Revision of charts

[132ndHansolo]

The charts look awesome. Would it be possible to add the revision no unto the charts themselves. I know the name says which version it is, but if the names are overridden there is no way to identify which version of the charts I am looking at. I may have overlooked it but could see it directly on any of the charts; ENBO_VAC_132nd_v04 ENBO_VAC_HPMA_132nd_v05 ENBO_GND_Chart_v06

[Shadoga]

Many thanks for the input. The chart drafts will receive imprinted version numbers .

[132ndNeck]

Some feedback on charts: The charts are getting there, and removing the unused "white space" around the charts really helped I think. Some additional feedback:

I am not sure the purpose and need for these frequencies? We should consider removing them if not of any purpose.

I am not sure what this is. I tried tuning to it on yesterdays test event (Tried TACAN in the F-16), but got nothing. Also nothing marked in DCS mission editor. When we make the "final version" of the charts, we can consider deleting items not applicable for us in DCS.

As mentioned in #19 , TWR and APP is enough for 132nd operations, I would recommend remove the frequency completely, or if keeping it in, adding an asterix to it, and informing that the frequency is normally not in use, and the event information page will indicate if the ground frequency is manned.

We do not have this, and this item should be removed. We should only include things applicable to the 132nd in DCS, and not keep things in charts for "realism" sake.

As mentioned in #17 we have decided to have our controlling freqs on UHF. We should then also use UHF for ATIS

It is very hard to read these numbers in VR in a way that I could use them. We should increase their size.

It was hard to read these numbers for me in VR in a way that I could use them. We should increase their size.

It was hard to read this text for me in VR in a way that I could use it. We should increase the size.

[Shadoga]

Regarding readability of smaller chart items: This has mostly to do with the current format being quite crude paintings and not vector graphics. Resolution / readability is worse in game than with the current kneebord FLIP 1.3 charts for ATRM. We keep it simple as it is for the current stage of procedure design and not put too much effort in it because of the project teams workflow: me being a total dork regarding graphics, not capable of more than most basic MS Paint functions. Handle seems to be more skillful in regard to graphics, for example he cleaned up the original civ. VAC chart of all procedures so that we could start on a clean one with drawing the HPMA procedures. But so far, there is no coordinated chart drawing process installed in the project. But for finalizing the charts later after design freeze, they will need to be rebuilt again in formatting, layering, vectors, etc., to offer at least the readability and scalability of the current ATRM charts. The ENBO TMA Project's focus is procedure and chart layout design, it's current members are not selected for graphics skills, especially not me. Once design is completed, we will need to forward the chart creation to a new group composition specializing in that, e.g. those members who did the current FLIP's charts. So for the time, please live with the current shortcomings regarding readability, especialy in VR. Those issues should be solved through the later formatting process. What helped me in VR for the time was to drag the kneeboard window size to be a little larger than default... Other readability issues like e.g. the too small shelter / spawnpoint numbers on the ground chart will be mitigated by additionally creating further more detailed charts for the ENBO shelter loops and spawnpoints in the future FLIP update - just like those secondary detailed ground charts existing currently for OMAM. So instead of increasing font size in current chart drafts, we should maybe start forming a chart graphics project group that is able to draw the nearly finalized GND, VAC and HPMA VAC charts on a formatting level and resolution like we currently have in the FLIP - and once we have them (is it in vector graphics?), we then should judge readability of the smaller details and fonts.

ATIS will be displayed in UHF once we get it to work and committed to a specific UHF frequency.

Additional Frequencies displayed on ground chart: In the CENOR FLIP design philosophy, the first chart in each chapter for each airbase's chart compendium is the ground chart. They not only display the ground layout on it but also publish a collection of further general information and notes about the airbase on that page. One of those being a list of all available services and all their possibly used service frequencies - without any further detailed explanation of which is for what. We already cut this list down by removing the VHF frequencies (except for ATIS, see above). I left in the real-world TWR backup UHF for the time, in case we decide to have something like this... I specifically decided to leave in the 2nd APP UHF frequency because I intend to use that for a possible PRECISION / FINAL controller role.

The BO 40X and BD 24X DMEs are the DME components of the ILSs 07 & 25, the question already came up last time: https://discord.com/channels/268095055724675082/1236715915270422528/1251895733385433110 They are currently not implemented in DCS. We can remove them from the charts at a later stage if they don't get implemented. In this case they would need to be removed from the instrument approach charts as well.

