Hog_No32

Yeah, I noted those discrepancies as well. If I understood correctly IRL only the calls mentioned by Robin Hood are used to make them recognizable and distinguishable even if only parts of the transmission are received by the pilot (like, if he only hears "come ..xxx" he knows it must be "come left"). I just hope this is a lapse in the documentation and does not correspond to the actually recorded voice-overs. That being said, at least some of the voiceovers were done by people with RL carrier ops expercience so I am confident they would have noted these during the recordings... :-) Another minor mistake that I noted: On pages 36 and 49 in the "Landing" paragraphs it reads "Then [i.e.:after landing], release the brakes and allow the aircraft to be pulled back". I think we agree that (wheel) brakes are not used during deck landings at all, hence no need to release them... :music_whistling:

I‘m with Gierasimov: Better a solid update than one rushed out the door. If the thing needs more time in the oven - do it!

Hey boundless, yes, that is perfectly possibly. I have many missions with two tankers, one S-3 near the carrier and one KC-135 further away. You have to make sure each tanker has a seperate frequency. And TACAN channel if desired.

I actually use one of the rocker switches on my my left TM Cougar MFD for that. Up is AA, down is AG, straightforward and works like a charm. I did use the boat switch in the past (without any TARGET profile) but I‘ve found that to be a bit unrealistic to have this as part of the HOTAS since in the real jet the pilot has to reach forward for the AA/AG mode switch. Thats how I came to the MFD button (which I had no other use for anyway).

You can try to reduce the gain of the NVG if what you see is too bright. I usually don‘t fiddle around with the NVG gain and I happily refuel at night using them. The depth perception is a bit more difficult since you are just looking through a straw basically but it works for me. Yet, the AAR light would be great (but not a pressing issue here, just my personal judgement).

+1 outstanding idea, very helpful

+1. That‘s my approach to it as well. I still play around with them from time to time but only with single bomb on each station. I don‘t get to fly so often these days and that makes it more difficult for me to break/change the muscle memory for JDAM employment once they implement further changes to the logic. So I refrain a bit from using them until we get more updates.

Thanks, Bunny Clark

CRJ 700 does not have an inertial navigation system? Are we talking about the regional jet built by Bombardier and which has a Collins Aerospace (former RockwellCollins) provided Pro-Line-4 cockpit suite and the FMS4200? Because that has two redundant INS... Anyway, this gets pretty much OT here...

First off, where in my post did I say that pilots are exposed to true courses? I said it is the aircrafts navigation system that needs a true course, not the pilots. Also, I‘d love to hear of a single aircraft (type) that flies these days that has an FMS or RNAV navigation system or however you want to call it AND that does NOT have a form of an INS. And I really don‘t get where your guesstimates are coming from. I was talking about commercial aircraft of which Boeings and Airbusses and Embraers and Bombardiers are making up the vast majority. There is not a single Airbus or Boeing plane these days without an FMS or INS. What are your sources?

Funnily though, in all commercial aircraft equipped with an FMS (which are 99.9% these days), lateral guidance is indeed done in true north. The FMS converts coded magnetic courses (depending on the ARINC 424 Path Terminator used) into true north courses because that is the reference system which is used by the INS. For the conversion there are a bunch of different sources for the magnetic variation, it could be table in which the world magnetic model is stored (updated every 5 years) or the magnetic variation of an airport or the station declination of a VHF Navaid. But that is a whole different discussion... :music_whistling:

Well...you will get SAM rings on the SA page provided the mission designer chose not to hide the SAM units. If they are hidden, they won‘t show up.

Awesome, thanks a lot, launchedsquid!

Completely OT (sorry), but I never knew a Recce-Hornet was a thing. Or what is that thing under the nose for? Is that something only the Marines use? Can you easily swap it in and out (...it actually looks as bolted on like a near-permanent thing given that it appears to have non-standard special nose gear doors for this)?

I fully agree with you, in fact I already did with my previous post. I‘ve made the same experiences in my professional environment.

Which we should be happy about because it significantly increases the chances for clean code provided the requirements you correctly stated would not be met!

True. Even though I also failed initially to understand that there is a difference between having JDAMs selected and then selecting another weapon and actually and explicitly deselecting a weapon.

The real Hornet doesn‘t know that just by itself indeed but it is „told“ by setting codes on the corresponding panel on the jet, but not in the cockpit (someone else will know the term for that access door and panel on the jet). Since we do not have an interface to that panel in DCS it makes sense they just pretend the codes were (re)set as part of the rearming procedure.

:doh: Took me a while to read what it actually says, I completely overlooked the comma indeed (probably the byproduct of an 11h working day). Thanks for making that clear!

What you quote mu110 actually confirms the OP‘s observation to be correct, doesn’t it? When you switch from JDAMs to another weapon (i.e. you deselect/unbox the JDAM), the JDAMs lose power so they have to align again once selected again. I would say that is the correct behavior as per the doc you mentioned. Furthermore (but I think that wasn‘t questioned yet), when you select/box JDAM, ALL stations that carry a JDAM will be powered and all JDAMs on these stations will start alignment simultaneously, not only the one on the priority station. Which also appears to be correct per the above mentioned document.

Setting BINGO (during startup) is always a good practice even when you don‘t anticipate to dump later. Especially in a jet which has as short legs as our lovely Hornet:smilewink:

Very well said:thumbup: (pio=pilot-induced oscillations)

Very true. Practice, practice, practice. And regarding the „don‘t look at the basket“, I‘ll just tell you my experience but in the end you have to figure out what works for you: I had quite some trouble to both a)getting in and also b)staying in. And, at least for me, these are really two completely different things. I was bad at both of them about 1 year ago:smilewink:. I always tended to look at the basket to get in and I had a very hard time achieving it. I then took the advice to look at the pod instead and acquire the basket with only the peripheral vision. That helped me A LOT to become mich better at getting in. To stay in, I also did really look at the pod and the overall picture of the tanker to judge my deviations and counter them. The latter part has not changed for me. But after I gained some proficiency in getting in, I sometimes catched myself to revert back to looking at the basket instead of the pod. And you know what? Now that I got the „feeling“ for how to get in and the confidence that I will get in, I basically always look at the basket and only the basket and just have the tanker in my peripheral vision. It works perfectly fine for me. So in the end it is about practicing and gaining the confidence that you can consistently do it - whatever way works for YOU. And as a sidenote: I never even thought about using the autopilot for that. And I do have curves on my TMW but these really come down to personal preferences, just as others stated before me.

Yeah, I think so too. Even though I didn‘t find a clear reference on that in the NATOPS, I think the flaps need to be up (i.e. AUTO) before the wings will fold. At least that appears to be how ED implemented it. You actually can move the wing fold lever to the FOLD position with the flaps still extended. The wings will then fold as soon as you move the flaps lever to AUTO.

Thanks for the clarification. I fully agree with what you‘ve said. The overall damage model of ships could indeed need some love. The localization of damage depending on where hits occurred would very be a great improvement. On the other hand though no anti-ship missile that I know of can be programmed to hit a particular part of a ship. And in DCS all anti-ship missiles that I‘ve seen (western types: Harpoon, Rb-04, Rb-15F, Sea Eagle, Exocet, Penguin) all hit a ship in the very same spot (probably the center of the ship and just above the waterline. So without any variation of that, we would always just damage the same subsystem(s) over and over again... Unless you would use weapons where you can define the impact point by your own means of course (LGBs with a TGP or soon the Walleye).