Eddie

"Left/Right Engine Throttle Set Off" is the command name in the options menu for the A-10C.

It’s not that the Harrier has especially high fuel consumption, rather that many are used to the A-10 which has exceptionally low fuel consumption. The Harrier is like most “fighter” and attack aircraft in that accounting and planning for fuel requirements and the use of drop tanks and/or in flight refuelling are an essential part of flying the aircraft. If you don’t fly efficient mission profiles you very easily find he aircraft flying half as far/as long as if you do. There’s a reason carriage of drop tanks is common on most aircraft, especially on air to surface missions. I think many people, coming from the A-10 in particular, will also need to get used to the fact that they can’t spend all day flying around in circles looking through a targeting pod for specific vehicles, or messing about dropping one bomb on one truck at a time. Youlll need to get in, drop your ordnance on target, and get out (and then perhaps repeat). I’m looking forward to it.

The code in the aircraft avionics may reset, but the code on the weapons won’t. So the knee board solution would still be valid for the Paveways themselves. At least that way you won’t be inadvertently (and unrealistically) changing your weapon codes when you adjust settings to spot a laser from another source or change your pod code to guide another’s weapon.

In terms of it affecting the weapons themselves, yes.

As drPhibes says it should not be possible to set LGB code in the jet, the feature is there on the A-10 as a workaround, in reality the pilot simply sets the DSMS to match the bomb settings. The way the F-5 does it, via the Kneeboard when on the ground is the most realistic option. If a JTAC or other aircraft is going to lase for your bombs they need to set your weapon’s laser code, not the other way around. IRL aircraft use different codes to prevent weapons guiding on each other’s laser unintentionally. Incidentally, Paveway II can only use codes from 1511-1688 in reality as well.

It seems from the research done by others posted in this thread that the physical flap angle and the indicated flap angle are not the same. So an indicated angle in the cockpit of 5 degrees actually equates to a physical position of 0 degrees, and an indication of 0 degrees is a physical flap position of +5 degrees (ie the flaps are angle upwards, perhaps to counter transonic pitch moment). Now I don’t know for sure that is the case, but it makes sense.

No idea, haven’t seen any comments on specifics from Razbam yet, certainly hoping so though. At the moment the EW system is barely present at all, even the right glare shield threat warning lights are unmodelled in the current version.

Not much point in trying until the RWR/EW pages are implemented. Far too much missing at the moment.

Yes there is, both lock and launch. Just a case of comie mixing up RWR warnings and MAWS warnings I’d suggest, the latter not being present on the AV-8B.

There is an issue here. While the flaps should at 0 degrees when 5 degrees is indicated in the cockpit at present in DCS that is not the case. If you take a look at the external model (and assuming the 3d model matches what the flight model is doing) 5 degrees cruise position has the flaps deflected 5 degrees down, not at zero. Also at no point do the flaps deflect to the 5 degrees up position. It's also impossible to fly the aircraft to match the climb and cruise speeds etc without setting the flaps to off and thereby forcing them to zero degrees, So it seems like this is a case of misinterpretation of the system by Razbam.

Well, the Harrier doesn't carry the AGM-65 H/K (or D/G) in reality, only the E (LASER) and F (IR) models. So it makes sense that you can't use them really.

Are we going to be getting rid of the current Mavericks and replacing them with the AGM-65E and AGM-65F at some point? What's the reason for adding the AGM-65D/H/K when the jet doesn't carry them, the AGM-65G makes sense in place of the F at least?

The altimeter is set to QFE by default this causes issues at high elevation airfields and is not in keeping with US procedures, instead it should be set to QNH or alternatively to "standard". Preferably the start setting should be configurable via the options menu.

Looks like the problem is present in 2.2.

Yeah, as mvsgas says, external tanks are not generally pumped (with a couple of exceptions) and instead rely on either siphoning or pressurizing the tanks with ECS air to force the fuel out. And tanks don't generally feed with weight on wheels. Fuel also feed through the tank in serial, ie from external, to wing, to fuselage, to feed. If the engine feed tanks are already empty, there's no way to get fuel to the engine(s) before the shut down due to fuel starvation.

The fact that other aircraft RWRs have not picked up the SA-13 has always bugged me (I reported it as an issue back during the A-10 beta phase but it was never sorted), if the Harrier RWR is picking it up it’s a very good thing. It shouldn’t be picked up unless the SA-13 is question is targeting your aircraft but it should be detected.

Take a look through this thread, while they are performed in the A-10 the deliveries are universal to all aircraft, only the specific parameters such as speed/altitude change: http://www.476vfightergroup.com/showthread.php?3131-Air-to-Surface-Weapon-Delivery-Methods Pick a delivery type suitable for th target and desired effects.

No issues here, the symbology isn’t exactly right but the weapon accuracy is fine. If as your post suggests you’re using negative G, and not performing a dive delivery, then it sounds like pilot error. Visual Level Deliveries only work at low level, for medium/high alt toss deliveries CCRP is needed.

It's a known issue, looks like it's something with DCS itself rather than TacView. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3309940&postcount=647

The HUD pitch ladder appear to be caged to the aircraft boresight/ZSL rather than the flight path marker. This results in inaccurate pitch indications at anything other than zero degrees of bank.

Aviation is quite definitive yes, but the rules governing civil and military aviation are not the same. The military do a lot of things civil aircraft don’t, as therefore have a lot of areas where they differ quite significantly. For example, it’s perfectly possible to have military aircraft take off/ land at night without any lights being switched on. In fact I’ve spent time at airfields in sandy places where civil transports had lights on and military aircraft did not.

Commercial and military are quite different as far as lights usage. Military even vary a lot between aircraft type and even individual squadrons. But in general, nav lights on as soon as power is applied to the aircraft, anti-col lights on before entering the active runway, and formation lights as required. You are correct that it’s common to turn off strobes before entering clouds/fog, they reflect heavily off the cloud and can dazzle the crew. Although this isn’t generally done in civil aviation to my knowledge.

Indeed, looks like the Eagle has red anti col lights which are less blinding than the white strobes. Although the nav lights are visible on the gif, they just look quite dim compared to the anti col lights and the reheat plume. The trouble with photos and videos is that the exposure settings often hide how bright things appear to the naked eye, for example at night reheat plumes look much brighter than that gif would suggest. Some aircraft have anti col strobes that can be switched between white and red (and on some jets also IR covert strobes).

It should be working at 25 knots, so it sounds like there's an issue. That said, below 16 knots the system's effectiveness is reduced and below 8 knots anti-skid is inoperative.

Those are the Nav lights and formation lights, and yes they are used in formation, the anti-col lights are many times brighter. Nav/formation lights also tend to have multiple brightness and/or NVIS modes for night/NVG ops.