Frederf

There is no such thing as "standard QNH" as equivalent to QNE. I don't believe Q-anything is spoken operationally but at least the FAA/ICAO controllers have to know Q-codes and they should pop up in the instructional material for pilots at the ATP level. They understand the concepts well enough.

Then some are wrong. A properly stated definition should remove all ambiguity. Here's I'll quote the exact FAA and ICAO definitions for QNH. QNH− The barometric pressure as reported by a particular station. ( https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg_html/glossary-q.html ) QNH Altimeter sub-scale setting to obtain elevation when on the ground (ICAO Document 8168, Vol 1, §1, Ch 2) Re: "Standard QNH". That's not the correct term. I searched the thread. The setting that results in the altimeter displaying pressure altitude is called QNE. The person who said "standard QNH" should have said "standard altimeter" or "QNE" but not the incorrect mashed up "standard QNH". The person was using "QNH" as interchangeably with "altimeter setting" and thus "standard altimeter setting" become "standard QNH" which isn't correct. Some pilots, especially USA, refer to QNE as "standard setting" since it doesn't change with the weather. Re: "Local QNH" QNH is in reference to a locality. QNH itself is a meaningless value unless you know where. Is it the QNH for Tokyo International Airport? Eiffel Tower, Paris? London Bridge, UK? In situations you'll required to reference "local QNH" which means use the QNH which corresponds to that locality. If you're landing in Frankfurt, Germany use Frankfurt, Germany's QNH. Don't use the QNH from New Delhi, India. New Delhi's QNH isn't local. Re: "Q__ is an altitude" It's not, at least the Q codes we're talking about, i.e QNE, QNH, QFF, QFE. There are dozens if not hundreds of Q codes that can be what temperature is it to what did you eat for breakfast. It's an old system when Morse was used to communicate so common concepts were greatly abbreviated.People are going to make that confusion because "altitude as displayed on the altimeter while set to the pressure reference Q___" is a mouthful. So they say I'm at "10,000 feet, QNH" or "10,000 feet QNE" or "10,000 feet QFE" that those Q-codes aren't altitudes, but indications of what pressure setting is being referenced. Those brief phrases are shorter ways of saying "I'm at 10,000 feet as shown on my altimeter which is set to the QNH pressure setting". You might also see the "QFE datum" for example which is an elevation, feet meters. That is because the datum is a distance even though QFE itself is a pressure/pressure setting. The datums are part of the Q___ definitions but aren't the values themselves. Pressure altitude is an altitude in that it's expressed as a distance although it's actually an indication of a pressure. There exists the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) which is a scientific model of a typical "yardstick" atmosphere to which all other real atmospheres are compared. For example if it's 20°C today and standard is 15°C then it's "5°C hotter than standard". If standard pressure is 29.923" Hg and it's 30.023" Hg, then it's "0.100" Hg higher pressure than standard." We realize that the actual relationship of pressure to altitude is not the same as ISA on any given day, which is why calibration may be needed. The barometric altimeter is simply a pressure gauge which has dial markings painted in distance. It only knows pressure and any displayed altitude is just a guess based on that pressure. If you put the gauge in a vacuum chamber in the lab and pumped out air you'd see the hands moving as if climbing. The relationship between pressure and altitude is 1:1. You give it a pressure and there's only one altitude that it can be and in reverse every altitude only has one corresponding pressure. For example in the ISA at 17,000' the pressure is 15.57'' Hg. So if you measure 15.57'' Hg you know you're at 17,000'. If every day the atmosphere was the same as the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) then our altimeters would not need pressure setting knobs. So we take this ISA barometric altimeter out into the real world and we take it up in an airplane to an actual (say as measured by radar from the ground) 17,000'. It sees the air pressure out the window and it should read 17,000', right? Maybe not. Say the pressure out the window is actually 14.94" Hg. The altimeter sees 14.94" and displays "you're at 18,000 feet." But we're not at 18, we're at 17. The altimeter is showing us what our altitude would be if we were in the standard atmosphere based on the measured actual pressure. That's pressure altitude. Pressure altitude is expressed in distance but it's not a distance to anywhere. If you found where the pressure altitude was 8,000' and 8,100' and then actually used a tape measure to find the true distance between these points, it might not be 100'.

QNE (and all the others) are altimeter settings. The value is 29.92 inches or whatever. They are defined as a pressure setting such that an altimeter will read X when at altitude Y. I've never heard of standard QNH. Normally QNH is pount-specific, usually an airport. I assume standard is that. There are special QHNs. Britain has 20 zones with a regional QNH (technically regional pressure setting) and militaries have force QNH. You will absolutely know if your QNH is a special type so assume a normal type otherwise. All QNHs are local. The locality can be bigger in special situations where coordination in altitude outside of a sungle airport is important. E.g. in Britain they measure QHN at several points in a region and then pick the safest one even if it's not super accurate at any particular airport. For tactical reasons jets can come from multiple airports and attack a place. The QNH given will be force-wide so everyone is the same even if it's not perfect for their origin base.

