Eddie

Double the drag, double the weight, one less weapon station for ordnance, and all for nothing. You're looking for solutions to problems that don't exist. Remember that you, and most simmers out there, are generally not using the aircraft and its systems in the same way as they're used in real life. And yet, testing on numerous aircraft types has shown the centreline is often the worst place to locate a targeting pod when it comes to airframe/stores masking. In a low threat COIN CAS scenario you can almost always fly a wheel/circle orbit around the target area, thus masking is no issue. And in a high threat conventional warfare scenario you'd be unlikely to be orbiting looking through the TGP at all. And if you were, you have to split heads down time with where required (although it's rarely required). Aside from very specific and limited circumstances, the TGP just isn't used as a search tool, and on the rare occasion it is you'll have an idea of where to be looking and what you're looking for from FAC(A)/JTAC etc.

? Call up the CDU waypoint page, enter the waypoint name in the scratch pad and hit OSB 6 (MFCD CDU repeater assumed) to call it up in the CDU, and then enter the desired mission waypoint name, hit OSB 9 (?N) to create a copy of the database nav point as a mission waypoint. Or CDU Steerpoint page, enter waypoint name, hit OSB 6 to make it the current steer point. Or, On the CDU flight plan page, type in the waypoint name and then the the OSB/FSK next the desired waypoint number in the flight plan to drop it in there. In short, you never need to know the waypoint number in the nav database.

This can already be done with scripts, at least it can when the scripting bugs are fixed.

That depends on what you means by planning, some features could be carried out by external tools ala WDP for BMS, but at the most basic level any planning needs to be done using a toolset with access to the mission and simulator assets. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand what mission planning really is or what it involves. Yes there are workarounds, most of which we use in the 476th but they are crude and not remotely as effective as proper planning tools would be. I personally long for the day we have a MP mission planning system and no longer have to spend 20+ mins on the ramp plugging in flight plans, weapons profiles, and other things that should be contained in a DTC. Can real world pilots do half the things most people do in DCS, especially in the public server environment? No they can't. Equally the DCS player has many handicaps that are not present in the real world. As for NTTR, personally it's the theatre I've been waiting for for over 20 years as its the most significant airspace is western military aviation, and has seen more "combat" sorties flown that any other airspace in the world. And itr finally give us the chance to fly real world flight and mission profiles in DCS using real world TTPs. I understand that for the casual simmers who fly on the public PvP servers it may not be all that interesting, but then why should it be? The public PvP is only a small segment of the community, and frankly it's a segment that has been pandered to far too much already. It's high time other elements of the community started seeing the things they crave for in a sim.

The answer is no to both. You can however copy the radio preset config files (and the others as well) from one mission to the other. This is exactly what we do in the 476th, we have a master "DTC" template which we add to each miz, you can also use notepad++ to make changes rather than running mission prepare every time.

Rtr = Range Turn and Run (also know as "No Escape" Range).

Have a read, than ask any specific questions you have. http://www.476vfightergroup.com/showthread.php?3131-Air-to-Surface-Weapon-Delivery-Methods http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1941170#post1941170 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=99688 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=117350

Indeed, and that's why charts for such procedures are not provided in the FLIPs. It's not that the procedures don't exist, they do, they just aren't charted procedures. You have to remember the procedures and any restrictions, using your memory.

No there isn't. Where a visual depiction of a visual procedure is desired they can be made of course as with the Nellis visual recoveries and departures, but as the whole point of a visual procedure is that it is flown visually rather than looking at and flying by a chart they aren't part of the flight info pubs. The visual depictions of VFR procedures are just there to help describe the procedure to pilots unfamiliar with it, and are part of the Nellis IFG, not any FLIP. The charts you speak of are well made, but not in keeping with USAF procedures at least, and to my mind at least they are somewhat redundant from the start. If you're relying on coordinates and looking at a chart etc. then it's not a visual procedure.

Well technically as they're VFR procedures, they aren't charted and so wouldn't be in the FLIP. They are part of the Nellis In Flight Guide IRL. But they may be added depending on what we do with our Nellis/NTTR IFG and if it's made public one done, although at the least I think it'll be necessary to redraw the visual representations of each departure and arrival for clarity.

Indeed, but the real world charts do not match 100% with what we see in DCS. The real charts are of course workable and we've had a pack of them available on the 476th site for download for a while, but nothing beats having a FLIP tailored specifically for the sim. We'll also be including many of the Nellis departure and recovery procedures and other details that are not available on airnav.