Regarding the request to delete the ENBO Ground ATC frequency from the charts, I continue to making my case in Issue No. 19: https://github.com/132nd-vWing/TRMA/issues/19#issuecomment-2203506148

[132ndNeck]

Regarding readability of smaller chart items: This has mostly to do with the current format being quite crude paintings and not vector graphics. Resolution / readability is worse in game than with the current kneebord FLIP 1.3 charts for ATRM. We keep it simple as it is for the current stage of procedure design and not put too much effort in it because of the project teams workflow: me being a total dork regarding graphics, not capable of more than most basic MS Paint functions. Handle seems to be more skillful in regard to graphics, for example he cleaned up the original civ. VAC chart of all procedures so that we could start on a clean one with drawing the HPMA procedures. But so far, there is no coordinated chart drawing process installed in the project. But for finalizing the charts later after design freeze, they will need to be rebuilt again in formatting, layering, vectors, etc., to offer at least the readability and scalability of the current ATRM charts. The ENBO TMA Project's focus is procedure and chart layout design, it's current members are not selected for graphics skills, especially not me. Once design is completed, we will need to forward the chart creation to a new group composition specializing in that, e.g. those members who did the current FLIP's charts. So for the time, please live with the current shortcomings regarding readability, especialy in VR. Those issues should be solved through the later formatting process. What helped me in VR for the time was to drag the kneeboard window size to be a little larger than default... Other readability issues like e.g. the too small shelter / spawnpoint numbers on the ground chart will be mitigated by additionally creating further more detailed charts for the ENBO shelter loops and spawnpoints in the future FLIP update - just like those secondary detailed ground charts existing currently for OMAM. So instead of increasing font size in current chart drafts, we should maybe start forming a chart graphics project group that is able to draw the nearly finalized GND, VAC and HPMA VAC charts on a formatting level and resolution like we currently have in the FLIP - and once we have them (is it in vector graphics?), we then should judge readability of the smaller details and fonts.

Makes sense and very understandable. I just wanted to report it in case it was not known (tested in VR). No rush to get a version working 100% in VR, as long as the feedback is noted and we can work on getting better readability in our charts.

ATIS will be displayed in UHF once we get it to work and committed to a specific UHF frequency.

Great!

Additional Frequencies displayed on ground chart: In the CENOR FLIP design philosophy, the first chart in each chapter for each airbase's chart compendium is the ground chart. They not only display the ground layout on it but also publish a collection of further general information and notes about the airbase on that page. One of those being a list of all available services and all their possibly used service frequencies - without any further detailed explanation of which is for what. We already cut this list down by removing the VHF frequencies (except for ATIS, see above). I left in the real-world TWR backup UHF for the time, in case we decide to have something like this... I specifically decided to leave in the 2nd APP UHF frequency because I intend to use that for a possible PRECISION / FINAL controller role.

That makes sense, and no issue with keeping additonal freqs on the chart as long they are explained and annotated for the use. As they stand now, it was hard to know what their purpose were.

The BO 40X and BD 24X DMEs are the DME components of the ILSs 07 & 25, the question already came up last time: https://discord.com/channels/268095055724675082/1236715915270422528/1251895733385433110 They are currently not implemented in DCS. We can remove them from the charts at a later stage if they don't get implemented. In this case they would need to be removed from the instrument approach charts as well.

Ah, copy. No need to delete it then if it is something we think will come?

[Shadoga]

I don't think they will come, co-located ILS-DMEs are no thing in DCS because as far as I'm aware there's no airframe in DCS yet that can use and display them through the ILS receiver. But it would be nice to have the option to set them separately in the TACAN receiver. So maybe ORBX / ED have a pleasant surprise one day in that regard. But I doubt it. We can most probably later safely delete them in the chart transformation process.

[RedDog132nd]

I'd like to work on a better ground chart for Bodo. By better I mean more readable I probably will make 3 more charts for zoomed in parking positions. I have in mind Kilo area, Golf Area and North Apron

What are the requirement for such a chart set? Anything specific I should look for? Are parking positions per squadron/type of aircrfat set or are still changing or are to remain dynamic? Is the flow (direction) of movement in the K, G area set and defined? Do we need GPS cordinate for each shelter? Anything else I overlooked?

[Gabykhan]

Just in case it can be of any help for chart designers: https://github.com/antoniolocandro/aeronautical_charting

[132ndNeck]

I'd like to work on a better ground chart for Bodo. By better I mean more readable I probably will make 3 more charts for zoomed in parking positions. I have in mind Kilo area, Golf Area and North Apron

What are the requirement for such a chart set? Anything specific I should look for? Are parking positions per squadron/type of aircrfat set or are still changing or are to remain dynamic? Is the flow (direction) of movement in the K, G area set and defined? Do we need GPS cordinate for each shelter? Anything else I overlooked?

That is great!

• Parking positions are mostly set and is per what is currently in the DCS mission editor. There is not a specific area for each squadron and everyone is spread out around the airfield
• Flow have not been decided, and might not be needed?
• GPS coordinates might be handy if going for a full INS alignmen, but might not be needed as people can get it from the DCS F10 map if needed. I can only imagine it is a lot of work to put it onto a chart and thus might not be worth the effort