F1GHTS-ON

I see these are up today as AI downloadable....not had a chance to load them in yet, but the "more screenshots" tab shows a C-5 Galaxy, P-3 Oriion and the C-2 Greyhound. Well done MaiTai (who brought us the flight deck tractors etc) - Thank you https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?CREATED_BY=MaiTai&set_filter=Y

I'm playing on stable version. So basic NATOPS question,( that I cannot find answer to) is after the engines quit (poor fuel management, battle damage etc) the hydraulics eventually bled out leaving me with a dead stick. Is there some sort of RAM air turbine or backup HYD function that I should be switching on in the cockpit to at least give me some sort of control? thanks

Slight thread drift from DCS, but if you enjoy the DCS Hornet as much as me, you MUST read this book. Set in Persian Gulf/gulf of Oman and written by a Hornet driver with over 1000 traps, it is if this book were written with DCS and flying in the Gulf Map in mind. Just knowing your way around the cockpit switches makes this read easier to follow. Great explanations on fuel management and working the jet around the boat.

I followed same training path as you - next step for me was learning how to play with the radar - playing with the 2,4, 6 bar scan , width of search wtc When you get good at that try switching off the labels - snf repeat, A good practice one is the CASE 1 mission - force yourself to "find" the tanker using the radar with NO LABELS, Always finish each day's play with DCS with 1 CV landing - everyday is a school day

I recently got hold of a TrackIR5 off EvilBay for less than the price of the new HeatBlur F-14 - so keep looking these deals do sometimes come up. Huge, huge difference to my play style. However to answer your question, I flew for over a month with nothing other than one of the joystick HAT switches set for "view". Having no other choice, I think it helped with "flying the numbers" around the boat. Use of TACAN and ICLS to get the downwind leg and the final turn into the Groove can be done......but when you review your PLAT camera view in review, it's admittedly not as pretty as some of those YouTube experts seem to be able to do. I suspect that MOST pilots fly in fixed forward view and ONLY look up (for line up adjustment) as that final 90 degrees. Now I have a Track IR - I do feel your pain :)

+1 I am about 1 month ahead of you and still learning (which is the fun of this sim). Of course even since I acquired the Hornet more Training Missions have been added. I sort of followed the following school route: start up routines VFR circuits around airfield Basics of Navihgation (VFR to IFR) A2G weapons Flying around the Boat (Case 1 then Case 3) A2A and learning the radar (ongoing!!!) and this week (combined with the radar work) trying the AAR. For this I have tweaked the CASE 1 recovery (DCS supplied mission) - swapped out the S-3 Viking for a KC-130 (slower and seems easier to plug into) and use "no labels" to force me to use my radar (playing with various 2 bar/4 bar and Height settings) to find the tanker 1st. Regardless of what "fun" I have with DCS, I always discipline myself to do 20 mins of AAR & CV landings per session so that it gets to feel routine and "easy"(?) but NOT to spend hours on those 2 functions that they become mundane & frustrating. Because of the Caps & Lims of my PC, playing online has been a struggle and only undertaken occasionally. However, I recently found a practice game with a low Ping that was focused on AAR & CV landings.....wow did I "up" my game because others were watching - perhaps that is the secret to getting good at this game?

thank you for posting - great video. I once had a French F-8 pilot explain to me that to trap on the old French CVs in the 80's & 90's the F-8 had to dump fuel to a suitable landing weight that ONLY gave enough fuel for 2 looks at the deck. In a Sea State 4 and above, even the most perfect flown approach (this is where your geometry makes good sense) the "vertical" height of the 4 wires was only about 5 feet (3 degree glidepath) and the ship deck would be pitching thru' more than 10 ft! That earned my respect :) AG Razor (& others) - good spot, I forgot that the lens is corrected for different aircraft types - and with the promise (F-14, A-4 even an A-6 rumoured to be in the pipeline) poor old DCS developers might need to consider this in developing their excellent simulator.

