Minsky

We already chatted about that with OP in Razbam's Discord There are five or so dedicated ranges on Falklands. Their boundaries and other data are published on most sectional charts. The Onion range in particular is primarily (if not exclusively) used for strafing, and has altitude restrictions from ground to 4000 feet. There are no known (published) ranges on the mainland. And although Punta Arenas has tons of restricted areas, they are most likely not combat-related.

An offset could appear at any time after the inbound call, due to carrier's maneuvering. That's why the approach tells you the final bearing on check-in (right before you're supposed to begin your correction).

Have you tried this yourself? I'm genuinely curious, because the livery relies on the 'description.lua' to actually remove the glossiness, and 'USS_Nimitz.zip' doesn't have any inside.

Hi, and thank you! This is not a mod but a livery, so it must be applied to the carrier in the Mission Editor. I'm not sure that editing Bankler's mission won't break any scripts and triggers inside, so I altered it manually. Hope @Bankler don't mind me posting this, otherwise it will be promptly removed: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uVKQkbSqqfQr3cvKqIlfm5old8hs6NuZ/view?usp=share_link

Будет бардак, объяснили же. Сейчас только отключенная КГС мешает юзерам, не умеющим в базовую координацию с другими игроками, садиться им навстречу. И только включение КГС с рабочего торца мешает ботам, прущим на посадку с полным игнорированем окружаюшего трафика, регулярно создавать аварийные ситуации. Зачем вы пытаетесь сломать идеально работающую систему?

This is correct: IGZP is LOC-only in real life. The DME thing is a bug tho: they broke it in the June update.

Reported long time ago:

Координаты в том же формате забираются, в котором вставляются? Хорнет поддерживает два разных.

Предлагаю разработчикам вернуться к этому разговору после того, как в ДКС появится какое-то подобие аэродромного ИИ (то, что есть сейчас, им не является). Который будет различать параллельные полосы, подтверждать возможность ILS-захода на выбранную полосу, и транслировать метеосводку. Возможно, проблема разрешится сама собой. Также хотелось бы напомнить о хотелке включать-отключать КГС по триггерам и чекбоксами в редакторе, позволяя авторам самим решать, какой уровень "бардака" они готовы позволить в своих миссиях.

В 8 из 10 случаев ILS включается для рабочей полосы, которая зависит от направления ветра и сообщается при связи с диспетчером. Если же на аэродроме две и более параллельные полосы с ILS, ED и диспетчер предложат вам сыграть в угадайку. Вы можете присоединиться к несостоявшейся петиции против подобного поведения, но вряд ли это что-то изменит

You could've checked the mission availability before diving in. There are a few missions and a campaign, and the upcoming Liberation 6.0 will support Falklands as well. But it's probably too early to expect something serious (let alone payware) -- the map is still in the active development, with new airfields being added every couple months. Last but not the least, this area is not exactly known for a lot of action. So it's a bit harder to come up with a plausible scenario for a conflict if it's not a sandbox or a pure fantasy. Speaking of sandboxes. I'm pretty sure that once Razbam is done adding new airfields, folks like deadlyfishes (Edit: already available, thanks to Chump) and Apache600 won't be far behind.

Those were just my assumptions. A relatively small developer such as Ugra might only have the current build, a few manual backups, and a bug tracker. Sounds kinda ridiculous, but with DCS you never know for sure In any case, they might simply not see this kneeboard issue as something serious (it's not a game-breaking bug after all). And seeing that there were no updates to Syria since March (?), their verbal promise to release a fix in the next Syria patch (whenever it comes) still stands. (Not that any of this excuses such an enormous delay, of course. And I honestly don't know why I'm trying to play a devil's advocate here )

Script file can be placed anywhere. Once you include it in your mission via triggers (see my original "demo" file), it will be packed into the mission file. Moose repository - scroll down a bit and download the "Moose.lua" file from the "Assets" section * Moose home page with starters guide Moose classes - recovery tanker is just a tiny fraction of what the Moose can do. * Alternatively, you can download and unpack "Moose_Include-X.X.XX.zip". There will be a folder named "Moose_Include_Static" with two files inside. One is the same "Moose.lua" that you can download from the repository directly. Another named "Moose_.lua" (note the underscore) is the same script, but minified, so it's much smaller in size.

