Eddie

You'll need to overwrite the default payloads lua file. Either with a file containing no presets, or one with the presets you want. If you like you can use this one toget you started. A selection of real world configurations in a JSGME compatible format. http://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=347

Yep that's the beginning of the 476th mod I mentioned. We never got anywhere with mobile tacan stations though, but it was (is) possible to add new fixed stations. It just has to done via a mod. Good point on the Georgian stations, but I think the approach has changed for future theatres. Although there is a station at Groom in Nevada that may or may not exist in reality.

The damage/failure modelling does seem very well done so far (as does systems modelling in general). I've only done a couple of 1 vs 1 BFM flights so far but the way faults cascade and develop over time following battle damage is excellent. So far I'd say this is the best systems modelling of any DCS aircraft when comes to faults/failures. Very nice indeed and very refreshing compared to the A-10C.

Hmm, I assume not terrain masking of the signal either? Can't say I've heard anything similar then, the only other weird in cockpit sound I've had is what sounds like the main gear door effect on initial G loading, but that's only a momentary sound.

Do you have a TACAN station tuned, could be you reaching the limit of reception. It it is the case then turning the volume to min will remove the distraction (at the cost of losing more tones if course). That's the only matching symptom I've seen so far.

In addition to Billy's comments, you also both need to be on AA TR, not receive. TACAN Yardstick guide available at the link below. http://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=88

You won't see it unless you use up sufficient internal fuel before selecting an external tank feed to on. With partially drained internal tanks select any external and you'll see the fuel transfers instantly to internal tanks without any delay. In short this issue is only apparent if you don't follow normal procedure.

If you want to make your physical and virtual detents match up just adjust the curve on your axis until they do. Simples.

I'll grab something next time we fly with it, possibly not until next weekend though.

Finally managed to do some proper MP testing last night using the F-5E. We had some weird effect with received comms which sounded like an issue with the network connection rather than radio interference/degradation. All participants heard the same thing, kind of like a juddering you'd expect with a low quality digital signal. Anyone had similar and/or know a solution. Otherwise very impressive so far, very much looking forward to the additional features coming along.

It's a light fighter, and therefore does not have the same range as other aircraft currently in DCS. You just need plan for that and fly it accordingly. We shouldn't be adding features that aren't present in the variant being modelled. Not sure where you get the idea that you need to cruise at a much lower speed than other types, you don't. But you will not be able to fly as far as an Eagle, nor should you. I've already flown a Hi-Lo-Hi profile sortie of just over 430 nautical miles on only internal fuel, and without doing the level of fuel planning I should have. All of that was spent in excess of 300 KIAS (aside from TO & LDG), cruising a M0.9. The sortie included a 5 minute supersonic dash, and a 10 minute low altitude tactical navigation element at 450-550 KIAS. Total flight time was 50 minutes. Now that was in a jet with only wingtip missiles, and of course underwing stores would reduce the range somewhat, but still if you're sensible and plan well you can fly this thing plenty far enough.

All the flare types Noodle list can be used with ALE-40 in reality, and therefore by the F-5E. Given that the characteristics of the various flare types are not modelled in DCS there is no advantage in using the larger 1x2 inch flare, in fact having fewer flares is a disadvantage. Therefore from a tactical point of view the smaller 1x1 inch types make more sense. Which TO manual? The -1 or -34 will not go into sufficient detail on these subjects. Edit: just to be clear, what we have now isn't wrong, it is a valid configuration. It's just that the reasons for using this configuration are not present in DCS. Therefore using a configuration that provides more flares makes more sense.

As Noodle points out, it depends what flare type is being used. And given that different types are not simulated in DCS it makes sense to use types of 1x1 inch profile, and therefore load 30 per bucket.