The MFCD page layout was changed to the recommended layout profile. It has the most "important"/most used page inboard (toward the centre of the cockpit) and the lesser used pages outboard. The order is Left MFCD from right to left - MSG (moved from the right MFCD, so its on the same MFCD as when calling up MSG quick look). DSMS (same as DCS default) TGP (same as DCS default) TAD (moved to the inboard) Right MFCD right to left - TGP (same as DCS default) MAV (same as DCS default) CDU (same as DCS default) STAT (MCFD switched with MSG page) So as you can see, not significant changes but just slightly tweaked based on real world test and eval recommendations. As for which MFCD you'd typically call the TGP up on, normally the same side of the a/c as the TGP is mounted, apart from when in a circle orbit, in which case you call it up on the MFCD inboard the turn. Other changes we have in our standard "DTC" are - Anchor Point on HUD IFFCC CCIP C/R set to 5Mil AAS Profiles set to have expected mision air threats in rotary (we also use a mod to change the profiles that are available in conjunction) TAD profiles amended slightly creating a "ROFF" profile which turns off range rings while leaving all other layers active for display declutter. And we also configure custom radio presets for all three radios as appropriate for each mission (used in conjunction with Aries Radio/UniversRadio plugins). Otherwise that's it, although we would tweak more if there was support in DCS for the full array of DTC configurable options. For example, CMS programs are configured via a Mod.

It is. Any aircraft with a TACAN set can do A/A TACAN, what they can't do is provide both range and bearing, they can only derive range. Not even the KC-135 can give bearing in reality, the only tanker I know can from the top of my head is the KC-10.

For a short period during WWII new aircraft delivered from the factory to front line units based in France were sent with kegs of beer under the wings as a morale boost for the troops. It didn't last long because as soon as the Government got wind they pointed out it was illegal export of good and put a stop to it. So in short, the beer kegs are exactly what they look like, kegs of beer.

The MFCDs and other settings are configured in the mission to be more in keeping with the real world standard setup and/or recommended configuration.

Already done. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2611689&postcount=49

The engines are fed from the main tanks L/R respectively, which are in turn fed by the L/R wing tanks respectively, allowing a fuel imbalance to occur would be an error on your part caused by not monitoring systems correctly. That said, to correct it... If you have a fuel imbalance the first way to correct it is use of differential throttle, the second is to open the tank gate valve and allow fuel to flow (by gravity) between the L & R main tanks provided there is at least 1300 lbs in each main tank, any less and the fuel will be below the level of the valve.

The only ways to do it in DCS are either to simply set altimeter to field/runway elevation on the ground (and note the value for later in the flight) and/or convert the QFE given by the "ATC" to QNH, but of course that relies on knowing the field elevation anyway.

If you say so.

It's a normal configuration to give more flight time, it's not that often they fly without tanks. And they don't make that much of a difference, at least not when compared to the same configuration on other aircraft. The tanks are specifically designed to have low supersonic drag, for example. And the FCS is clever enough to adjust G/AoA limits in real time as the tanks drain, with empty tanks there is a very minimal difference in handling from a clean jet, the drag is the only factor.

The fact that we were limiting ASRAAM to 2 NM (and simulating export spec missiles), when its actual range is in double digits should say all that needs be said. And yes, we were flying with tanks (two on most sorties). It was a training exercise, for both sides and it served its purpose. But you've got to let the Indians have something she they travel all that way.

I'm pretty sure that in DCS at present it's because the F-15's RADAR is more powerful that is archives "burn through" sooner, not because the Fulcrum's ECM is weaker. I've never seen any kind of ECM type/power configuration anywhere in the DCS files. Happy to be shown otherwise however. Although obviously in reality RADAR output power is a factor, the main factors are the ECM output power and radar cross section of the "target". (NB following vasty simplified to illustrate the point) "Burn through" happens at the point where the "target's" real RADAR return exceeds any false return(s) that the "target's" ECM can generate. In some cases it is entirely possible that ECM "burn through" would occur well within visual range, or even not at all. This is especially true for modern deception techniques vs. older RADAR systems.

In this very thread...............

So you can't spot a group of vehicles, unless you're cued to within a single vehicle's length of said group of vehicles?

A 6 digit grid is the normal precision given for a bomb on target engagement, which are most JTAC/FAC(A) controlled engagements. 10 digit grids would only be given for bomb on coordinate attacks, and would be specified in advance. Within 100m should be more than close enough to get your eyes onto the target, although that said the AI JTAC doesn't do talk ons to build on the grid.