It's a good point. I figure if a POS shot is against steerpoint then all slews are going to change the POS destination. HAS and DL shots are not against steerpoint so I figure they don't change HARM destination (not that HAS has a destination since it's LOAL). But the HSD AG ghost cursor is supposed to show SPI location which I guess can be moved even if SPI isn't target. I'd have to look into what SPI is during HARM which I never thought about.

No setting Forced off Forced on Usually I keep "force gameplay..." tick box on and then if I want to practice with unlimited weapons I change. Making specific mission settings requires keeping "force gameplay..." off which subjects you to whatever random mission settings you come across.

This only appears to happen with the HARM. With NAV or Mk 82 bomb the TGP moves SPI as expected. I don't know if TGP should alter SPI when HARM is selected or not.

The mission difficulties have three settings: no setting, forced off, forced on. The first one allows the user general settings to take effect. Forced off or forced on override the user general setting. Except with "force gameplay..." option enabled then the user setting always overrides the mission settings.

You can't set SC500 bomb with settings of your first post. Do you mean like the picture in second post? With SC500/38/fixed the bomb should arm "Vz" shortly after release and then do the delayed explosion after impact. It should be safe at any altitude and should arm Vz at about 14m level release. You can see El. Az. 38 has Vz arming time of between 1,2 and 2,0 seconds with 150 volts (waagerecht) and 0,6 and 1 second with 240 volts (sturz). In variable configuration instant detonation can occur after arming in as little as 3,5 seconds or as much as 14 seconds. Regarding SC50 grade I "Bombs can me modified for use on water targets by removing the tail fins. It is claimed ballistics are not changed up to an altitude of 200 meters. Fuze El.AZ (38) is used on this type of target. Its maximum delay of five seconds allows 12 to 18 meters of water travel."

That would be really cool for the 8 buttons to change based on ALQ-131 v ALQ-184 loaded and is within the sim's capability.

The way the Ez. Al. (38) fuze should normally work is that you pick your mode (Wag oV, Wag mV, Sturz oV, Sturz mV) and release. The Vz "candle" is enabled after a short time. The normal electric fuze is enabled later. If the bomb hits before any is enabled it duds. If the bomb hits after candle but before electric fuze then candle burns for X seconds and explodes. If the bomb hits after electric fuze then it explodes immediately* (*maybe some milliseconds delay if that is how fuze is configured). But there are alternate work types. In this case the fuze looks to be configured for "fixed Vz" meaning that the point-detonation action is completely disabled and the bomb will only explode due to the delay candle. Vz will still have an arm time which doesn't appear to be displayed on that screen. If the bomb drop is super short, say while landing gear is touching the ground, then nothing is armed. This makes the normal arming circuit times completely irrelevant. They might as well say "X" or "-1" or something. El. Az. 38 Mode "variable" Vz arm time - not displayed Wag arm time - 7.5s Sturz arm time - 3s oV function time - 50ms mV function time - 200ms Vz function time - 5s Mode "fixed" Vz arm time - not displayed Wag arm time - 2s (irrelevant) Sturz arm time - 1s (irrelevant) oV function time - "5s" (not really since it's not going to function normally) mV function time - "5s" (not really since it's not going to function normally) Vz function time - 5s I think someone saw this diagram and got confused that it was 5 seconds + an additional 5 seconds for a total of 10 seconds. That's not how it works. The bomb should explode 5 seconds after impact (if that's the detonation logic path), not 10. Maybe there are two 5 second delay items, one handle and one electro-pyrotechnic delay similar to the millisecond-scale delay elements. But they would burn in parallel. The candles were not high precision devices so they could be off by quite a bit before or after.

APG-68 is both MPRF and HPRF. I don't know if it uses both in this scenario.

I never understood why the datalink floating rings didn't extrapolate velocity. It looks so bad that they flicker from position to position.

In Options>Gameplay the Difficulties tick boxes are for preferences but can be overridden by the mission's difficulty settings. Selecting the Presets>Force GAMEPLAY & MISC. for all missions tick box overrides the mission settings. Even higher priority are the multiplayer server settings which can allow client preferences. In missions the "unlimited weapons" option must be checked as well as the right-hand "yes" tick box otherwise the difficult is enforced "no". And lastly not all airplane modules properly handle unlimited weapons.

