Leaderboard

This is the kind of thing (actually, the kind of discussion really so I am not singling chaos out or anything...) that gets under my skin, in flight sim communities more than any other. These squabbles about basic flight issues--invariably on topics that are basic to general aviation so you're going to get people with limited RL experience as well--wherein people make very one-sided, extreme declarations about a topic and then argue with one another about whether or not it's right. i.e. your garden variety internet pissing match. I dislike pissing matches intensely. They're more about egos and posturing and less about helping newer players get into the game, which this thread is apparently about and the reason I do my instructional videos et al. The "power for altitude" thing was never meant to be taken as a literal description of how an airplane works, not in Stick and Rudder (the book that this principle is generally attributed to, and which was absolutely written after airplanes had engines in them) or elsewhere. Applying power will almost always induce some sort of attitude change, either due to thrust vector factors (the A-10 does, after all, have the thrust vectored a few degrees up away from the tail) and because of the very basic principles of how thrust interacts with lift. However, powering for your sink rate while you land is often a good way to wrap your mind around the process. It's not hurting anything to view it that way, and I personally found it very helpful when I was learning how to fly small airplanes. Unfortunately back in those days, PC flight sims were so primitive that you couldn't really duplicate this on a computer the way you can now. As it is, I'm loathe to bring 'real life experience' into it, because at its core, this is about video gaming (for me, at least) and not about telling a new player that I'm better than he (or she) is for having had the opportunity to fly for real. You can find numerous general aviation sites declaring that the power for altitude/pitch for speed principle is the wrong way to view it, and numerous ones declaring that it's right, and still others that say other things about it--the point being, it's not necessarily wrong when viewed from the perspective of it being a certain viewpoint to wrap your head around when executing a landing, where you need to maintain a certain sink rate and stay within certain airspeed parameters. You certainly wouldn't view it that way when adjusting for cruise, for instance. The point being, that squabbling about petty details isn't going to do a damn thing to help the OP learn how to land. I personally thought that this game is easier to land in than, say, IL-2:FB, easier than Black Shark, and it was pretty easy even with my aging, wobbly X45. But, I've been a gamer for years and years and take for granted certain things, I'm sure.

ED Manuals are weak! in fact I would call them awful. They are very sparse on some points and over verbose on others. No beginning, middle or end. No flow and no usability. I am a new user, I am also new(ish) to flight sims. I have read the portions of the manual that I reckon are appropriate to what I need to achieve, and then read them again. If you look at some of my other posts you will see many examples of where I came unstuck. Manuals are so important. They need to be written from a "Usability" perspective. If you're not familiar with usability, it's a whole area of computing (HCI). The manual leaves out so much, has many mistakes and has no flow. Here's what I have done. I have put the a-10c on the back burner, I then invested in Lomac/FC2 to give myself an easier learning curve. But again I came unstuck with the poor manual included with FC2. So please don't give me RTFM, not in this case! I wish they would rewrite their manual from the ground up. I wish they would give it to a third party to do. I would start off with these questions 1. Who is gonna read this manual? 2. How are they going to read it? 3. What do different users want to achieve? / How quickly do they want to achieve it? 4. Think Use Case 5. Design the manual with the assumption that the user has zero knowledge of anything. I realise that ED's sims are niche market and that funding is tight. And I truly believe that their sims are simply stunning - THE BEST! by far. But the manuals are truly dam awful. I know you'll mostly disagree, that's because you all have some or indeed lots of existing knowledge. It's only when you have to rely on them as a total newbie that you begin to realise their shortcomings.

Oh thank you for your nice words. Well- today I had some more time. So I builded some parts of the ATZ-60, the 64H6E BigBird Radar and the 40B6M searching radar trailer for MAZ543. Here I have some pics... [/url] Greetings, TOM

"On Station Classic " Co-op 1-16 players. Lua-fied version of the old mission. Attempted to keep much of the same tasking, formatting, etc just updated it to work via the scripting engine instead of triggers. More info here Payloads: All aircraft have TGT pod, sidewinders, Jammer pod, and M151 HE rockets Tusk, Boar 1-4 2x AGM-65D, 2x AGM-65H, 2x GUB-38, 2x GBU-12 Tusk, Boar 5,6 4x AGM-65D, 2x CBU-105, 2x CBU-103 Tusk, Boar 7,8 1x AGM-65G, 1x AGM-65K, 2x GBU-31, 2x GBU-12 Alternate Weather and Time of Day Info Bitter Winter: A partly cloudy windy and cold winter mourning Spring Dawn: Early mourning with fog and a heavy cloud base in areas Summers Night: A mostly clear night Fall Storm: Rain, lightening, and a low cloud deck INFO FOR USERS Feel FREE to edit this mission however you want. Change the weather, time of day, tasks, or even more aircraft. The mission is built to allow for the relatively easy addition of new tasks to be chosen during play. If you wish for a guide please speak up and I will help you. On Station Classic_dcs250.miz

