VTJS17_Fire

Maybe some, but not at all. Their MiG-25 interceptors did often a straight climb to high altitudes to intercept strike packages. I agree with you in general, but the radar is less a problem, IMO. To leave out the AWACS support in combination with restricted export rules (for LotATC for instance) is a big issue and a no go for me. But more important to me is mission design. Where in reality do you have two coalitions which fight against at a invisible line over and over again? You always have an attacking/ offensive force/ coalition and one defensive. Sometimes more on one or both sites, but as good as never "neutral" to their intentions (attacking/ defending). Except WWI.

In real life, you would counter a F-15 flight only with GCI/ AWACS support in the M-2000C. Since the other side have also GCI/ AWACS available, it doesn't matter. I also hate hide&seek tactics for my own playstyle, but the North Vietnamese did the same in the 60s/70s with their MiG-17/21 jets against the Phantoms. If I'm inferior in technology and/ or firepower, I would (and do) counter it with manpower, say more aircraft (this is also, what the North Vietnamese did). With that, you can use more advanced tactics than alone or in a two ship. In reality, you try to counter a force always with advanced technology (US, F-22) or with a higher number (Chinese philosophy).

Ja, zur Blue Flag habe ich mich auch schon belesen. Wobei die nächste Runde mit den neuen Rahmenbedingungen bzw. dem neuen Szenario auch kritisch diskutiert wird. Das wäre aber schon eher etwas für mich.

Hi 51st, find's gut, dass es solche Events in der Community gibt und verfolge den englischen Thread dazu. Leider ist mir das Setup zu arcarde, da fehlt einfach der Realismus an allen Ecken. Ich wünsche euch dennoch viel Erfolg und Spaß mit dem Event.

Das glaube ich nicht. Piloten (über)leben seit den 70er Jahren, weil im Cockpit und am HOTAS viele Knöpfe einzigartig geformt sind und "automatisiert" betätigt werden können, ohne hinzuschauen. Das Prinzip kann man am TM Warthog gut erkennen. Dort hat jeder Schalter eine einzigartige Form und kann anhand seiner Lage und Beschaffenheit ohne Blickkontakt gefunden werden. Alleine mit einer VR Brille wird das nicht funktionieren, weil die Haptik fehlt. Die Immersion ist zwar sehr geil, aber der Mix machts. Habe am WE auf der IFA mal die Samsung VR Gear getestet, kein Meisterstück wie Oculus oder Vive, aber für den ersten Test nicht schlecht. Meine dreijährige Tochter fands auch sehr cool, "auf einmal draußen" zu sein, musste sie auf dem Arm aber festhalten, sie wollte immer weiter nach unten schauen. :D

When you fly a DCS aircraft, you can change the radio channel.

For Russia it's hard to get a valid source, because they did use QFE until last year and now adapt the QNH use. In Georgia (Caucasus region), it is FL 070 (IIRC).

Only if you set the option (drop down menue) in the ME. Otherwise they use altitude above MSL as standard. It would be impossible to air refuel, if the tanker flies the set altitude with AGL. :D

I didn't know, this is simulated. Nice to know, thanks! 12° was for December 2013 with 0,1° W change rate per year.

Be sure, I will. :) But to expand the caucasus map would be great, as well. As I wrote, maybe later or as payware DLC with a little bit of the north of Turkey. I loved the terrain there.

Standard QNH (or standard pressure) doesn't have to be simulated, because it must not be a really air pressure. It is only a number which you set above a known altitude (transition level, TRL). With the standard pressure above TRL (in Nevada/ USA FL 180), all aircraft use the same altitude above MSL, which is very important for ATC and other agencies, such as GCI/ AWACS. "Above" is (almost) always transition level, in USA flightlevel 180. If you descend, you have to be careful of the transition altitude, which is 17.000 feet, IIRC. Above/ with transition level, you call your altitude as flightlevel (FL), with/ below transition altitude as feet.

