Vakarian

Yes it does, but there is another solution for that. For the alignment on carrier, you need SINS cable (ask for ground power, that will connect it) to complete alignment. After the cable is connected, you choose SEA INS alignment and wait for it to finish. Like others have mentioned before, aircraft shouldn't move AT ALL during the alignment. Even loading weapons on should throw off the INS alignment process, so when you start the alignment DO NOT move the aircraft at all. Load weapons before aligning or after.

I have some praising to do here. My brother ordered me this upgrade last year and it worked wonderfully. Couple of months ago, the X axis started to be jittery a lot, and not centering right. I contacted @Deltaalphalima1 to see if there is something to do to fix it. After some quick troubleshooting we got to a solution that fixed the issue and I though it's all good. I believe that even in the first reply, I was told if the issue couldn't be fixed that I'd get a replacement unit, but I wanted to see if we can fix it somehow. Unfortunately, after couple of days, it started misbehaving again. As I flew rarely during the summer, I didn't contact him further to try and fix the issue again. This week, I referred back to the issue, and all he instructed me to do was to confirm my address and a replacement unit was sent. No hassle, no trying to shift the blame like some other customer support services could do, ... The unit arrived today, installed it and I'm back with fully functional TDC for the Warthog. All I can say is that there should be no doubt about this upgrade or its creator. Both are very solid and will see you through . If something starts to misbehave, contact him and try to find a solution. I can assure you it was very pleasant interaction which really surprised me. 10/10 for the customer support and the product itself

Tarawa is not SC compatible

It's unrealistic to be able to hover with Hoggit loadout. Get it light (how light depends on weather conditions) and you will be able to hover

You know, us customers would also like to know that timeframe. We would also love that that timeframe doesn't change whenever wind blows

Hmm, that's interesting. Could you elaborate what exactly is wrong? I'm genuinely curious as couple of people in the thread I linked did some testing, read the charts and told that it's now supposedly correct. If you can show some evidence what is wrong, maybe we can push it to RB to get it fixed?

When a company announces they are going to stick to a certain version AFTER it gets release from EA, where were we supposed to read that info?

How would it create confusion? Isn't it exactly what most of people wanted? To make it realistic? Well, you got it. Nothing prevents you from mounting HARM on those pylons, but lack of certain things prevent you from firing. It's as real as it gets

I think MAVs are not currently available on 4&6, only on 3&7 so it's all good

Jesus, the amount of whining is absurd. If you are getting F-16 just for the JSOWs, then something's wrong with your perception of the aircraft. Even more, considering in DCS they are mostly useless if any decent AD network is set. On the other hand, if you are happy to spam JSOWs to kill couple of trucks then.... have fun I guess. Take off, launch it and RTB. Sounds like a lot of fun.

Why does everyone try to fly as one-man army these days? If you load your aircraft to the brim with weapons, you are going to have fun time against someone that actually uses brain when making the loadout he's going to fly or against cleverly organized AD network

I don't know if my eyes are failing me, but on the first pic, you are not lined up with the steerpoint, that's why tadpole is not aligned with your FPW

Have fun when your SSD dies suddenly because of thinking like this

Then buy more storage space. It's not cool asking for features to be dumped because few people lack storage

Could you use tact switches with longer stems to bridge the gap you are experiencing?

I am sorry in a first place to mention this as I know it's against the rules but it's neccessary to prove a point. Let's say if they need terrain data which is "so hard to obtain", what stops them from firing up certain GA flight sim and study the terrain? That makes no sense. If a military relies on commercial software to base its military strategies on, I'd say it's doomed from the beginning.

Check parking brake

This idea came to mind couple of moments ago, but it might be an elegant solution for a problem I'm sure I'm not the only one having. Simple example. You are flying F-16 (can be any plane in DCS) and you have bound Radio1 to key "XY". You are also flying in MP and you have bound in SRS to use Radio1 on same key "XY" with idea to use same key for both ingame radio options and SRS in order to not have to use separate SRS and ingame radio buttons. This is one thing I really like and would really like to keep it that way. I don't want to use different keybinds for SRS and ingame radio and I don't want to have to use modifiers for that. Problem: When using same key for ingame radio and SRS, when you actuate that button you start transmitting in SRS but you also get that radio menu in top right corner. Possible solution: Implement mechanism that works on short/long press of radio buttons. If you just short-press that button "XY" radio menu pops up regularly, and on SRS you just get that momentary TX (not much harm there). On the next short-press of button "XY" radio menu closes, and on SRS you just another momentary TX. However, if you press and hold button "XY" (for example longer than 0.5 seconds) radio menu doesn't show up and on SRS you do your normal transmission and talk on a radio while using actual radio button that was meant for it. In that way, we get to keep current ingame radio menu functionality on simple keypresses, but when that key is pressed continuously you don't get the radio menu in top right corner as the button is used for voice transmission instead of ingame radio menu Reasoning behind idea: - Main reason behind this is to be use actual radio switches from the aircraft to work for ingame radio menus and SRS without much interference. It is slightly annoying to use button to transmit something on SRS and you get left with that radio menu in top right corner. - Another reason is that this might be useful mechanism to have when ED finishes up its own VoIP that is supposed to work on actual tuned frequencies/channels. With that, you could only use single button on your keyboard/HOTAS/button box/whatever for ingame radio menu and for voice transmission.

Huh, I never knew this was a bug. I have 2 monitors connected, but DCS is displayed only on single monitor with 3440x1440 resolution and in options I have "1 Screen" selected. I have always seen the HUD like it shows on your first picture. I have seen in couple of Wags videos that his HUD looks like second image, but I have never managed to get it like that. Following this for hints

They did fix it. It was ridicuously overpowered before latest update. Look here at the comparison charts to see how badly did Harrier overperform until latest update:

As it was stated earlier, Harrier is not really supported by supercarrier ATC, so you can't use it to get proper comms for landing.

You don't change it, it is "simulated" only. You just remain on the same frequency and continue the approach until something gets changed in SC ATC

Try to mount TGP on the station 3 or 5, that should help you with masking problem.

Yeah, I stand corrected. On all other maps it's synced properly, but on Nevada not. That's really odd. When I did my test flights I flew on PG and Caucasus and there it was OK. I now tested on Syria, PG, Caucasus and Nevada. Only on Nevada are analog and system clock out of sync.