Eddie

You can very easily mod the detent to make it a push through (as in most real aircraft) such that just adding some more forward force will allow you to go through the detent. See the thread linked above, well worth doing IMO. No you don't I swap mine around all the time without any tools. Just fasten it up with your fingers, then you can happily undo it with your fingers again. Or if you really want to make it easy just don't put the cover on again, it's really only cosmetic. Indeed, it is a good feature without doubt, but a physically detent is much, much better.

If you've got a warthog there is little sense in using this function at all as you've got a physical detent for the mil power/reheat range.

The pipper represents the centre of any release string, most aircraft are the same. After all the mean impact point is what matters, not the impact of the first weapon in a string.

Are we sure it's not intended behaviour? Afterburner ignition failures are far from uncommon, and engines without digital control units can't resolve the issue automatically. I mainly see them at when advancing into reheat from below mil power and at low airspeed and/or high altitude, doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Aware of those sliders, most of us have them as high as possible without adverse effects being introduced however voice volume is still noticeably lower than in TS and requires max in cockpit radio volume to clearly hear in many cases It's workable now, but could be better.

Not what the general experience is but I certainly find the comm volume in SRS too low when compared to windows/TS. Someone who sounds perfectly clear in TS becomes quite ain't and sometimes hard to hear in SRS. So it does mean turning down volumes to separate different radios is undesirable. It does also appear that the radio volume adjustment is quite limited as you say. Perhaps a general boost in voume across the board would help? I'd expect max volume in cockpit to be very loud and not be necessary in most cases.

You can't as I keep them disabled here (I really hate PMs). Feel free to email me or get hold of me on the 476th site (they won't let me turn them off).

What kind of comm plan is in place at present for these events? Dojo keeps trying to sell this to me and convince me to join in with him for a flight, would like to at least get more of an idea of the practicalities and levels of coordination.

It makes sense for multi engine to be using 2992 in that kind of ex I guess, it's not like you're particularly concerned with terrain in that instance. After all you're not going to be doing any weapon deliveries, low level evasion, or high speed abort manoeuvres.

Not saying you're wrong, however the RF and weapons school pubs and our aircrew who I quizzed on returning from RF last year and 16-01 earlier this year say different. What ex were you on, perhaps different procedure in place at the time? The Lee corridor and other airspace surrounding Nellis does use standard US TA/TL though.

Perhaps previously, however now and for at least the last 3 years Nellis QNH is used for all traffic within the NTTR boundary, including traffic above 18000. You can verify in either the publicly available Nellis 11-250 or various non public sources.

With every object in the mission you will see low fps at Nellis, but it does climb up once you get airborne over the ranges. If it's too low just remove any range targets/objects you don't plan to use and save the mission (with a different name) for the specific flight you are planning. Remember it is a template of the NTTR not a traditional mission (although we do fly it as it is in the 476th and with more objects than the current public release).

The same tendencies seem apparent with an asymetric load of 1 AIM-9 and 1 AIS pod as well, so perhaps the missile itself being the issue makes sense indeed.

Yes a JTAC will pass MSL as that is what they have marked on their maps/GPS etc. The main point is that the MSL elevation of a geographic point is fixed (geological processes aside), and so setting your altimeter to provide MSL altitude (QNH) is the most effective in the vast majority of cases where terrain elevation is a consideration.

While you are right that is does ultimately take practice and requires maintaining currency, you have a very odd idea of rock steady and cooperative. Neither the tanker nor the boom operator behave as they would in reality, and this does make AAR more challenging in DCS than it could/should be. The boom operator should be far more proactive in the contact process, not just hold the boom static, and they certainly shouldn't kick the boom up when you approach. And the tanker flight crew should adapt their airspeed (and altitude where necessary) for the receiver, turn smoothly at the same bank angle, and maintain a constant track regardless of wether an aircraft is on the boom or not.

