Eddie

Actually it is a bug with this mod specifically. The line in the ALR69_param.lua for the F-15E is missing. The same is true for the Mig-21, although the Mig-21 is missing from the default DCS file as well (as of 1.2.10). You can fix it by using the ALR69_param.lua attached below until Tetra can update the mod. Hopefully he can add audio for the Mig-21 at the same time. ;) ALR69_param.lua

Looks promising. I might actually have to get my wallet out (by might, I mean why can't I buy it already). Looking forward to throwing Georgia I the bin in forever, and not having to go back.

Hopefully it'll happen, there is potentially a very decent amount of revenue in developing theatres. Personally I'd spend more on theatres and other elements of the sim than I ever will on aircraft and I know a not insignificant number who are the same.

But why? That just sounds like giving up before you've even started to me, never a mentality I'll understand or agree with. Personally I'm going to remain hopeful that we will actually see the dream come true one day, even if it ends up not being ED that realises it.

Very true, it would add workload in that respect. But hopefully EDGE will allow theatre to be developed over time in stages being expanded on as it goes, in which case there is that option. We could start with a theatre where a 300x300 area (for example) is highly detailed and other areas less so, or even just elevation maps and textures, and extend the area of high detail over time. You could even have areas of high details separated by lesser detailed areas. There are plenty of practical solutions that would allow/assist in producing large theatres in a resonable time frame. At the end of the day, if people can live (quite happily) with fictional aspects of avionics, weapons, and systems in their high fidelity aircraft, I'm sure they can cope with a few little simplifications in a theatre.

I'm not treating you like you don't know anything about map making, I'm treating you like you know little of the actual area of the world in question. Or at least you're someone who hasn't spent several years of their life in said empty deserts, so may be unaware of exactly how empty and barren they really are. My question was a genuine one, as I don't know what you've done throughout your life, clearly I was wrong for thinking you could respond seriously, genuinely and sensibly as part of a discussion. Why become so aggressive and antagonising? So a realistic Arabian desert theatre, the very desert in which several conflicts of the past 25 years have been fought in, using all type of Western and Russian military hardware, would not appeal to anyone? Seriously, I'm pretty sure the thought is the thing I've talked about with everyone I've ever flown with in multiplayer for the last 15 years? I don't understand how you could think otherwise, so I'd love to hear your reasoning (seriously, I'm not being sarcastic). You realise that you could still fly a 20NM air quake flight, or run a Combined Arms recreation of a real ground battle over a few miles in such a theatre yes, just because a theatre is a few hundred miles or more across doesn't mean you'd have to fly across the whole thing. It allows for variety and lets everyone play the game they want to. Everyone's a winner. And if we're going to get heavy bombers, transports, tankers, etc. in DCS one day, then we're going to need a theatre to really accommodate them. Yes it'd be quite a large undertaking to produce, nobody is suggesting it wouldn't, that's you putting words in people's mouths, but I think it'd be well worth the time and effort to do so.

It's relevant because while larger size does indeed bring more urban areas, the percentage area where there are no urban areas, or roads etc. is much higher than in the rest of the world. Therefore for a given number of cities etc. you actually get significantly more terrain area due to the large empty areas surrounding them. The "empty" areas of course still require textures, elevation maps, clutter etc. so they are not "free" but they are far less work than otherwise. There is also the fact that as there is "nothing" out there and very few actually know what the areas look like, you can cover those areas with a reasonably generic texture set and procedural clutter etc. and the end result would not suffer for it. The same is not true of other areas of the world.

In short, yes. Funny old thing, but tourists only take pictures of the buildings and not the, literally, hundreds of square miles of **** all. And your answer tells me you haven't Oh and seriously, please at least try and answer without the passive aggressive tone and sarcasm.

Have you ever seen the Iraq/Saudi desert or Afghanistan? And I mean with your own eyes, not on TV?

That's a bit small dude, you could get across it and back with just a couple of tanker hookups. ;) You could extend it a bit further north and meet up with the current theatre.

The DCS seat position and cockpit view is correct, if you want to see, and use, the HUD then you need to motor the seat to put yourself in that position. If you want a higher vantage point then you motor the seat up, but you won't be able to see the HUD symbology in full. Ths is true of all aircraft. In short, the "accurate" view is what DCS has already. If you want to change anything it may be possible by modding the files, but it won't be an accurate representation of reality.