I think that checklists are important, even after you've mastered the procedure. There's no replacing procedure with attention to detail, though both are important. I had created some checklists, formatted, reformatted, burned them all. I finally created an XML for VAC(voice activated commands) that reads the checklist to you on queue, and I'm pretty pleased with it. This profile does not currently perform any keyboard commands. It reads to you, you reply, it reads more.. that's all. (See threads VAC Blackshark or VAC FC2 for more info on VAC, a vid, and voice to key command profiles I've created) This is similar to having a Co-Pilot with you, which is pretty nice as you can flip the switch as it's being read to you. This speeds things up dramatically while ensuring all subsystems are prepped properly. Checklists I've entered so far are: Aircraft Preparation Checklist Aircraft Startup Checklist Pre-Flight Checklist Aircraft Shut-Down Checklist For instance, you'll hear: "Pitot heat switch ON" you say: "Pitot heat switch ON.. check," VAC will listen to you and know the next step... then you'll hear: "Flaps twenty percent" you say: "Flaps twenty percent.. check," you'll then hear: "Strobe light ON" you say: "Strobe light ON.. check" ETC... The current voice profile is set up pretty close to the checklists in the manual, though I did add a few things that were left out. This will be a work in progress, as I'm sure the checklists will change due to the nature of beta. Later I'll be adding all the radio and wingman calls to the voice profile, as seen in the threads linked above. Here's a text file with all 131 commands. Here's the XML file. Just place it in C:\Users\YOURNAME\AppData\Roaming\VAC\Profiles. No voice training necessary, it's ready to use. Please post if you have problems with this profile or suggestions for future changes. Enjoy. Oh.. btw.. this isn't a replacement for RTFM! :music_whistling: UPDATES: 10.24.10 - Fixed bugs for about two hours. Re download for a much more stable version. Subscribe to this thread for further updates. 10.25.10 - Changed order of CICU and JTRS in startup checklist.

Since the Iraq war logs mission I decided not to work on any more missions with AI because it changes too much with each release, which was to be expected. So in the mean-time I have been working on a traffic pattern training mission to explore different editor features and make something useful for all A-10 pilots. I have created a mission with a trigger system that evaluates your speed and altitude for each leg and turn, your bank in turns and flap and gear position during take-off and landing. There is also a taxi challenge when the mission starts and you have to land in the correct zone to get points for landing. You have to fly the pattern at 180kts at an altitude of 3500ft MSL and you get bonus points for each 60 degree bank turn you are able to pull off. Make sure you pass trough any waypoint on the pattern or you risk not getting scored for a part of the pattern. In total you can get 100 points but that is a very difficult task. The mission is in beta state because I am not confident if the pattern and the evaluated altitude and speed are realistic and there might be mistakes in the trigger system. It was very hard to test. If you find a mistake, for example you fly correct leg but do not get points, please let me know and also provide a track if you can. I invite any with knowledge about flying the pattern to do suggestions about the mission, particularly on the shape of the pattern, altitude and speeds. Since the trigger system is in place and operational it is not hard to adjust the parameters. The mission features voice by me :), I did these out the top of my head because I expect the pattern parameters will change and I have to do it again anyways so the quality is not good and I am thinking it up on the fly. Turn down your other sound settings or I will be hard to understand, volume of speech is low! I have features awaiting implementation already, including a touchdown rating that was originally included. However it needs further tweaking because it only registers about 50% of touchdowns at the moment so I took it out for this release. I hope I will get it working, it will always be an approximation though because the exact moment of touchdown is hard to decide. In this version the mission treats any touchdown in the assigned zone as a perfect touchdown. I welcome anyone to do suggestion on features that could be interesting to add. you can grab the mission from here: http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/721/ or alternatively here: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BybKm7E2zzioZjExMzAxM2ItNmFkZS00ZWYxLWFjZTItYjNkY2ZjZWYzZTY4&hl=en Please try it and help me in making it better. Geskes Many thanks go to ED for implementing a clone function for triggers, I wouldn't have tried it without that feature :P *** Contest **** There is a little contest attached to this mission, the one who posts a track with the highest score of all will feature prominently in my next mission and will also get to decide what that mission will be about. To enter competition post track of your flight and mention your score also :) ***************

I built this over the weekend. Took me 2 hours and used $50 worth of material:) It's very much still WIP and I eagerly await my Warthog to mate it to 'the chair' as it's now called. Someone on another site commented that the first shot looked like a medieval torture device :megalol: The chair is not fixed to the main bench so I can move it to one side, slide in the comfy chair and work/play other things as well. I have now flown a few hours on it. mounted my Saitek X65 on it with Prestik. Also bought an extra keypad and uses that for the UFC numpad now. In the photo it's still mounted on the right console but I moved it to the left front panel next to the MFD last night and that works much better. Plenty work to do still.

