Eddie

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.

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.