matter.