Alienware wasn't always a Dell-owned company. A lot of times the Dell, HP, whatever machines are less expensive than the sum of their parts because of their bargaining power and the software kickbacks the company gets for installing whatever trial, extra software you probably don't want anyway. They'd actually have to charge more to offer a fresh no-program OEM install of Windows. Alienware probably uses pretty good hardware and the sum of the parts matches what you pay pretty well. That being said if you're buying a $2000 every 4 years you could probably spend $1000 every 2 years and actually be ahead in terms of performance indexed to what's normal at any given time. Building your own can be a higher entry cost but the amount of flexibility and related savings will more often than not pay for itself.

Oh... I know it! No... damn... you got me... can't think of one. I mean, as you point out, it's an absurd suggestion. It would imply something truly crazy, like having a big-ass weapons system at one end and the engines at the other. Who'd design something like that?! I'm sorry for wasting your time, clearly such a contraption cannot exist and even less fly. I'll hide in shame now. ;)

The IVS is still active btw, just away on a course till the end of the week. The CBU 97 / Part 3 will not be completed until the next patch. In the meantime, some of you have asked for CCRP, JDAMS and high angle CCIP drop of Mk82/84's and despite their being some great videos out there, i will oblige. stay tuned. Regards 'T'

Ahh, yeah, seems that's still bugged. The text tells you VHF AM 131.00 however the actual JTAC SEAL unit is on VHF FM 30. Try FM 30 and it should work.

And the 'GPU scaling' is in the first Tab 'attributes'

Brilliant, then we can be sure that all obvious globalization issues, such as the software not starting if you didn't have your system configured as a U.S. system, were caught before release. :thumbup: Don't get me wrong, I'm a longtime TM fan starting with the PFCS and then owning pretty much every serious piece of equipment they have released. The fact remains, however, that someone screwed up badly on that one, and that they have a long history of sub-par quality control. Luckily, they also have a history of amazing hardware and software which has created a loyal customer base which will put up with having to repair and modify their kit. Not to mention outstanding customer support, which I do hope will continue under Guillemot. Never tried it with my Cougar, as I ordered replacements for broken parts from Dunnunda this time around. Got plenty of replacement springs etc for free for the earlier sticks though. Yes, it was a cheap shot but a well deserved one. In addition, I must add that TM wasn't the manufacturer first and foremost in my mind when writing. When it comes to interesting approaches to beta-testing, you could for example take a hypothetical software company creating an amazing simulator. Let us then assume that they recruit their testers exclusively from the die-hard online crowd. Then come release day and lo and behold! Features which are not important in an online melee, but which are crucial to offline mission play are sadly lacking... ouch! :P

Can we agree that this manual isn't a training syllabus? It's very difficult to judge the effectiveness of something that is purely factual rather than instructional. If the facts are presented in the most effective order, then it is by definition effectively written. Sure, there's a practical section that lists the steps to complete a task, but it's not a training syllabus. This is a series of technical facts written top down in order of operational function.. and in my opinion it does that very well. You can't understand B until you know that A exists and what its function is. This is "How to program your VCR" not "Understanding Tai Chi Chuan". It doesn't connect the dots, but it very clearly defines the dots. People are trying to connect the dots without first knowing what dots exist and where they're located. The thing that separates the RTFM crowd from the WTF crowd is the time and effort they're willing to spend in understanding the bird before trying to fully utilize it. Like in so many areas of life, the shortcut ends up turning into the long route. The forums and training videos provided are very valuable, but they're not step one. This is not a question of visual or logical styles of teaching, as nothing is being taught. The manual is presentation of facts and nomenclature. This is understanding what the VVI does before trying to use it to land. There is no shortcut. Taking pleasure and patience in gaining knowledge in organized steps wins the day and separates the professional from the confused. I can guarantee that you'll derive more joy from flying a hawg you understand than from attempting to operate with holes in your knowledge of its subsystems. My sorties contain no frustration, only devastation.

