Snappy

Hi, currently training mission 2.2 "IFR Instrument flight" seems broken. The mission briefing and setup is made for a departure and ILS approach in a easterly direction (RWY 08 in briefing, but in DCS F10 map its now called RWY 07). However now at mission start instead you are put in take off position in a westerly direction on RWY 25. I think this is because of the wind direction in the mission. You can of course backtrack on the runway and still depart in easterly direction. However the next problem comes later in the mission. You are supposed to fly an ILS on RWY 08 (07) , but the ILS is not switched on (by the airport) and even if you set the correct frequency in the cockpit you receive no ILS indications , again probably due the wrong wind for this mission. In DCS the airports seems to switch off the ILS on a runway if the wind direction favours use of opposite runway direction. So you cannot really complete this mission in the current DCS version. Would be nice if this can be looked at . Could be very confusing for less experienced virtual pilots. Thank you.

Any source for that? I mean for this conflict being in any kind of active legal proceedings? Or is this just an assumption on your part?

This would be relevant for ground roll, take off and climb-out ( and in case of a go-around) , but not so much for descent & approach. If the aircraft is able to maintain cruise altitude at high gross weights, it should sure be able to perform a descent with a suitable descent rate to clear terrain on approach to the airport, as the engine and lift performance required for that is less. If the CFIT end result is still weight-dependent it seems something else is off , like for example the AI using a fixed powersetting or speed for approach regardless of its current grossweight , which is unrealistic and not what human pilots do.

Fair. Each to their own.

It will also make it the most boring one. No challenge at all. Push to win button. Is it a highly effective weapon system? yes. Fun? not much if ask me.

Not sure how you arrive at such a conclusion from his post. He wrote the changes were to the AWG-9, not to the seekerhead of the AIM-54. He also said there are yet-to-be improved inaccuracies with the seekerhead and guidance , which are currently under-, not overperforming.

Hi , check out this page, at least for Bodo, they have old ground navaid based approach charts , though not the complete set. https://www.mil-airfields.de/approach-charts/no-norway/aerodromes.html edit: Did you already check the official norway AIP? ( its publicly available for free ) Because I just had a cursory look through the page for Bardufoss and they still publish some NON-RNAV STARS and SIDS . Just look at the ones without the "RNAV" prefix in the list. https://ais.avinor.no/no/AIP/View/136/2025-01-23-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html?target=https%3A//ais.avinor.no/no/AIP/View/136/2025-01-23-AIRAC/html/eAIP/EN-AD-2.ENDU-en-GB.html%23AD-2.ENDU&menuState=https%3A//ais.avinor.no/no/AIP/View/136/2025-01-23-AIRAC/html/eAIP/EN-menu-en-GB.html?,GEN,ENR,AD,AD-2,AD-2.ENDU edit 2: Andoya as well has still ground based STARS: https://ais.avinor.no/no/AIP/View/136/2025-01-23-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html?target=https%3A//ais.avinor.no/no/AIP/View/136/2025-01-23-AIRAC/html/eAIP/EN-AD-2.ENDU-en-GB.html%23AD-2.ENDU&menuState=https%3A//ais.avinor.no/no/AIP/View/136/2025-01-23-AIRAC/html/eAIP/EN-menu-en-GB.html?,GEN,ENR,AD,AD-2,AD-2.ENDU They also publish ground based instrument approaches, though only the civilian ones, ILS/LOC/VOR , unfortunately the military TACAN are in the separate MIL AIP. Good luck !

Interesting, learned something new then today. Thank you for the manual reference too!

Not how I interpret the manual. What you wrote applies if you put the inner FD knob (of the mode selector knob) to HDG. With both the mode selector knob and the inner FD knob set to VOR/ILS I would expect guidance onto the selected radial or ILS localiser course, unless of you are outside of reception range of the tuned ground station, which would be an exception.

The latter shouldn’t matter though, I mean @IvanK is not complaining that he is not getting guidance straight towards to the runway, in fact he didn’t mention runways or an approach at all. The issue seems to be that the HSI shows he‘s dead-on on the selected radial , with the HSI needle centered, but the FD gives a significant fly-right indication.

So, A) it’s not „my premise“ or „my argument“, I don’t need to strengthen anything, it’s a limit set by Red Bull for their racing in direct contradiction to your claim that red bull pilots routinely pull 12G. And B) as for the safety reasons, here straight from the horses mouth, 3:30 onwards, surprise , it’s due to issues with strength of the airplane and it’s structure. Not sure why you mention empirical facts, when you were bringing anecdotal claims about exceedences so far.

I think this issue should better be reported in the forum section for that specific campaign, as it’s much more likely to be a problem with the mission design/AI issue than the heatblur F-14 itself. The forum section for that campaign is here: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/962-dcs-f-14b-operation-sandworm-campaign/ snappy

Yes, but before ( the last update) it didn’t turn at all , it flew straight ahead without any turns at all. I wonder what changed. Probably some AI thing.

No it really seems to be a new bug in the mission, introduced with the last DCS update. I just checked and can confirm this weird behaviour of the tanker immediately starting a turn upon mission start. I flew this mission maybe 2 weeks ago , before the last DCS update and it worked fine back then. BTW even if you contact the tanker , it continues its turn.

This is a weird argument to make , especially since Red Bull introduced a 10G limit back in 2014 already , for safety reasons. Exceeding it results in DNF-disqualification from the race