Jack McCoy

I would advise to use linear curves. If you must make a modification (I don't recommend), try lowering saturation: this will make the required inputs larger. Make the dead zone as small as possible. For the Warthog nothing over 6 should be required: I'm at 4 in X-roll, 0 in Y-pitch. (Hmm 2 in pitch, else I had problems with the Hornet's Alt-Hold) If you have the Mirage, Su-33, or Harrier give refueling a try with those. I'm very comfortable doing DCS AAR (except for the A-10C), but the Hornet presents a different challenge: it's very sensitive to power-induced pitch change, so moving forward or back will make you pitch up and down respectively. With a basket, steady yourself at even speed behind the basket and when fairly stable with the tanker, drive forward through the basket. Don't land on it, pierce it. I haven't tried this yet but I will next try to line up below the basket, probably twice the radius of the basket. Good luck. Poke me on TeamSpeak (Aerobatics Online), most weekday evenings UTC-4 (US-DST) and I can try to help. Good luck.

Are you running off of the release branch, or Open Beta? IIRC, the missing TACAN ID was fixed a couple of updates ago.

ICLS is just for carriers. ILS is for airports and the DCS Hornet does not have the receiver for this. Discussed in many other threads. For the carrier's ICLS channel, it is specified by the mission designer in the Mission Editor. He/she should indicate it in the briefing page, for good measure.

It would be safer to use the latest file from DCS and add the single line (4 out of 5 are commented out) from the VFA-113's Plat Cam Mod, which I did with success. JAR is aware and the Stringers will soon be providing a fixed file. (See his post, above: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3570542&postcount=11)

I didn't bring up the subject. Are you thanking me for saving ED time on this one? :music_whistling: I'll use mods if and when I feel like it, unless it goes against ED's license terms.

Exactly. See my post: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3570449&postcount=8

I just updated to the latest Open Beta. I have no such option, either in my existing or new mission. Cause and solution: I am using the VFA-113 Stingers Plat Cam Mod, which modifies this file: CoreMods\tech\USS John C Stennis\USS_John_C_Stennis.lua The latest Open Beta version relies on new entries in this file, which are removed when applying the hack/mod: GT.TACAN_position = {-55.0, 55.0, 29.0} GT.ICLS = true; GT.ICLS_Localizer_position = {-153.0, 12.0, 9.4, 189.0} -- {x [m], y [m], z [m], yaw [deg]} GT.ICLS_Glideslope_position = {-79.0, 26.5, 32.7, 3.5} -- {x [m], y [m], z [m], glideslope = 3.5 [deg]} And I wonder what this new entry does... :smartass: GT.animation_arguments.elevators = {57, 58, 59, 60}; GT.animation_arguments.elevators_doors = {47, 48, 53, 54};

That's precise enough in most circumstances, 60" is never more than 1 NM. Or you can round it off at well-known fractions: 15" = 0.25 20" = 0.33 30" = 0.5 40" = 0.66 45" = 0.75

You just gave me a craving for poutine (Pronounced poo-teen, in English. In French, it involves finer pronunciation that most English speakers will never achieve; not a pot-shot, just linguistic reality ;)) Back on topic, I'm not sure what the current state of the mission is, but to some extent it's legitimate to wish for a USN Hornet as the active aircraft. A few other foreign representatives don't hurt.

Compressed air start is modeled and should start the starboard engine under normal circumstances. Left engine can only be started using cross-bleed air, at least in DCS Hornet. There is another thread discussing engine start failure following fuel starvation.

VMC: VFR Meteorological Conditions IMC: IFR Meteorological Conditions

I find the default linear curve is very good for the stick. I only ever modify rudder because of hardware limitations. Could you provide a track and explain in which axis you're having difficulties? I just did a quick flight to see. In BFM, I usually pull back only 1/3 of the way (for energy management - alpha 6.5 to 10.5) and ailerons are frequently 50-100% deflection. For very fine maneuvering, I frequently stay within the mechanical dead zone, just applying "pressures". If I understand what you're trying to achieve, try pitch curvature 0, saturation 70 even down to 50. You will lose authority but gain in stick deflection vs stabilitor deflection. Although I would advise you to get used to default linear mapping. You should be aware that ALL aircraft are quite sensitive to pitch input.

Provide a track so we can spot what's wrong.

That's not the idea. Trimming is so the aircraft maintains a specific speed. Lots of power will make you climb, a specific amount of intermediate power will keep you level, and less power will make you descend... all at the same speed for which the aircraft is trimmed. Note: Upon changing power setting, the immediate effect is on speed followed very soon after by a change in pitch to reach a new flight equilibrium at trimmed speed. If you need to keep the VVI on the horizon while trimming, you can and should use pitch input until the equilibrium is reached. This requires a little practice and experience. In other words, without pitch input, your VVI will move towards the E-bracket. With pitch input to stabilize the VVI, the E-bracket will move towards the VVI. Good luck.

I never experienced this in my missions for which I set up wind to avoid the "sliding taxi" bug. Yesterday, flying on someone else's mission with high winds, I got stuck on the catapult and so did a few other players. The work-around was to throttle back to idle and burn again. I think this is related to the "sliding taxi" bug.

Never mind.

I added the vectors to your image. Another spectacular observation I made was that under any combination of wind and carrier speed that yield down-the-deck wind of 25-30kts, steering the ship roughly in the neighborhood of "ideal" course always results in cross winds under 5kts. That's why you're not noticing much difference. Try this as an experiment: taxi on centerline at the very end of the angled deck and then eject. If you set carrier course according to my rule of thumb, the parachute will land VERY close to the centerline, in the back of the ship. ;) A few oddities related to this: 1) The Stennis flag is not affected by wind; just an animation. 2) While parked on the boat, the wingtip vortices (bug) are not influenced by natural wind, just carrier movement induced wind.

Check OBOGS switch, aft left console.

Exactly. The rule of thumb I determined and outlined above, if drawn on paper, will form an isosceles triangle.

No. Stennis deck is 9 degrees, so offset by 18 degrees. This is not speculation but MathCad analytics. :smartass:

Are you properly lined up, up/down, left/right, and within 0.8-0.9 NM? I find the ball quite usable with Rift using my 48-year-old eyes. Enjoy VR! :thumbup:

To have wind straight down the deck, equal wind and carrier speed, and ship's course 2x deck angle to the right of oncoming wind. For example, 14 kts/14kts, wind FROM 72 (252 in Mission Editor), course 72+2x9=90. There are other combinations, but this one is easy to remember and always exact. Given the carrier is on an optimal course, note that the burble will be most present in low wind conditions. I personally set up carrier at 11kts and wind at 14kts (equal enough) to avoid the current sliding-taxi-on-carrier bug. -- As JAR pointed out, "no hair" is spelled "BALD". :)

I would consider this a faithfully reproduced quirk (of the bug kind) of the real Hornet's left DDI.

I find this "picture" to be very important. To OP, for wind over deck, considering the sliding taxi bug, I set up the carrier speed at 11 kts (ME default), and the wind at 14 kts. The carrier course is set at double the deck offset angle (2x9) to the right of the wind. For example, carrier heading 90, wind FROM 72 (252 in ME). No sliding, minimal pitching, and the Case 1 numbers match. Also make sure you're not overweight (33000 lbs).

So, ideally, it should be available in the Re-arm in-game menu as well.