TACAN or Waypoint approach in IMC. (a Cheat ILS for F/A-18) Whilst I have been told that the NAVTOPS states to use the TACAN approach as shown in WAGs excellent video, and I should NOT encourage bad practice..... the cheat (I cannot claim credit as this, I'm sure has been posted before) is to place a waypoint (with correct altitude) on the threshold of the active runway. Set as a previous waypoit approx 10 miles short on actual runway centre line and follow. once settled on the correct runway heading (overflying previous, 10 mile out waypoint helps) set the Runway waypoint as a target and place the flight path indicator (ideally at 3 degrees below horizon) on it. The position of your Flight Path Marker in relation to the Target diamond on your HUD is your ILS (above, below, left right etc). You should aim to land just beyond the target diamond if you have placed this waypoint on the runway threshold.

not sure the software AI could provide this, but I guess in Multiplayer, a human providing Fighter Control (GCI) and some sort of ATC function could provide an ASR (or SRA) [ Approach Surveillance Radar] talk down. So not the precision approach you mention. For those unfamiliar, this is an ATC controller using a plan view only radar to talk the pilot in heading only to the centre line and at appropriate distances provide the cue to start the 3 degree decent (glidepath) and at subsequent distances read out what height the pilot "should" be at. This is NOT a PAR (precision Approach Radar) that would provide a vertical as well as horizontal position to the controller to very accurately talk the pilot down (and provide mandatory directions (steers) to make the runway. At sea, UK navy GCI controllers used to provide CCAs (Carrier Controlled Approach - an SRA as described above) to Sea Harriers (1980s - 1990s). Towards the end of their service life (2000's), the UK CVs introduced PAR capability. My only experience of witnessing USN Case 3 recoveries was in CAVOK (CAVU in US language!) conditions where the Hornets & Super Hornets had ICLS anyway. JPALS (using GPS) will eventually replace ICLS & ACLS in the USN. https://news.usni.org/2013/11/22/navy-completes-initial-development-new-carrier-landing-system -

same noob issue with my slewing ability - so very, very grateful for ALL the replies on this topic. So my really dumb question, what is meant by target software? is this in the settings for the HOTAS rather than using the in game AXIS settings (as was answered in an earlier post)? Thank you

Agree – I look forward to the mental challenge of trying to fly low thru’ the Caucasus valleys in Blind(IMC) conditions heads down on my instruments. However I think the real A-6 had the BN work the radar and provide the steers whereas us DCS players obviously fly “solo” so unless there is something similar to Heatblurs F-14 “smart” RIO to help us, there will presumably have to be some clever “cheats” in the HOTAS switches..

I got the AV-8B last week and with my CH Fighterstick initially used the wheel on the left side of the base to adjust the nozzle angle (under AXIS commands). Sadly this wheel seems to have a mind of it’s own and with no input from me “jumps” around (moving the nozzles by 30 + degrees) randomly. I use a Thrustmaster TWCS throttle and have mapped the small wheel on the side of this (normally used for adjusting radar search height) to the AV-8B nozzle angle. This is easy to use and with just my little finger allows exact angles to be set with the nozzle (and instantly my ability to conduct VSTOL landings etc has improved 100%). [Of course should RAZBAM ever adjust their Harrier to a AV-8B+ (with radar) I’m completely screwed ]

If you accept that DCS is for fun, I would encourage some experimentation and find a take off profile that works for you. Generally (as the post above suggests) there is a NATOPs guidance, if I recall it involves setting nozzles to a certain angle (25% I think???) and then just slam the throttles forward. (I have only just got the Harrier myself, so I am still in the “fly for fun” mode, before I get more disciplined and fly the numbers) In the absence of a UK Royal Navy (or Spanish) Carrier in game, I intend to create a training mission using the Russian Carrier (sailing in parallel to the LHA ) that provides a Ramp and play with various & increasing weapon loads (weights) to see what can be achieved. I think someone has created HMS Hermes (Falklands War variant) as a download somewhere?? Before this thread is killed off, maybe someone who has already proved the AV-8B off the ramp can confirm that the maths works and greater payloads can be achieved in game?

And at the other end of the speed/height spectrum….all I can add is that when you hover in a helicopter (& the landing phase esp) the shaking is quite violent, yet in my 1 & only flight in a Harrier (passenger obviously!) the whole experience was very smooth. My flight included 40 minutes of low level thru the mountains of Wales followed by 5 minutes of “press ups” and a Ski Ramp launch – where the sensation of transition from ground to airborne was impossible to sense. I should add this was in a T-4 (Sea) Harrier so thus had the original thinner wing than the AV-8B (GR5/7/9) whose “thicker” wing, whilst providing more lift, might generate more “shake”. (Back in the 1980’s the UK Royal Navy’s decision to opt for the original “thin” wing of earlier Harriers for it’s improved FA-2 rather than the newer “thick” wing of the AV-8B was partially driven by this reason (top speed M0.87 versus M0.81 – more useful for catching a Mach 0.84 Badger))