Turning a Korean Pennisula Topic into a debate about the problems in Middle East. You guys amaze me again and again. Please stay on topic - no politics.

Nationalism and racism, actually.

The test switches are 3 position, and the up position is momentary. I actually picked up one of these panels from either a Skyhawk or Phantom (AFAIK). It appears nearly identical to the one in the A-10.

Приоритетной задачей в миссиях является выполнение ПП. Война войной, а порядок должен быть порядочным. Если от Боевого управления "Навал" не поступает никаких новых вводных - выполняется ПП и первичная задача. Выполняются одновременно. Как - решать пилоту. Есть два варианта: решить успешно или нет. Ничего сложного. Но не успокаивайтесь на этом. 2/10 часть имеет немало примеров, когда "прокатиться на рельсах" будет мало. Я имею ввиду, что будет немало миссий, когда надо будет уходить с ПП и решать задачи по новым условиям. 1/10 - это разминка.

I also know that where the manuals fail, the forums may help. So while most of the info 'IS' within the manuals, one may not find it palatable. So different formats can be of immense help. Don't loose any sleep, but please don't give up. One day it will click, your moment's of euphoric clarity will come.

Yea fair point. I'm just frustrated after three days of trying to understand a simple concept where the manual let me down yet again. Not loosing sleep though

Ты наверное не в курсе, что этот симулятор может без видеокарты работать:D? на процессоре.

Another option: http://forums.eagle.ru/profile.php?do=editoptions Scroll all the way down, select language of choice and click the left of the accept boxes.

Hey look i agree, I'm just saying not "every 'noob' question" needs to be treated with "RTFM".. ;)

Foxtrot_1, давай-ка на каком-то одном форуме обсуждать, а то я тебе и тут и там одновременно отвечать не хочу =))) Либо уж в ТС по вечеру) Ответ читай на РАФе )))

Sarcasm received. However, we had about as mixed up a bunch of hardware as you could get. Until this past week, I was running on a 5 year old C2D e6600 setup with a 5 year old install of XP. Others in the team had newer and older (!) hardware, with everything from XP to Win7. Several of us are now on Win7. Some had standalone pedals, some had TM Elites running through their Cougars. We are also not the only ones who were testing the units...including some non-US globalized europeans. We were also primarily testing pre-production units. There are a few things different (generally better...and minor...mostly cosmetic...but still, they weren't 'precisely' the same as the ones on the market). At my last count there were about 6 people in the forum who had experienced failures of their Warthogs...and at least one of them had his get fixed through the firmware flash. That's out of well over 100 people who've posted in the WH owner database thread here alone. That's a < 3% failure rate (since every Warthog is 2 units and nobody's had both devices fail...come to think of it I haven't heard of any stick failures, it's all been throttle) overall...or less than 6% on the throttle alone. Microsoft would be _ecstatic_ about a failure rate below 10% on the xbox 360. I think the gaming community would have a collective heart attack if they achieved 6%.

ah ok :P But I found the challenge always fails at the end anyways because I set the wrong zone somewhere, so uploading new version again. Then I am calling it a day :) Done.

Here are my .lua's to support one Lilliput 8" touchscreen; My main display and game resolution are 1920x1200, I also positioned my touchscreen below the main display, and to the leftmost position in ControlPanel at the desktop: \<Your A10 B3 install directory\MissionEditor\data\scripts\options.lua: ["graphics"] = { ["multiMonitorSetup"] = "touchscreen", ["color"] = "32", ["heatBlr"] = 1, ["resolution"] = "1920x1200", ["water"] = 2, ["fullScreen"] = false, ["visibRange"] = "High", ["aspect"] = 1.6, ["haze"] = 1, ["shadows"] = 2, ["TranspSSAA"] = true, ["width"] = 1920, ["effects"] = 3, ["MSAA"] = 3, ["textures"] = 2, ["height"] = 1968, ["HDR"] = true, ["civTraffic"] = "", ["lights"] = 2, ["clutterMaxDistance"] = 0, ["scenes"] = "high", }, -- end of ["graphics"] Note that 'Height is the sum of the verticle resolution in my case (I placed the touchscreen below the main display in NV control panel); Main display is 1920x1200, and my 8" dosplay is 1024x768, so 1200+768=1968. And then do this - create the config/file you specified in the above file (touchscreen) in the file below: <your A10 b3 install dir\Config\Monitorsetup\I named the referenced file touchscreen.lua' and the contents: _ = function(p) return p; end; name = _('touchscreen'); Description = 'Two monitor configuration'; Viewports = { Center = { x = 0; y = 0; width = 1920; height = 1200; viewDx = 0; viewDy = 0; aspect = 1.6; } } RIGHT_MFCD = { x = 160; y = 1260; width = 640; height = 640; } You may have to play with the x and y values to poistion the display as you need (move it up/down, left/right on the second display). Also, the width and height values basically let you scale (shrink or grow) the display, regardless of the display's native resolution. This does cause a significant FPS hit. I am going to experiment with setting the Lilliput resolution lower so that I can reduce the overall resolution and see if that gains me any additional FPS.

