Macchi en Malvinas

[algherghezghez]

33 minutes ago, GrayFox23 said:

Just finished the campaign and I'm really impressed - the missions feel realistic (of course with the historic scenario and research you put into it), but at the same time entertaining with all the custom voice-overs and triggers.

Things I noticed so far:

1) The pre-flight "Mission Planner" gives away trigger zones and general spoilers - I know mission makers often are incoherent with this, but I suggest either adding a note that players are not supposed to look at it, or even better hide all the "non-intel-known" things (there is a boolean setting for hiding elements in the "mission planner" view)

2) In M2, I did manage to land but was wondering about the crazy angle - turns out there were two things coming together (and fully looking into the "why" took me quite some time):
  * It seems you modified the approach chart delivered with the game which states a final approach course of 270° magnetic - which is correct for 2019 with 3° E MagVar
  * But the mission is set in 1982, for which DCS models 6° MagVar - already giving a 3° E error
  * Then this specific approach seems to have a peculiarity where you should always come in at a 4° E angle right until the runway threshold (runway is at 269° true and the DCS 2019 chart has an approach course of 270° magnetic + 3° MagVar = 273° true)
  * for real life verification check link 2.24-3 at www.falklands.gov.fk, which states 271° for 2025 with 2.2171° MagVar - so again making you come in at 273° true while the runway is at 269° true - this also becomes very apparent when zooming into the approach in navigation tools)
  * In sum this currently results in a 7° E error even when perfectly flying the charted approach, which at that visibility is extremely challenging. So I suggest reducing the plotted courses by 3° to conform to what a 1982 approach chart would have looked like and maybe even adding a note that the approach by default is planned from a 4° E angle

Overall a great campaign - rivaling some paid ones and definitely better than some stock ones .
(hope my #2 does not sound too nitpicky, I had fun researching those details and might be wrong - always open for inputs/clarifications)

First of all thanks a lot, it’s really rewarding seeing people enjoy the campaign! 
 

for the number one I’m ashamed I didn’t think of it! Hopefully you didn’t get to many spoilers!
 

for the numer two, I wasn’t aware that magnetic variation in dcs was correctly modelled with the mission’s date. I honestly didn’t think much of the approach angle because most VOR approaches come with an angle: the VOR station sits next to the runway, so flying the radial parallel to the runway would align you with the grass. Usually the approach radial intersects the runway threshold or is calculated in a way that would put the plane  in a position where you can easily manoeuvre to align to the runway at minima.

I will correct both mistakes as soon as possible.

and no, definitely not too nitpicky! All criticism is more than welcomed!

 

thanks again for the time you spent on it.

[GrayFox23]

Guess pictures tell more than a thousand words, here is how a kneeboard hint could look like:

null

For verification, this is how the real world approach still looks like today (mag numbers changed over years, but the absolute shape of the approach is the same):

Also makes it quite clear why the approach is like that - when your nav aid is offset, you always need to come up with a compromise: either end up with the correct heading, but parallel to the RW, or with an angled heading like at SFAL.

Edited Wednesday at 10:08 AM by GrayFox23