yes - certainly in all NATO/USN/USAF doctrine but this is a DCS AI generated voice and therefore has limits I guess. If I were creating a mission, I would consider building the Bullseye point “up threat” i.e. as near to where the enemy are coming from, as possible. That way as you (in your fighter) are steering/looking towards the threat, you can see the bullseye point (if your display allows or at a quick glance down at your birds eye view map) it is easier to “visualise”. As FiFiFiFum’s excellent response suggests you can set this up in your cockpit, but not so that your Radar display curser gives you Bullseye rather than BRAA. I think Historic Bullseyes in previous large, complex Air Campaigns have included the centre of Hanoi and Baghdad (even Pyongyang?) – useful to even non radar/smart nav fitted aircraft whose pilots are really running the picture in their heads! (What pilot doesn’t sort-of-know where he is in relation to something as obvious as….) The other advantage of a Bullseye near to the source of the enemy aircraft (or more importantly, the area where you wish to target them) is the difference between Magnetic bearings and True bearings. I think the Caucasus Map is running @ about a 5-6 degrees West (Nevada 11 degrees??) so the further away from Bullseye your AI generate Picture calls are made, the greater the error. (Although – and someone will no doubt correct me here – ALL online jets and AI AWACs are using True bearings anyway in DCS??)

+1 I've just bought the map this weekend - love it and the really long runways have proved their worth already! - but the addition of those NAS would be a great improvement for long range missions

good link - always impressed by the professionalism of those hangar roof rats and the ability to remain focused with so much danger all around. Explains why us Brits have been so keen to re-learn from the best by sending so many across the pond these last few years to serve as yellow shirts in the understudy role on the CVNs to eventually take back to our shinny new toy, Queen Elizabeth.

Great answer MoneyTrail - thanks Am I correct in stating that Red Crown (based on accompanying CG/DD) is effectively the "nightclub bouncer" with a list of who's entitled to enter & leave the Air Defence Zone around the CV. His "list" is the ATO (Air Tasking Order) but he provides NO ATC service. c/s MARSHALL provides the ATC function within the CV CCZ (Carrier Control Zone) with STRIKE just being a working freq that sorts out the other admin? It would be great if DCS allowed the Bot DD/FF escorts to shoot at any aircraft approaching the carrier not wearing the correct IFF code......mind you, I struggle to get all the other switches made correctly for recovery, so adding yet another complication would so overload my simple brain :)

v quick answer (this question has come up before) You need to create a deadspot/zone in your joystick curves. The autopilot is looking for a "nil" input from the joystick (not necessarily level flight - I think - to work) http://forums.eagle.ru:8080/showthread.php?t=216395

please don't flame me if this is a stupid question....but..... currently the IFF on the UFC is disabled (for entering Mode 3 and I read somewhere (NATOPS?) you can even change the mode 1 & 2 from here as well?). The mode 4, (I think) is controlled from the right hand console where your elbow is! Following the links provided above, the APX-111 can interrogate ALL modes & codes (1-4), yet if in DCS if we cannot set any of these codes (or go silent with them?) how is this airborne IFF working?? (against other "human" piloted Hornets anyway) so my really dumb question is: Is the Diamond/square symbology being generated by IFF interrogation or by NCTR (non cooperative Target Recognition) function within the APG-73 radar itself? I assume the DCS F-15 uses NCTR for head on aspect targets to provide the pilot with an ID. Is that what we are seeing here with the F/A-18? so that ONLY a target, with a head on aspect (therefore "likely" to be within a narrow head on field - such as the HUD ladder ) will generate a Positive Friendly response. In post #1's Youtube video, I think the targets set up have a head on aspect, does the system therefore default to all UNKNOWNS as Hostile until NCTR says otherwise??? I'm not looking for sensitive info, just an Open Source reply (even if it is to "politely" :) tell me that I am completely barking up the wrong tree. Thanks

my 2 cents..... I've been flying the Hornet for approx 2 weeks, single player and have been fairly "average" in my success rate with landing on the CV. I've done the school work, watched the online videos, but was only trapping on every 3rd attempt despite my conviction that I was "flying the numbers"..... Then I had a go at my 1st play in Multiplayer - and went "simple" and joined a server JUST doing CASE 1 recoveries. Guess what, because I "felt" I was being watched, I must have involuntary "upped" my game considerably and really flew the numbers, becoming much more self critical about every aspect of the pattern and approach. Now I was trapping at the 70% level. So (with me I guess?) I get a little lazy & casual when flying single player, but put in way more effort & focus when online.....might not be the case for everyone, but give it a try.