No, everyone uses the same system, it is international/NATO standard. However it does depend on local national ATC procedures in some aspects. QFE is often used for local altimeter settings in the UK/Europe for VMC. IMC requires QNH, wherever you are. 18000 MSL is US transition altitude for all traffic, not just military. Transition alt/level varies but the US has it unusually high. Only for VMC/local area, IMC and non local requires QNH in order to achieve terrain clearance. (it's no good knowing you're 100ft above your airfield when you're 50 miles away from your airfield flying toward a mountain 500 ft higher than your airfield). QFE is useful for a visual approach to an airfield in relatively flat terrain, it can be dangerous for IMC and/or in terrain with significant elevation changes. RAF bases tend to be located in areas of level terrain close to MSL, and the RAF like most airforces operate primarily VFR where possible, hence we use QFE often. The USAF tend to operate from bases at higher altitudes and/or in non so level terrain, so use QNH almost exclusively. JTAC/FAC(A) supplies all elevations in MSL, QNH/force QNH is used. Force QNH is supplied by AWACS/other C2 agencies to ensure all aircraft in a given operational area are using the same altimeter setting regardless of altitude (you don't use QNE in the tactical phase of a flight). From a weapon aiming point of view, QNH is required not only for terrain deconfliction but also to supply the fire control systems of many aircraft with accurate data (the A-10C for example requires QNH to be set on takeoff to calibrate the IFFCC). In short QNH is far more commonly used than QFE in terms of amount of time over the course of a flight. In the UK as well.

The issue is "ATC" giving QFE, it shouldn't. Use QNH and you'll be fine (QFE is used for VFR in some countries, not IFR anyway). QNH is most commonly used in military aviation, aside from a few specific cases. And also, NTTR procedures are to keep Nellis QNH set for your entire time within the NTTR boundary, regardless of your altitude (including above 18,000MSL), another common military procedure known as force QNH.

I think he's misunderstanding known issues/limitations with getting initial target lock with the Mav. It's not that Mavs will lock one target and then "decide" to go for another, it's just that through the Mav seeker a bush and a tank can look the same, and the missile doesn't know or care, so you end up locking the wrong target.

Good to hear you know what the cause is. It's not the end of the world, but it can make hearing some people problematic. Is there any way you can boost the volume up somewhat? Seems everyone is coming through quite quiet compared to how they sound in TS, however playing with the mic/speaker boost slider doesn't seem to make much of a difference. It's not a show stopper or anything, but it does mean that the in cockpit volume controls are having to stay pegged at max and it'd be nice to have a bit more volume in reserve. Also, perhaps a related issue, some people are find their voice is getting garbled/clipped off when they do turn volumes up and/or speak more loudly in order to deal with the above. It just ends up as static possibly something to do with being boosted above the volume level things can handle? As for the sample rate, would adding the option to pick 24000HZ or 48000HZ do any good or would it just make things worse from a complexity/compatibility standpoint? Preset locations is good, but I do think it also needs the option to select a custom location as well. I have no idea how its done, but Towsim has that option for Aries (by entering decimal lat/long). While multi transmitters would be the optimum solution, if that is excessively complex then a single custom antenna location with customisable power and elevation would do the job, or even the option to disable range/terrain masking limits for that individual antenna station. I'd have to look through the (very large) collection of NTTR docs to find the real world Blackjack antenna locations, but I'm sure we have it somewhere if it'd be of use. The other likely complex one is AWACS, as a mobile airborne station a fixed position wouldn't really be representative as the AWACS a/c could reposition over the course of a mission, at least in theory. Unless you can export the location of the AWACS aircraft in real time from DCS, I guess a custom location with adjustable elevation is the only practical solution.

FYI, while you're right that air burst fusing is available, it is optional and just like the CBU-87/97 etc timed fusing is also present on CBUs so what we have now isn't wrong either. But having options for both types would be excellent.

The CBU-52 (and all the SUU-30 based CBUs) can be equipped with the FMU-56 air burst fuse, so yes it does have air burst functionality. The FMU-56 is a Doppler radar based fuse like the FZU-39 used on the SW-65 canister (CBU-87/97) so altitudes are AGL

No, only on received transmissions, and so far everyone who has tested is getting the same effect, although not everyone is noticing until it's pointed out. I'm running an ASUS STX II with an Antlion modmic, as is Dojo who is transmitting in that clip. No similar background is heard in TS for either of us or anyone else. This aside, it's shaping up very nicely. We're switching to SRS in the 476th from tomorrow, so very much looking forward to seeing how this develops. A lot of potential. On another subject, have you given any thought to how you're going to set the location for GCI/AWACS/ATC users in the future when that feature is completed and LOS/Range degradation is also implemented? I was pondering it earlier on today, it's especially complex (potentially) for ground based stations such as Blackjack in the NTTR which use multiple antenna stations in reality.

It's not intended to use NDBs, it's intended to allow DF of UHF beacons and wingmen etc.

Ciribob, Here a quick capture of the background audio effect I mentioned previously. You can hear a repeating sound, it sounds like a short sound being repeated over and over with a noticeable cut between each play. This was recorded by just having one client transmit without saying anything. https://youtu.be/F3KsC0hAxCw

Tacno, do you have any timescale for F-5E support?