Headspace

TARS leverages an existing, developed, and optimized VOIP technology (Teamspeak 3). An integrated version would require inhouse development of the same, or licensing TS3 for commercial use--both of which are expensive. You can always help the TARS project by donating. I'm currently working on the SDK so people like Dart and other third parties can use it in their projects.

I never heard of it outside of gaming. Even in the entry level ground school course taught in the flight program at the university here (it was 18 years ago, but I'm sure things haven't changed) it was never mentioned. It did not come up at all in the private pilot curriculum or the study materials. Each field has a pattern altitude, given in MSL. You get the alitimeter setting and fly the altitude. Effectively, we only use QNH. If an ILS approach is not published (in the form of an IAP) it isn't legal to use, period. It effectively doesn't exist. An ILS approach with a procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is going to have certain rules for when the user has to fly it. If vectors are given to the localizer, the hold/PT is often not necessary. The bottom line is that there are degrees of control by which ATC moves traffic onto an ILS, but it the IAP is always published, regardless. At least in the USA. I cannot imagine that a European airport wouldn't allow visual approaches to be carried out, but I would like to hear from an European pilot on how that works.

You may be confusing an IAP with a STAR. The latter is used in high congestion areas for bringing large amounts of traffic in on predetermined routes. You can file to a large airport but you must have the published STARs available to you if your clearance includes one. Flying to a big airport in GA isn't often that big of a deal, excepting the huge airports like ORD, LAX, EWR and so on. It is usually easier getting into a Bravo on an IFR clearance than it is VFR, because there's no guarantee that they'll actually let you in if you go VFR. The problem arises when GA traffic shows up that isn't on the ball, because controllers in those areas don't have time to troubleshoot a confused pilot. It's a very busy environment. Visual is always quicker. Localizer-only approaches exist, but for an approach to be useable there needs to be a published IAP. Let's say there was an airport with an ILS on one side of the runway and none for the opposite direction. You would only be allowed to do a backcourse approach if a published IAP existed. If it isn't published it doesn't exist for purposes of the IFR system. Or you could read the FAA's instrument flying handbook, especially the chapter on the national airspace system.

It seems that the QFE/QNH usage is an ICAO thing, because it does not come up at all in the civilian IFR curriculum in the US. In the system, we use altimeter settings in inches of mercury and then switch to 29.92 in the flight levels (above transition altitude), FL180 and above, class A airspace. You're expected (as a pilot) to know the TDZE on an approach and have the plate for the approach. The published DH is going to be in MSL. It seems that the QFE/QNH usage is an ICAO thing, because it does not come up at all in the civilian IFR curriculum in the US. In the system, we use altimeter settings in inches of mercury and then switch to 29.92 in the flight levels (above transition altitude), FL180 and above, class A airspace. You're expected (as a pilot) to know the TDZE on an approach and have the plate for the approach. The published DH is going to be in MSL. I can't speak for how the military does it, P*Funk, but that is generally how it works in GA. There is always going to be a published approach for any given ILS, which involves one or more initial approach fixes and a way to join the localizer. Being vectored by ATC is almost always faster and in the GA system I have never seen an ILS been given in my area without vectors unless the person said "hey, we'd like to fly the ILS as published." There is also something called a contact approach which bears some similarity to a visual approach, but has to be requested explicitly. There are different rules for this approach and I've never requested one since there are almost always safer ways of doing things.

I'll look into it.

Yes and yes. If you want to listen in on guard, tune one of the three radios in the control panel to the guard frequency. As for the P-51, you can use it, but it has FC3 functionality. When its clickable cockpit gets added it'll have less functionality since the real P-51 doesn't have three radios.

I'll reproduce it and report it for you if I can indeed repro it.

The IFH says to pitch for the ILS needle but you would already have set your power configuration for the right glide angle. Pitching for the needle provides for a faster response. It's one of those exceptions to the rule but it's likely stated in the handbook because the reader is already expected to know control and performance aspect of attitude instrument flying.

Awesome trip down memory lane. I remember when the demo for A-10 Cuba! came out, it was all I wanted to do.

Try un-checking and re-checking "Install Tars" in the control panel. If you installed a mod and it overwrote your export file, that would fix it. Alternatively, ensure your server is set to enable export in its network config.

Make sure you're using the current version of TARS. It sounds like you might not be--are you on 1.0.2.4?

Where are you assigning your PTT? TARS won't interfere with your normal TeamSpeak preferences. Make sure you have write permissions to the TeamSpeak 3 installation folder. Run the control panel as admin if necessary. Also ensure that the server you are connecting to has Export enabled. You can test TARS in singleplayer mode (TeamSpeak will say that TARS is connected) to ensure that it isn't your install.

Quickest way: Take the arctangent of the result of dividing the rise over the run from the aircraft to target. Convert result to degrees and then add degrees based on quadrant.

Two things. First, the frequency is the ILS for one of the two runway directions. Tuning it in will activate both needles (localizer and glideslope). You will need to be close enough to the runway for it to work, and aligned with either the front or back course of the runway for the localizer info to be valid and to the front course for the glideslope to be valid. Your OBS setting won't matter here like it would if you were tuning a VOR. The ADF needs to be tuned to an NDB. There are some collocated near the airport's runway beacons. But anything you do with those are going to be separate from what you do with your nav radio.

Much appreciated. Any and all input/suggestions/etc as well--feel free to contact me with any of it.

We're working on it.

Could you please clarify what you mean by it not functioning as described? What are the steps you took to test it?

Here's the thing, guys. Different aircraft have different intercom systems. We can't just say that multi-PTT will be universal, or that using an intercom switch will be. So there have to be different ways of doing it and that's why the different intercoms are modeled the way they are. I also realize the TARS documentation is quite old at this point and we will be putting together some new documentation along with the new iteration of TARS.

That's correct. You should be good to go. Further questions please bring to the TARS thread in the DCS mods forum. Let me know (in that thread, if you could) if you are running in 32 bit mode. Thanks!

Chazz: My guess is that it can't get to the Eagle Dynamics install folder to check the version of DCS--that's what would produce that message. If TARS is working fine then you don't need to do anything. See what it says when you run it as Administrator. The CP has some features that worked well for standalone installs like Black Shark and A-10 Warthog but have become redundant for DCS World. It may be time to prune it down a little.

I only glanced at it but yeah--that's an embarrassingly bad ID on my part since the RG has struts and is quite a bit smaller.

The output power is probably a little too high at this point. I'm focusing on a better radio simulation over the summer, but obviously more time went into the AM side of things than the FM side originally which is probably why you're seeing what you're seeing. Yes but it's easier to make a DX hook for one game that works than it is to make a DX hook for any and all games that use DX (i.e. Fraps).

No. It won't interfere with your settings.

Yep. The problem is that it would require modifying aspects of the game that aren't Export-based. Making an overlay (which would have the same UI workflow as the radio menu) is a very similar solution.

My focus with TARS is on radio simulation fidelity across multiple desktop sims. Which in plain English means that I spend a lot of time working on stuff that a lot of DCS and FC3 players probably aren't going to need. With that in mind, I think there is room for everyone here, particularly if you developed a custom solution that works for your virtual squad. You should pick an original name though. :)