Sorry Zeus, but when my radar says the target is at 16.000 ft. while it is at 15.000 ft., there is a change needed. This is the first time, that I hear, that this should be the correct behavior. It means, that I have to place air objects 1.000 ft. above the altitude they should fly. It worked fine on all planes I flew in DCS/ FC for 10 years. The target is on the same altitude like my radar says, as they were placed in the ME. How want you intercept a target with 1.000 ft. altitude difference? When you think you're level with your target, it's notching you.

I also wondered. The map should be expanded around 150NM to the west and south. I'm looking forward to the new airports mentioned in the newsletter, but wondered what's with a few airfields in the south-western area. :huh:

The Radar altitude is it not, both are above 5.000 ft. AGL. Any altitude shown makes no sense, because the tanker flew at 15.000 ft. If every target is shown 1.000 ft. above its real altitude, how Do you want to Intercept targets? That makes no sense. Something is broken, IMO.

1. Yes. 2. If your radar is on, yes- 3. Yep. Turn the radar to stby mode and you get your bullseye data.

1st: Good old memories. :D 2nd: It isn't entirely flat. The south-east side of the peninsula and coastline have a nice low mountain range. We had a lot of fun with the A-10A there, in the region around Feodossija, as well. There were a lot of nice airbases, too. 3rd. Adds a lot of airspace, combat area and interesting missions to the map. PS: And we had our homebase at Saki AFB. Would be nice, to take-off from there, again. :)

Nevada Map, Not Caucasus.

Should be 12° according to the ME and real Charts.

And by the way: The radar altitude seems to be complete broken, but I don't know if it's a Razbam issue or a DCS issue. As you can see, the tanker altitude is set to 16.000 ft. (in route and while orbiting), but flys ingame at 15.000 ft. But the radar shows it at 16.000 ft. (independent on the QNH, as mentioned above). tanker altitude set at 16.000 ft. in the ME (route and orbit) - And no, that's not the altitude limit for the IL-78M radar lock (PIC) shows 16.000 ft. for the tanker, but trailing at level flight, my own altitude says 15.000 ft. These two observations suggest, that the radar altitude is calculated from the mission editor. At least, for the pre-set AI.

Hi Razbam, found another bug, comparing the altitudes in the barometric altimeter and VTB, while in PIC mode. There is no difference in target height, whether which QNH you set. barometric altimeter is set to QNH (in this mission 1029 hPa); own altitude: 15.800 ft.; target altitude: 16.000 ft. (as set in the ME) barometric altimeter is set to standard air pressure (1013 hPa); own altitude: 15.400 ft. (not changed); target altitude still: 16.000 ft. (as set in the ME) Should the radar the target height not calculate from the own height? Or does the radar calculate the target height from other factors? Mission (open alpha) attached. Nevada-UniTraining_v20_nowind_dark.miz

Wednesdays training:

Hi, in our last training flights, we discovered a bug in the NAV and cNAV logic. Waypoint 1 = Bullseye; cNav selected; Bearing in HSI and VTB are same (true heading for both) Waypoint 1 = Bullseye; Nav selected; Bearing in HSI is 130° (magnetic heading) and in VTB 140° (true heading) As you can see, the bearing information in the VTB remains the same, whether I select cNav or Nav. As you can see too, the heading band in the bottom of the VTB changes to the correct mode. Bug found in the current open alpha version of DCS.

IIRC Zeus said, that it will be implemented later, the INS has to be finished first. But it is already clickable.

Na ja, ganze Wälder gibt es dort einfach nicht. Ist halt Wüste. Aber als ich anfangs mal mit Huey und Mirage in die Bäume geflogen bin, hatte ich nur die Baumkrone gestreift und das hat genügt. Evtl. können die deutschen Tester mehr dazu sagen, wo genau die Hitboxen der Bäume liegen.

Erstes existiert bereits in Nevada (2.0) und ich denke/ hoffe, dass dieses Feature auch beim Release von DCS 2.5 auf der neuen Kaukasus Karte vorhanden sein wird. Ob letzteres auch der Fall ist, habe ich noch nicht getestet. Und in Nevada stehen dafür die Bäume wohl auch zu weit auseinander. :D