Eddie

Typically a single ship where the threat environment permits as it allows the FAC(A) to be more able to manoeuvre especially at low level and reduces workload a bit (no wingman to manage). If there is a significant air threat or a surface threat that can't be avoided then yes a two-ship would be flown. However only the lead would necessarily be a qualified FAC(A). Much of the mutual support for a FAC(A) comes from the strikers they are employing, which will be in close proximity and if the threat is high the FAC never need actually enter the WEZ of the threat(s) in question. Another option is for two FAC(A)s to ingress together as a two ship and then split to cover their respective kill boxes etc. and then egress together. Which gives mutual support on those phases of the Flight.

Well, that depends if you want the enemy to hear when you're directing fighters on to them and where you're telling the strike aircraft to retrograde to as well? You also don't want aircraft not under your control to be hearing messages not intended for them, you may have more than one AWACS airborne with each covering different airspace sectors for example. Remember guard is heard by everyone in the sky and isn't secured, package and other C2 frequencies usually are both encrypted and using have quick anti-jamming.

It's a case of the more the better really, but as a minimum three would likely work in most cases. ATC would want to transmit on their UHF and VHF channel simultaneously, AWACS could be broadcasting on one channel (talking to one package/flight) up to 10 if they were broadcasting to everyone in the sky. Yeah, Looney do you have any thoughts on how many radios you'd need to tx on at a time?

Anyone finding they can't un map the numpad 5 key from centre view? For me even though it's removed from the binding in the options DCS still takes any key presses and centres the VR viewpoint.

Cribob, Finally had 5 mins to play with the new ATC/AWACS panel, it's coming on nicely, however, it appears that it's not possible to transmit on two or more radios at once? Unless I'm missing something and it is possible already, can this be added, please? ATC/AWACS controllers will usually need to broadcast on more than one freq. at a time (VHF & UHF tower freqs for example). If possible it'd be nice to be able to use a single PTT (common PTT) and select which radios will transmit using the GUI.

You need to adjust the volumes on the radios themselves, not the intercom panel.

Achieving transonic speeds at mil power in low drag configurations is perfectly normal for most 4th Gen fighters, and it's not supercruise.

In DCS is makes no difference at all, aside from the way Mk-82AIRs are implemented. In reality, there are various types of fuse that can be fitted to weapons. Fuses can operate instantaneously on impact, with varying time delays, or within a set proximity to the ground (airburst). It's common to have different fuse types/settings in the front and rear positions on bombs to allow the pilot more weapon effects options.

This conversation pleases me. :D

If it can be made to not need DCS in future it would be a big help, as there are already controllers we have who don't actually have DCS and/or use laptops that won't run DCS when using LotATC.

Just another thought, sorry if it's already come up, is there any reason why each of the 10 radios can't be either FM or AM with a button to select with modulation is being used? That way any radio can just be set to whichever frequency and modulation is required. EDIT: How will it all work when people aren't running DCS, which is the case for ATC/AWACS/GCI? Given all the locations etc are pulled from DCS at present, is there going to be a way to set a location for range/terrain limitations?

That would be perfect if practical. I get that we and the 132nd are likely an outlier case, so if it can be done it would be greatly appreciated. Aries had a system for the ATC panel which replicated fixed "land lines" that could be preconfigured, essentially additional channels usable by people using the ATC/AWACS panel. I think one channel that could be configured (I like the room number idea) would be a great solution. All it needs to be is a way for ATC and/or AWACS/GCI controllers to communicate without using radios. Of course you could do this with TS etc. but not having to use TS would I guess be nice given removing TS etc. from the equation is a major purpose of this whole project.

Good to hear you're progressing with this, but only 4 radios does worry me somewhat. Most AWACS and even ATC applications we've done so far have needed more than that (as thy do irl), especially when monitoring a VHF and UHF freq for each function. If I'm playing AWACS/GCI and controlling 2 strike packages, a fighter sweep, and CAP flights I'd be struggling with just 4. As each would need their own dedicated freq, and I'd be needing to monitor uhf and vhf guard as well. FM however isn't all that useful/used by ATC or AWACS, so would only be helpful if playing JTAC. It there going to be any facility for controllers to communicate directly with each other (using the intercom function perhaps)?

Really? The tanker (and all AI controlled aircraft in DCS) does not hold a speed relevant to flight. Tankers will fly a set ground speed, which causes their indicated airspeed (which is what matters for AAR) to vary greatly, especially where there are realistic winds aloft. Tankers do not set airspeed and altitude appropriate to the receiving aircraft. Yes a mission designer can set a tanker's speed/altitude, however, it does not change from there. A tanker flying 220KIAS at 14000 feet for A-10s is of little use for an F-16 which needs 300KIAS at 25000 feet. The tanker's ground track changes depending on whether an aircraft is on the boom or not, it shouldn't (unless you ask it to). And as with all AI controlled aircraft, the tankers simply doesn't behave in the manner any pilot would actually fly a real aircraft in ways ranging from minor little details to serious issues which present a big safety risk. Sierra99 has covered what the boom operator should be doing (which would make staying connect much easier), but there is a lot that the aircraft's "pilots" should be doing as well. As with many things, everything that a tanker crew should be doing is outlined in freely available documentation (ATP-56(b) and attachments), so it's not something that is beyond achievable requiring only the time to carry out. And if the tanker behaviour is more realistic it'd be easier, and also any simplified difficulty scale would be able to be more effective.