Wow – what a healthy (& friendly, I hope) debate. Actually I suspect we are pretty close to being in violent agreement. Much of this differing of opinion is just a language issue. Here in Europe, QNH & QFE are still very much alive AND used by USAFE and USN when operating over here. Actually the NATOPs refers to these regional Pressure sett as “Local Altimeter Setting” – which is probably a more sensible phrase. Yes US military will always fly in inches, where as most of the rest fly in mm – but as USMC Trev says, most pilots/GCI controllers all have cheat cards to hand. In the USA most training takes place in sanitised airspace (permanent Danger Areas for example). Here participating aircraft will fly in altitudes measured in Feet and on a Local Altimeter Setting (USMC Trev, please correct me if I am wrong). This has the added advantage of “training as you fight” so that in addition to your own altitude being referred to in feet (“Angels”) and radio chatter talking about bogeys/bandits will be discussed in feet. The SOP I always worked to as a GCI was a request for “height” required an answer in either angels or feet, whereas a request (unusual) for a “level” would prompt a Flight Level answer. In more congested Airspace (Europe) training would often take place with “interlopers” (non-play civilian) traffic crossing the play area. A clever way to distinguish these to an already overloaded single seat fighter pilot would be to refer to this interloper’s height as a Flight Level. But as I think we ALL agree, Flight Levels is a term reserved for use outside training areas above the transition altitude. (Transition Altitude varies throughout the world, I think (as previously posted) it’s 18,000 ft in the USA, but from memory the Persian Gulf is way down at 6000ft). Part of the “fun” (challenge!!) of DCS is learning how to use your A2A radar and in what Height Block you want to look. In real world control of modern radar fitted jets, the pre sortie briefing from the lead pilot usually includes: “not be too helpful” with the Height information. Clearly in peacetime, using a civilian ATC radar a GCI controller will see a mode 3C response on a target and could provide this to his Fighter. For training (just like DCS) the student pilot need to learn how to use his radar to find the target, so the GCI will either provide a “ no height” , or a simple “low, medium, or High” call – similar to the level of detail that a Navy or AWACs controller would be limited to. (the low, medium, high can also be called out as “Block 0,1, 2, 3” with the number referring to 10’s of thousands of feet). As a relative new comer to these forums – “thank you”, really enjoying these chats/ debates.

To add to the above, If flying using Flight Levels (i.e. above the transition altitude - as Airliners do) then aircraft will fly with the altimeter setting of 29.92 inches (or 1013.25 mm ). So you would report your height as FL 310 if flying at 31,000 ft. Useful so that ALL aircraft in the same airspace on the same altimeter setting will miss each other if flying at different Levels. - the principle of how Air Traffic works. A Transition Altitude is the level at which an aircraft's height changes from being measured in feet-above-sea level to a 'Flight Level'. Clearly for aircraft landing & taking off, the need to measure height (not Flight Level) is required as you get nearer the ground. In these cases aircraft will now set the altimeter setting that gives a more accurate AGL reading for their altimeter. QNH is a setting that will make your altimeter read 0 ft at Sea Level, whereas QFE setting will make your altimeter read 0 on the ground at that airfield (or tactical range). These QNH/QFE settings are updated hourly by the local ATC (or ship controller). For the military, where fast jets etc need to operate in a Block of airspace that goes below the transition altitude (e.g surface to 35,000ft), then rather than use 29.92, a local area QNH will be set in the cockpit WHEN entering that tactical airspace. (reverting to the 29.92 when leaving & RTB whilst transiting thru' normal airspace. Just to add to the workload of the pilots, I think (used to be the case with the UK Sea Harrier) the Sea Harrier own height displayed on the radar display (B-scope) was a Flight Level, the height in the Heads Up Display was a height totally dependant on whatever Altimeter setting had been dialled in by the pilot! So a pilot flying on something other than 29.92 would have 2 different heights displayed and could easily find himself violating separation against another aircraft if not clever. I'm sure some DCS player is probably a real life ATC controller, so can correct my over simplistic post if incorrect.

+1 (thank you for the post by the way:) )I had the same issue, put in a dead zone in my Pitch & roll axis of "5" and now engaging auto pilot works every time.