What format are you talking about El_Roto? Principle is the same for any setup. Enable 7" screens in graphics driver and position them either on the sides or bellow the main screen (I find arranging them bellow works better as all in game text will be contained on main screen, but you might need adjusting multiplayer menus... see link in my post for how to do that). In game options type in sum of all resolutions for vertical and horizontal (ratio will be auto adjusted) then edit the multimonitor lua file. By the way what resolution is your main monitor?

I am glad you didn't fly without wings and shout about it :D Nice damage :)

Только активные рулят в ДВБ.Р-27ЭР предпочтительней Р-27Р только из за энергетики дистанции 18-20км.Еще предпочтительней Р-27ЭМ у нее перегрузка на цель на 4 единицы больше чем у ЭР и помехозащищенность ГСН по высоте лучше.Перегрузки АРСГН Р-77 -30 единиц,АИМ-120В\С-25 единиц,но АИМ-120С эенргетичнее по двиглу и голове(или хар-ки ГСН с Р-77 одинаковы,не помню.)120 просто можно пульнуть скрытно.1.Подходи не в лоб,а маневрируй галсами,чтобы на ИЛСе противника твой вектор движения гулял и ПР не загоралси на тебя.2.Ессно скорость должна быть хорошая для маневра,чтобы можно ракету увести на "выдох".ЭРки нормально теряются в ДВБ,все можешь потратить.3.Только в самом начале ГС2 как то удалось поразить цель НЕСКОЛЬКО РАЗ под помехой за 50-60км.Пуск производил по помехе с высоты около 9-10км.Сейчас все намного умнее стали.4.Смотри на свой ИЛС и на вектор противника,также должно гореть А и планка не мигать,что говорит о том что цель маневрирует и захват неустойчив.Цель сманеврирует и у тебя приоритетный канал ОЛС станет.Это уже обсуждалось.5.Кому то помехи не нравятся,кто то наоборот с помехой и под чужими отвлекающими помехами гуляет под 3-9 к цели.6.Можно забраться за инверсию и бить оттуда в слепую зону СПО,ЧТО ИНОГДА ПОЛУЧАЕТСЯ на дистанции до цели 15км примерно. P.S.Вообщем можно тереть долго и вечно.На ошибках учаться.Мануал и общение онлайн рулит.

I think the design model of the DCS series is phased integration. We'll see those aircraft and more in the future if the community supports the sim and the return is good for ED. I love what they're doing so far and would hate to see this end as we've seen so often in the past with epic sims. I'll personally be contributing every dollar possible to purchase any sims or related products. I'll provide word of mouth as much as possible and report any license violators without remorse. Go ED!

I was at a few of those Flags as an AWACS WD. That site is a little confused about some of the things they say, for example misunderstanding Callsigns or 3-1 Brevity term usage, i would be happy to answer questions that I can on here in regard to AWACS - Fighter ops or Red Flag in general.

In Acrobat, try view settings 'Fit Width' and page display 'Two Up'. Then go into reading mode "ctrl + H". It looks just like a book. There's a text to speech function as well. I like to set it to 300wpm and let it read through for me. That way I can glance at diagrams and continue with the reading. It becomes natural to read along with it and still get the most of the diagrams. You can pause the voice with CTRL +SHIFT+C at any time. I think it helps me to retain everything better. Sounds funky but it really works for me.

I want to post this thread so everybody can tell about their "close calls" when flying. Like Sam's almost hitting your heli and such. Because I think it is pretty many good stories out there like all want to hear about! :D Now I want to tell my story that happened yesterday: I was going in for the last Sam on the mission with my unguided rockets. He was almost in my sight when it launched its Sam, I reacted quickly by banking hard right when I thought it was going to hit me. Suddenly I heard "swoosh" like 1 meter besides my cockpit and I was like WTF? Thats when I saw my left weapon wing was gone and pretty amazing I could see the weapons on my left side was gone on my weapon panel... I must say, the most realistic and best simulation I have ever played! :thumbup: