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

I really don’t see why. Even the current sim without Dynamic campaign would benefit hugely from GFM, single player experience would be massively improved. And they projected GFM release for 2022 , they would’ve known they never manage the complete DC that early.

You still didn’t really get the main point, did you now? Well nevermind, you‘re way too busy being self-opinionated anyway.

Its not confusing at all. The laser scanning example was to show that 3rd parties by now often put more effort into their modules than ED themselves (another example would be the depth of radar simulation in F-4, or the RWR simulation in the F-14) The 2nd instance is the worry that EDs behaviour could lead to 3rd parties stopping or reducing such boundary-pushing developements in the future, because why put developement effort & money into it, when ED themselves abandon their full fidelity approach and simply shake&bakes a fantasy look-alike rendition of the F-35s avionics.. Because lets be serious, even with the some info being out there, it won't be a realistic full fidelity simulation of the F-35s capabilities. It will look cool and people will buy it. Thats it. So 3rd parties could chose the same approach to future modules. Just get some basic info and cobble something together that mostly looks like the real thing. Get your money . Done.

Yes, sorry "bigger" was a bit badly worded , I didnt mean it as bigger than in D mode, I mean it as "large" chunks of airspace. For example, when you fly as a 2 ship formation and want to sanitize airspace ahead, given the radars' 8 degree beamwidth (in 4line scan) , one aircraft could point the antenna 4 degree up in E mode and the other aircraft 4 degree down ,so that the first aircraft would scan everything from level to 8 degree up and the 2nd aircraft scans everything from level to 8 degree down, so there are no detection gaps. Guess you could do that in D mode also, but then you would have to calculate the setting so that the bottom of the beam still scans level at own-ship altitude Thanks , good idea with the tanker mission using its TACAN ! I m gonna give it a try!

Hi @kontiuka and @Mini_is_Drunk!, thank you both for your explanations, they were helpfu and I understand it a bit better now. Seems to be me that D mode is more practicable in application. I guess E mode is mostly for scanning bigger chunks of airspace for aircraft where you dont have any prelimary target bearing&altitude from GCI or AWACS. Thanks again, Snappy

Hi, I have some questions regarding the two different modes of setting radar elevation. The manual explanation I find kind of difficult to understand. 1. So contrary to some info floating around the internet and contrary to even chucks guide , the digital differential readout to the lower left of the radar screen always shows altitude differential and never actual antenna degrees, even in E mode ? Its confusing because the official manual says about it "2 digits : always indicating the difference in altitude." 2. Do I understand it correctly that the main difference between the D and E modes is, that in D mode, the altitude differential readout set/ shown is valid for the current alidade position, no matter where the alidade is on the radar screen? I.e. if I park the the alidade 20nm straight ahead and set the differential to +15 in D mode, the radar will scan the airspace 20nm ahead of the Mirage 15000ft above my own aircraft? is this correct? 3.) In E mode, I have to set the alidade to 10nm and the readout will then display what? altitude difference or antenna elevation in degrees? What exactly does the E mode readout show when I set the aldidade to 20NM and then adjust the elevation to show +15? What is the use of E mode ? or which advantages does it over D mode? Thanks in advance, Snappy

Ski11B, for some weird reason I cannot open your track file. Can you be more specific what your problem is? Which variant of the F1 do you have the problem with? What do you mean by exactly "align the HUD or the ADI"? Do you have problems aligning the gyroscopic system? Or do you want to align the HUD with the actual horizon? The HUD horizone line will only match the real horizon outside at low altitudes. The manual also says so: Actual horizon: this symbol represents the actual horizon, which will coincide with the Earth’s horizon at sea level. At high altitudes the actual horizon will be much higher than the Earth’s horizon, due to the curvature of the Earth. You can always use autostart function , that should ensure a technically correct gyroscopic system alignment and eliminate any user error. Just wait for the "autostart complete" message and you re good to go? Or is your question about flying straight and level at a constant altitude? This is best done by setting the correct pitch attitude and power and then trim as necessary.

Loukins this is not helpful. Yes , the manual may still call it a "sight", but for all intents and purposes the Mirage F1 CE,BE,EE already have a HUD. I mean, seriously, what more would you need to make it a "HUD"? It has a flight path vector, its has a target designator box during radar lock,it even has steering cues to the target, it has a pitch ladder, it has an aircraft symbol. It is definitely not a simple optical sight , like those found in the 50s vintage aircraft, as F-86, Mig-15, or even F-4 for that matter. Technically it is a HUD. In the end, a HUD is also an optical sight in the purest sense of the word.

Hi, I noticed there seems to be an issue with the (C+M or SW) mode affecting/inhibiting the R530IR seeker head after deselection. In the following track I set a up an E-3 as target 2NM ahead at co-speed and co-alt. So a big, perfect IR target straight ahead. Loadout is two sidewinders on the wingtips and 2 R530 IR on the wing stations. Selecting the two R530IRs and going master arm off the R530IR immediately pick up the E-3 and give their aquisition tone. Now I select the (C+M or SW) mode. So far so good. But after deselecting the (C+M or SW) mode again , the R530 IR seekers no longer seem to be able to find the target, despite unchanged position and despite the missile ready triangles appearing in the HUD. It looks like even after going out of the (C+M or SW) mode , the R530IR seems to be inhibited somehow. I understand that C+M or SW mode is only for using guns and Siderwinders/Magic, but this is not the point, the point is after going out of the C M SW mode, the R530IR seekers seems to no longer work, despite the HUD showing the missile ready triangles and despite the armament selections panel still showing the R530 wing stations as selected. Track and mission file attached. IRtracking3.trk MirageF1IRTEST.miz

Best of luck to you Silver_Dragon, I hope your personal situation improves quickly and that you feel better again , regardless of whether you return to the forums or not. Happy holidays and kind regards, Snappy