Lace

I have a training mission with various target types at various waypoints. One is an armed speedboat moored up an inlet being resupplied by some ground troops. I have a nearby JTAC set up in the usual way, with the target set as 'RED NAVAL 1' and weapon set to laser guided, designation laser, etc. The problem is, when I make radio contact and check-in, I get the 'no more tasking' message. I've had plenty of success with JTACs in other missions I've created, but this is the first time I've had a boat as a target. Is this a known problem, or am I doing something wrong?

Don't forget the peripherals - HOTAS, VR, Simpit, background reading, perhaps even a dedicated PC or two. I'm sure there are users who have spent five figures on this 'free game'. My point is though, nobody is forcing anyone to buy all or even any of the modules. Pick whichever one(s) which take your fancy, or don't.

Gina looking good! But not a complete surprise after some of IFE's MB-339 videos.

I hope so, in which case there should be little need for a mission builder, except for very specific scenarios or training requirements. The DC will generate a list of targets, you allocate resources and then off to the mission planner you go...

I'm sure many have already been mentioned in this thread, but one big one for me - the scenario editor and mission planner have fundamentally different requirements, and as such should be two separate entities. The scenario editor could (should) be a stand-alone piece of software, with more inbuilt functions for controlling AI behaviour, etc. I would love the maps to ship with more templates of fixed and plausible sites for EW/AD units for different eras, as well as infrastructure (C:MO does this well). The mission planner should have a flow. Target briefing, threat briefing, deconfliction, weaponeering, DTC integration, kneeboard package, etc. It should be real-time, and considered as part of the mission itself. The old-school Microprose sims of the 80s/90s did a great job of scene-setting, making you feel like you were actually planning a mission within a squadron. DCS lacks a lot of feel in this regard, and the whole process is a little anodyne in comparison. I'm not sure if this is what they are trying to achieve with the SC module and the various useable spaces for live briefings, but if so, this should be available to all missions and all aircraft, and not just part of the SC module. It would be great to actually move through different rooms, look at maps and charts, recce photos, weather briefs, etc.

FWIW - another use case, when I run DCS for mission building, I just pull the VR USB cable out, DCS starts windowed 1080 on my 4k display, so I alt-enter to full screen. This no longer works, so I've had to check the 'full screen' option in DCS, which now effects the windows (11) display resolution after quitting.

So for Vietnam, (version purists gonna hate) we already have Huey, F-5, A-4, MiG-21, MiG-19, Tomcat (only just). Announced are F-4, F-100, A-1, A-6, A-7, F-8, C-130 (I know, I know!). What's missing? F-105, RF-5(!), AH-1, F-111 (again, only just), C-123...

It will be tough to top the Tonka. Though I'm not personally that keen on REDFOR modules, I know there is a huge demand within the community, so it would be great to see those masochistic deviants given some love. Could be a map though?

Are we back to Friday again already?!? I'm starting to lose count of all these announcements. What's the smart money on for today's newsletter?

I voted Thud, but a Hawker Hunter would be a great shout if you are looking for something historical, versatile and prolific, not to mention one of the best lookers too.

Use a modifier button with the axis. I use an xBox controller when away from home, and the Z axis (L & R trigger) is used for TGP zoom (with one modifer), and ANT Elevation (with another modifier). The trick is that if you release the modifier while holding the Z trigger in the desired position, and then release the trigger, it doesn't move back to centre. It also means that a quick tap on either returns them to centre if you need to (so waterline ANT, and TGP zoom 4). Not sure if that is any use to you, but it works for me and doesn't require additional software or configuration.

At risk of stating the obvious, I just hope they don't do something stupid like release a 'modern' version of the map! It absolutely has to be conflict relevant (unlike South Atlantic, Kola and Sinai).

Indeed, but it's close enough, and I didn't want to dampen what is unarguably welcome news with an 'if only they'd done x' caveat.

A blessing it is 'only' a 1989 variant IMHO. We have enough mid-00s options. Very glad they went GR1 rather than GR4 (or god forbid - the ADV).

Well, we are at least getting the Tornado now!

Yep, that'll do it for me.

Disabling downwind ILS is not uncommon IRL, so not really a bug.

Looks like this will be a thing on the F-15E. Any possibility it might be reconsidered for the Viper?

Orbx, who are doing the Kola Peninsula/Nordkapp map already have the whole UK ortho scenery, treescapes & POIs available for XP and P3D. I would think that would save a bit of development time. Not sure how big the potential market would be for this one, but I'd buy it! We've got the LN Mudhens incoming. We just need to add the Hawk, Jaguar, Buccaneer and Tornado!

Some interesting advice on this thread. A lot of people seem to be over thinking it. Don't worry about the speed - that is dependent on a/c weight. Fly the correct AoA and glideslope and you'll be fine. Keep the FPM on the piano keys. The landing bracket on the HUD, and the localiser should be where your focus is, (or runway centreline for a visual approach - note the FPM will not be aligned with the centre of the HUD if a crosswind is present). Keep the airbrakes 3/4 extended throughout the approach as this gives you better throttle control and they can be quickly retracted if you need to go around (not sure if this is standard ops, but works for me and is generally good practice as throttle response at low speeds can be slow). Flare at idle throttle just above the runway and pitch up slightly (move the FPM to halfway down the runway), allowing the aircraft to settle onto the main wheels (it might gently rock side-to-side as one wheel touches before the other). Maintain that pitch until <100kts and gradually lower the nose. Apply full back stick, full airbrakes, NWS on when you start to lose rudder authority, and gently brake for your runway exit.

I agree largely with the sentiment, however, how would a non-involved 3rd party be privy to information discussed between ED and another 3rd party if it were not publicly announced? One could invest a lot of time and effort on a project to present to ED only to find that someone else is already further ahead.

Skyraider! Awesome news and all but confirms a planned Vietnam map...

Indeed, but best climb 'angle' is 90deg straight up vertically, given enough power. The definition is best angle, not rate. In a lot of lower powered aircraft the figure can be similar (can't vertical climb in a C172!), but there is a reason for the two distinct terms.

Max climb angle (i.e ft per nm) is for terrain clearance, max climb rate (i.e ft per minute) is quickest to TOC.

That's the issue, DI is dependent on stores loaded. It is something which needs to be calculated for each flight, zero being a clean jet, up to very draggy TERs, pods, etc. Unfortunately DCS does not show it in the mission planner (yet!). Edit - the 350KIAS/0.8Mach mentioned in the original post is bang in the middle of the chart for a DI of 200, so probably a good ballpark for most 'normal' loadouts.