I think a method of simplifying AAR would be a very good addition. But rather than an on/off "cheat" that does it for you, I'd rather see a multi-option difficulty selection such as is available in other sims, where aircraft controls/flight characteristics are adjusted and the aircraft is artificially "stuck" to the tanker to varying degrees. That way it can act as a kind of "training wheels" to help people learn AAR as well as an assistant for those who don't want to learn to do it in full realisim. Not something I'd use personally, but more such options for AAR and other areas can only be a good thing.

Well, you don't hang about that's for sure. Outstanding!

Haven't managed to get a clear sample of multiple interfering transmissions yet, actually pretty difficult to get given the nature of it, but this clip has a few examples. About 2:30 is a good one. Also shorter less severe example around 1:30. If you listen to the whole clip (and the other on the channel) you'll hear various examples of interference effects from multiple transmissions. Exactly what you'll hear will depend on a lot of factors including distance from/power of each transmitter.

You can try putting the addon in your saved games\dcs folder (just make the save file structure as normal). JSGME etc makes no difference with the range targets, it doesn't change any files already present it only adds content in the same way as any official module that you buy. If servers are blocking things such as this then it's something the server would have to sort out, we don't use any form of integrity checking and nor do any other groups that we've collaborated with so its not an issue we've seen.

Some very good news, I think I can speak for everyone who's using this when I say we can happily wait a few weeks. More subtle loss of comms quality over distance and with terrain masking would be fantastic and well worth waiting for. Regarding point 2 in your post, Aries did model blocking/interference when two or more aircraft were transmitting, although I can't remember the exact audio effects used. Not sure if UR did, my memory fails me. We will happily run some more in depth tests in the future if and when needed.

Sounds great, just missing the tone when switching on the KY-58. You should hear the KY-58 constant alarm tone (as in the sample files we provided via dropbox) when the KY-58 is powered on, this sounds until you cancel it by pressing any PTT.

Significantly larger control surfaces with more weight and of course more area for any airflow to act on and a different hyd system design (the actuators must have open return valves on shutdown). An installed control surface will happily act as a lever to move an unpowered actuator (assuming an open value for fluid to return through). It's just a matter of being able to exert enough force, which you can't do without a suitable lever. It's why doing it the other way around (actuator moving the control surface, especially under heavy air loads) requires ~3000 psi of system pressure. Low pressure isn't going to just move the control surfaces more slowly, it just won't move them at all (depending on air loads, and the actual pressure available of course).

In more simple terms, as the engine spins down from the flight rpm range it MAY (assuming the EMAD, PTO shaft, AMAD, and Hyd Pump are all serviceable) continue to pump enough hyd oil to provide a usable pressure in the system for UP TO 60 seconds (depending on the rpm at engine shutdown and airflow etc.) assuming no physical damage to the core engine. What that means in practice is that you have a few seconds to react to that failure. In the case of a single engine failure in the A-10 normal operation of the primary flight controls will remain unless it's a dual engine failure. A dual engine failure would require selection of MRFCS to retain aircraft control. Yes a windmilling engine will motor the hyd pump (and electrical generator) provided the accessory drive is serviceable, however the speed that the high pressure compressor turns won't be sufficient to provide full system pressure (or even close to it). That amount of pressure supplied will be highly unlikely to be able to overcome the static friction of the actuators to move them at all, let alone provide normal function. For example I could hand you a control actuator from pretty much any aircraft and you would not be able to move extend or retract it yourself unless it's integrity was compromised (this is also why a/c flaps don't drop with no hyd pressure), a few hundred psi of pressure isn't going to be able to either. The second you introduce battle damage and you can be pretty certain that any hyd integrity is gone. You can snap a hyd pipe easily with your hands, shrapnel etc has no problem doing it. And they run all throughout any aircraft. But that's perhaps another, more complex, discussion. And to reiterate the point, these statement are not being made based on an untrained interpretation of a technical publication, but my experience with the systems in question (not the A-10C, however these things are not particularly type specific). If as sobek suggests it's a case of not having the data to model the pump flow rates accurately then that is reasonable. However in such a case having the system produce zero pressure would be more accurate an estimation and result in a closer to reality aircraft behaviour.

Yo-Yo, in an effort to further this without directly referencing material the I can't give you. Are you suggesting that all the aircrew flight manuals and emergency checklists are wrong and that there is no need for aircrew to worry about loss of hyd pressure with a windmilling engine? If that is your intent, which is what comes across, then how can you possibly make this claim? What source are you basing this on? And to raise another point, under what scenario do you believe MRFCS and other emergency systems in the A-10 are used for? At present, in DCS there is no occasions where MRFCS is required, nor is there an occasion where control surface emergency disconnects are required. It is also not necessary, at any time, to follow the A-10 emergency procedures with reference to engine/hydraulic system faults/failures as the failure modes of the real aircraft do no occur in DCS. Do you consider this to be correct?

These may be of interest. 476 vFG Caucasus Flight Info Pubs 476 vFG Nevada Flight Info Pub v1.2 The real world plates don't quite match with DCS (Nevada is pretty close but still not truly accurate) so we made our own for the Caucasus and re-drew the Nevada plates with values that work for DCS. Of note however is that magnetic variation in DCS changes over time, so the year you set in the mission editor will also impact on how accurate any chart is.

What "both" setting are you referring to? The only both setting I see is on the main radio mode selector and it refers to enabling both the main radio and the guard receiver, it has nothing to do with ADF. Besides, as DCS has no knowledge of transmissions to/from SRS ADF won't work with SRS transmissions unfortunately.