No. Only a handful of systems are modelled true to their real world counterparts, with some systems such as SADL, the defensive aids suite and others being entirely fictional (although reasonable, if limited, game facsimiles). Most of the avionics systems are simplified in some respects, and some of the aircraft systems are also simplified as well. Yes it's still the most accurate simulation of a modern military aircraft you can run on your PC, but it's not as accurate as some might like to think it is.

If the FCS is correctly modelled then landing the Hornet on either a runway or carrier will be reasonably easy. The difficult bit will be hitting the small target with the correct alignment and glide path, not flying the jet itself.

40 mins is 250-300 NM in most aircraft, altitude dependant of course. You wouldn't want to park a carrier much closer than 100NM from hostile shores, especially if they have aircraft/land based anti ship missiles etc.

It does vary quite significantly, but using a few examples and not just for the Hornet but across the board. Kosovo/FRY around 150-300 NM depending on Target/Station area Iraq - 200 - 600 NM Afghanistan - anything from 10 (for jets based in country) to 350-500 for jets on carriers. Libya - 400 NM for land based, around 100-200 for carrier based. COIN ops are an exception, but IRL we always try and base aircraft well out of reach of any credible hostile threat, while also being close enough to do some good. COIN aside, I've never seen anything less than 100-150 NM. But it also depends on this like tanker availability and the aircraft type. You'd put you Vipers or Warhogs closer than you Strike Eagles if at all possible, for example. Best thing to do would be open up Google Earch and run the ruler from the NATO bases used in conflicts over the past few decades to their target areas. Lastly, the design spec combat radius for most western fighters is at least 300NM for a Hi-Lo-Hi air-ground mission profile. The F-16, F-18 and A-10 all being in that bracket.

Well, assuming the OPs 500 KM x 500 KM size for illustrative purposes. Even a lightweight and short range fighter like the F-16 could fly from one edge of the theatre to the opposite edge and back again with a full combat load, without even needing external tanks, with ease. Throw in an opposing Air Force and all of a sudden you can even take off and establish a formation etc before finding yourself on the enemy doorstep. Consider that a tanker track could easily be around 50 NM (90 KM) in length in a realistic scenario, for example. A theatre of that size is too small for anything but Helicopters or ground units. Of course there would be nothing wrong with a very high detail, smaller, theatre intended for ground units and/or helicopters. But jets, old or new, need something significantly larger.

http://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=55 Other than what's in the above, practice is all there is to it. Edit: Dammit, sniped by mere seconds.

No, it isn't possible. Either in sim or in reality.

The A-10 does not have the capability to use ADF navigation beacons (NDBs). The ADF function in the A-10 is solely for the UHF & VHF/FM radios and is used for CSAR operations (locating downed pilots by moving in on their survival radios).

If you're above refusal speed then you should continue the takeoff, retract gear as soon as positive climb is established. Flaps retraction should be delayed until above 150 KIAS if possible. Once safely airborne continue to climb to a safe altitude and evaluate you options. Stores should only be jettisoned if required to maintain safe flight, and care should be taken to ensure you don't further complicate aircraft handling by jettisoning stores that are balancing out non-jettisonable stores such as ECM pods, AIM-9, TGP.

Even I'd buy a Whiskey Cobra.

Won't go into detail on the process but in simple terms.... 1. Lead identifies target and creates waypoint and/or points SOI at said target. 2. Lead broadcasts SPI (there is specific brevity and comms flow for this, but it's detail I won't go into to here) 3. Wigman/Element lead hooks SPI via TAD, and depending on the exact command given by lead, either copies it to a new mission waypoint (TAD OSB 17) or sets it as SPI and slaves their sensors to it. The most common method would be to copy the point as a mission waypoint.

For those who are interested, this one is more comprehensive. 300+ pages of good bathroom/bedtime reading material (at least if you're me). https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8ldbrc8xql77ew/Electronic%20Warfare%20Fundamentals.pdf Fighter/Attack aircraft generally use deception techniques, and some of the lower power noise techniques. But as with all things ECM/ECCM, nobody who actually knows the answer is going to be much more specific than that. While the whole "how ECM works" side of things is pretty easy and very much open knowledge, the specifics of how individual ECM suites operate and their effectiveness versus specific threats if one of the most highly protected aspects of information. Such things aren't even openly shared amongst the AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/US club. But there is more than enough information out there, containing in papers such as in the OP and linked above to create a damn good simulation of the electronic battlefield, if someone wanted to.

SPI broadcast continues until you turn it off, again DMS left short, it is continuous and updates several times a second. In short they will see your SPI move around in near real tim, it isn't a single point mark.

DMS left long.