Let me elaborate on my answer If the tanker lands within 20 minutes, then there's something wrong with the basic setup, and Zyll's video should help solving that. Once that's solved, the tanker should be able to stay on station for ~4 hours. After that, the tanker must land, refuel and resume its mission. But as far as I know, the "LandReFuAr" waypoint responsible for that only works with land bases, and not with naval units. Theoretically, you can do some clever tricks with triggers and scripts, by spawning a new tanker once the dry one lands. But since this approach already involves scripting, I suggested to use Moose, as it takes over the whole routine of creating and managing the tanker. TL;DR Once you watch Zyll's video and solve whatever is wrong with the initial setup, you'll likely won't need the rest of this post. Now for the scripting. It could be very confusing, indeed! But it becomes really simple once you understand how the scripts work in DCS. In my mission there are two units: * A carrier group named "HST", * And a dummy S-3B Tanker placed anywhere on the map and named "Arco". Then there are two triggers: * The first one simply loads the main Moose library. * The second one executes the script that talks to Moose and turns that dummy S-3B into the actual tanker attached to our carrier. As evident from their names, both triggers run on the mission start: The script itself: ArcoHST=RECOVERYTANKER:New(UNIT:FindByName("HST"), "Arco") -- this finds our dummy S-3B named 'Arco', and attaches it to our carrier group named 'HST' ArcoHST:SetCallsign(2) -- number of the desired callsign from the dropdown menu in the Mission Editor, #2 is Arco ArcoHST:SetTACAN(43, "ARC") -- tanker's tacan ArcoHST:SetRadio(343) -- tanker's radio frequency ArcoHST:SetTakeoffAir() -- the tanker will be spawned in air ArcoHST:Start() -- actually spawns the tanker There are additional arguments and commands described in the manual. They're currently working on the new model: As for the skins, I'm using this pack: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3307156/

The problem is how to keep the tanker on station forever. Which is apparently not possible without scripting. So I cut to the chase and suggested to use Moose.

Apparently, the LandReFuAr waypoint doesn't work for aircraft carriers. You can set up a recovery tanker pretty easy using Moose. Here's a simple demo mission: Moose_Recovery_Tanker.miz P.S. S3B has enough gas to stay on station for 4+ hours. Unless your mission is longer than that, I'd suggest time-accelerating it to see what's happening to the tanker.

It's not about the number of lines. To deliver this trivial fix, they must first compile the map from the current dev build. This build certainly has other untested fixes and unfinished enhancements. If they just compile it "as is", we'll get a map with a bunch of bugs. So we have to wait for them to clean the things up and make the new version good enough for the release. At least, this is how I understand their process (could be wrong). Does this excuse the delay? Of course not. Does it make publishing this simple fix more challenging than it seems? Sadly, yes.

My guess is that they have a bunch of other fixes and improvements for Syria waiting to be finished, tested, compiled into an actual map, and then sent to ED for reviewing. And, most likely, they cannot implement and release just this particular fix without screwing up their pipeline / versioning system / whatnot. I'd say we should muster up whatever left of our patience and wait for the next Syria (not DCS!) update.

That's part real-life Hornet procedure part CV NATOPS. 150 kias is the standard approach speed during carrier instrument approaches. Speed is not mentioned in the MApt/Waveoff/Bolter section, so one would assume the approach speed still applies here. IIRC those speeds could be overridden by the aircraft's manual -- however, this is not the case with the Hornet so it sticks with what the CV NATOPS says.

As said above, bolters & waveoffs aren't implemented yet (and neither does the ACLS reacquisition). If you don't have human ATC directing you, you can simulate the "loss of comms" procedure from the NATOPS which is roughly described in the "supercarrier AI" boxes below:

Yeah, maybe someday ED would allow us to SHIFT-select multiple units at once

That will be excessive for the purpose of these kneeboards. Besides, such precise magvar would only be valid over a tiny area of the map.

Списываются при оплате заказа.

You can start here: http://gonavy.jp/CVf.html