I believe it's getting stuck but can you reproduce the issue? I changed from A65 to G12 with HMCS showing MLE scale and it didn't stick when changing weapons. There must be something which causes the MLE to stick that I'm not doing. F16 MLE scale.trk

CCRP release angle scale for GBU-12 and MLE scale for Maverick look almost identical. The only differences is that MLE is 20nm fixed while CCRP scale is automatically dynamic and CCRP has a number below the minimum scale tic. I'd want to know why the CCRP scale isn't being displayed on the HUD in the first picture. You could test if the MLE scale is mistakenly used on the HMCS when GBU-12 selected by having an automatic scale of not 20nm. If the scale is 20nm then you know it's the MLE and not the CCRP scale.

F-16 has terrain database which in theory could provide a detailed terrain value but I doubt it. Currently selected steerpoint elevation is plenty good or even just assuming system altitude = height so don't go for negative height. For half a million dollars per missile one might want to put some brains in it. Launch altitude would be a valuable data to load before launch for all kinds of reasons.

I'll make a track with minimum steps to shoot an AMRAAM. There is also an in-range requirement to launch. A bore launch bypasses that but requires another button. I noticed you said "trigger". The trigger on the front of the stick only fires the cannon. All other weapons use the weapon release button on top of the stick. There's no specific guide because not all systems are needed for all missions. Auto start INS to NORM NWS steering on Takeoff Gear up Override switch MISSILE OVERRIDE SMS to BORE (or hold enable) if firing unguided MASTER ARM Uncage and weapons release buttons press and hold F16 minimum AIM120 launch.trk

I believe the outside "IAS" is actually EAS (even more differenter than CAS). The F-18 HUD should display CAS.

Requesting ATC permission via ___ and their results: UHF, yes VHF AM, yes VHF FM, no Intercom with UHF tuned, yes Intercom with VHF AM tuned, yes Intercom with FM tuned, no The events marked in red aren't correct behavior. Without keying MIC switch down UHF communication with ATC must not happen (similar VHF AM). VHF FM radio with Batumi (40.4 MHz) is impossible even when using the radio. Noticed also keying MIC forward while intercom selector is on FM and HF positions result in the F1-F12 text menu appearing. It would be best if no menu appeared in these cases or possibly Interphone as the device type (not blank). A10C2 ATC Intercom.trk

Thanks for being persistent. You're absolutely right and that's a bug. Noticed that VHF FM won't work when actually using the radio too.

Maybe you're using easy communications. Under the normal simulation if I'm in an A-10 on 30 MHz and you press "\" and make a message while your FM radio is tuned 30 MHz, I won't hear it. Remember the device listed above the "F1" line is the device that menu pertains to.

The intercom does not "let you talk on all radios" in DCS. Makes sense to leave the rotary selector alone and just use hot mic selectively. What USAF prefers to do is a different question than what the hardware can do.

Looks good

Having something happen menu-wise by pulling out the HM knob was less realistic than what it does now (nothing). The "\" while in HM mode is as exact as a simulation can get without voice recognition software. The spelling over "Intercom" v. "Interphone" is a small detail. In real life the MIC switch forward does the "rotary-selected action" and it does in DCS. In "VHF" you would hear plugged into the intercom and over the VHF radio. In "INT" you have to be plugged into the intercom. In "HF" or "FM" is interesting. The "FM" will let you monitor the FM radio (RL, not tested DCS) even if the FM knob is in because it's using that "forward mic channel". You can't talk with forward mic switch in "FM" or "HF" though, seemingly even intercom. There's also a final rotary position beyond HF without label which allows monitoring TACAN similar to FM. You will find that when you "transmit" on Interphone that other people cannot hear your message outside your airplane because you did not transmit over any radio. If you transmit over radio anyone listening to intercom will hear your message regardless of HM setting because it is necessary for all voice transported to radio equipment to travel over intercom system. It's perfectly correct for all radio messages to be received by ground crew for this reason. In fact you find this is common in multiplayer, users make radio messages to ground crew because it works even though it annoys others listening on that frequency. In short, these are the two options to realistically talk on intercom only (not radio): HM out, press "\" HM in (or out), rotary set to INT, press MIC switch forward

There is a lot of parallel heredity in F-16s. The modern F-16As flown in Europe may be "A"s but they are similar in performance to USAF "C"s. It is quite messy to know all the little variations because it depends on politics and money and what each nation needs, is allowed to have, and can pay for. F-16 development would have made "E" and "F" models for USA a long time ago but a whole letter improvement is harder to get funding for than "upgrading the old Cs" even if the only difference is the designation. I understand wanting more than a narrow slice of F-16 history. We all do. But even this narrow slice is very complicated and difficult to simulate. Selling a similar but different F-16 could be difficult to justify in terms of sales relative to how much documentation/experts/time is available.