I can understamd not having TACAN/VORTAC stations where none exist in reality, however very much agree regarding mobile stations. They can certainly be set up in much less than 24 hours as well (depending on the type) so very realistic to have mission designers place them (or even spawn via trigger etc). Some time ago while working on a 476th TACAN/ILS mod we found that there is a 3D model for an air portable tacan already in the sim files, and there appears to be some support for it in the Lua files. Could never get it working though. So perhaps some work has already been done towards adding it.

Good to hear. You're mixing up BDU-50 and BDU-33, BDU-33 requires the SUU-20 (which would be awesome to see in DCS someday, but that's another discussion), BDU-50 is an inert MK-82 (low drag and high drag variants are available) so will happily hang on the existing ERUs. ;)

Any chance we can have training/inert stores added for the F-5E. Things such as the CATM/CAP-9, BDU-50 etc. are notably missing.

It does. It'd be nice if all a/c in DCS had the appropriate captive inert and training stores available. Those that don't want to use them dont have to. No different to the A-10C now.

Some more info you may find helpful that I forgot to pass on previously giving the detail on the various weapon delivery types. http://www.476vfightergroup.com/showthread.php?3131-Air-to-Surface-Weapon-Delivery-Methods

Shouldn't be an issue, if you get the tip in right then there should be no need to lean forward or change your viewpoint. However, that said if you can't look around easily you'll find it more difficult to get your base point correct which in turn will cause errors that amplify after tip in. You can't. But as I said previously, how you "dive" is the most significant part of the delivery, if you get that wrong then you won't get an accurate delivery. Try and get away from thinking about the type of aiming method (again, different CCIP/CCRP settings are not different methods of delivery). Concentrate on getting a single delivery type, for example, 30 degree dive bomb, consistently correct and then move on to others. If you can provide a track/video of a few attempts then it'll be easier for people to give you specific pointers.

Both the high AoA/stall behaviour and the engines not performing to rated ITT were reported by me and others during the early pre-release testing, ED said we were wrong. I wouldn't expect to see any changes at all to the A-10C now. Still, doesn't hurt to keep pointing it out.

CCIP 3/9 is an avionics setting not a type of dive bombing, what exactly are you trying to do (can you post a track/video)?

Ciribob, Here are some KY-58 and ARC-164 tones for you. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2087560/KY58_ARC164_TONES.zip There are TX and RX example for the KY-58 comms to demonstrate how the sounds fit.

Well if it's done the same as Aries and UR, which I think it is, then everyone can hear any transmission provided they are on the right freq, regardless of which side they're on. At least with the option in the control panel set such. So some simple ability to customise keys would be nice indeed.

Aries and UR have the tones right (if not perfect implementation) if you want to be nosey. I'll have to get one of the audio geeks in the 476th to talk about the actual tone frequencies etc. But essentially its a continuous tone when the KY-58 is switch on which is cancelled upon pressing any PTT. Then when a radio is secured a short tone is heard shortly after pressing the PTT when the radio is ready to transmit (feedback that the switch over from RX to TX has occurred as it take a bit more time to switch over with KY-58 active). Any transmission made before the tone has played and the radio would be cut off, as the radio hasn't switched to TX. Please ask any and all, anytime you like, I (and everyone I know) very much love being able help with this. If there's something you need background on then please ask away. We'll only end up telling you anyway if you don't.;) Another bit of feedback as I'm playing around now (finally), just locally at the moment. It seems that there is a bit of an excessive delay between hitting/releasing a PTT and the radio being switching between TX/RX based on looking at the visual feedback in the overlay. More so when releasing the PTT. If this is the case it'd interfere with things such as the zipper (double mic click). And also from the above, are mic clicks heard by receivers when someone transmits and can a mic click/squelch break sound be added when hitting a PTT (maybe optional for those who don't like such things)?

Outstanding news. Ciribob, did you catch my comment in a previous post referencing the audio feedback tones for the KY-58? I've not seen you mention them so assume they're not implemented yet (apologies, still haven't been able to test beyond installation so feel free to slap me if they are there). If you're not familiar we can give you the detail. Really liking the way this is coming on.