Leaderboard

HI all! OK So I tried the Warthog this past week, and below I wrote the review for it. BEWARE that Im extremely picky in what regards HOTAS setups, and my speech my appear less optimistic than others. -Unpacking and HOTAS presentation: The package is heavy, very heavy. But it was only when I removed the parts I realized just how heavy it really is. The stick handle alone must weight about a whole pound. I attached it to the base, itself also very heavy. The throttle is even heavier. Make no mistake: this is one looker of a setup. It gives the owner pleasure just by looking at it. Its overall aesthetics is superb! So much so, it might serve a secondary purpose, stand there pretty just like my airplane model kits. At least for looks this HOTAS is a sure winner over all others. Its metal, paint and shape is simply impeccable. It feels quite solid too once you lay your hands on it (with certain items exceptions as described below). -Installation: The manual has a plus side of being written on all major languages in Europe (including Russian and Portuguese :) ). however the downside is that it doesnt really give that much information. No installation procedures, nothing. Its just a feature illustrations. Installation is easy though. Just install T.A.R.G.E.T. and then plug the 2 devices, each in its individual port. Thats it. From then on its all about programming. -T.A.R.G.E.T. I confess I didnt explore much but to do an experimental profile for F-15 yet. So far I find it quite stable and useful, surely 100 times better than Logitech profiler for the ill fated G940, or the buggy SAITEK profiler I had for the X52. You get easy axis programming, tuning up and many possibilities for scripting buttons and hats. You can setup axis bands with amazing easiness, much better than the somewhat unreliable band setting on the X52 profiler that rarely works as the user intends the first time out. You can also launch the profile any time to test it out. It does have a few simple things missing though. there is no tray icon from where to launch your profiles from. Instead you can launch the game from TARGET automatically with its own profile. I wish I didnt have to open this application to call up for the simulation and its profile. -Stick handling: Well its made of metal, as such it might be somewhat tiresome to some after a while. (its somewhat uncomfortable with the cold of winter and doesnt fit in your hand like a plastic/rubber handle that other HOTAS have). The return to center force is not too heavy. Certainly heavier than X52, CH, or even the G940 at full FFB force, but nowhere near the cougar or any of the previous F-4 Phantom replicas (of which I had plenty). Unlike many previous thrustmaster setups the centering force is constant no matter how far its deflected similarly like the vanilla X52...with this statement I actually bent the reality a bit for the sake of making it simple to explain. In reality it does become wobbly on the roll axis when fully defected backwards (or forward), i.e. when you pull the stick back, the roll tension almost feels loose to a point where you loose the sense what your doing in that axis causing some unwanted roll input. On the other hand precision is impeccable in most of its envelope. This is the stick where I have found to be the easiest to aim the gun, EVER. I have introduced a dead zone of 3% at the center of both axis because I had slight parasite inputs when I left the stick rested. Its own weight and and gimbals appears to be less precise than the hall sensors. With the deadzone The stick actually gives input as soon as I move off from center as intended. It has no center slop at all (though with wear over the years this could change), no axis transition, though it does give a bump when at the center. The deflection angle is higher than the g940, but less than the X52, and much less than the CH fighterstick. I had better effortless snap manoeuvring capability with the G940, but in everything else the WARTHOG kit blows the logitech crummy hardware right out of the water. The stick handle is BIG. The fire button is somewhat hard for me to reach. Those of big hands should not have a problem. Unlike the CH, where you cant have big enough hand (right up to gorilla status), this warthog is friendlier with big hands. Those of small pianist hands might have a problem though. having said this the stick will easely fin in any desk thanks to its small footprint but large resting plate, it wont move and stay solid with your inputs. -Throttle: The throttle is MASSIVE. HUGE and heavy. Despite this, it WILL move when you need to pass the gated detents. The detents are actuated when you pull the handles upwards countering an opposing elastic band force. This is unfortunate. makes it almost obligatory to screw it to a solid home cockpit or gaming chair in order to use this feature. Also regretfully I find the detents quite obstructive, they are not very fluid and may require more than one attempt to get past them. I found a workaround though. I have setup the extremities deadzones to match the location of the 2 deadzonnes and manoeuvre the throttles in between them only, never past. The throttle angle of travel (its curved versus the linear pro CH throttle) to be quite extensive, so even when limited, you have plenty of space to work with. I actually feel more comfortable with limited range. My fingers will not be endangered of getting trapped at full front like when its unlimited. An added disadvantage is that, then you will never feel where the afterburner limit is, I am habituated with this because I used the CH setup for a long time too. The elastic detent band can be seen when you remove the stripe to change the detents key. It looks like a ruber band inside a tubular cloth (for protection) I fear it might break eventually as these devices made of latex only last so long. One note: the programmable LEDs are the 5 circular dots in front of the throttle handles. They are not easely seen unless you place the throttle on a side console in a home cockpit. They are right now useless as thrusmaster appears NOT to have this feature implemented in T.A.R.G.E.T yet. -Ergonomics: This is the less pleasing aspect of this hardware... Thrustmaster really have outdone themselves in giving this hardware realistic feel. Unfortunately this also means a few things: 1-those of us just wanting to have a practical HOTAS will feel some of its feature to actually get in the way of gameplay, like the push down button resistance... its too heavy for some buttons. Specially for the missile button, plus its hard to reach for some hand sizes (like mine). Using the S1 button causes torsion stress on the gimbals for being so hard to push in. 2-The throttle is much unergonomic in many ways. The switches on either side of the handles require quite some gymnastic to use. 3-I already mentioned these devices are heavy? I found it hard to remove them from the desk when I need the space to work. They are so heavy they require alot of care to move without breaking them or srape off the rubber feet. 4-The stick is all metal...no quite, the hats and buttons are all plastic. The push down thumb hats feel grainy, Im not concerned by their handling. But how long will it take to break them? 2 of the 3 way switches on the both sides of the throttle handles are so far away from an ergonomic reach that, actuating them might cause your hand to do so from an inappropriate angle pushing them down instead of pushing ALONG with them. Another annoying "feature" is that for some motherboards like mine, the LEDs wont shut down when you power down the PC. I need no frigging Christmas tree this year!! :eek: Its so bright in the dark I have to switch off my power extension. Unfortunately Im not too sure this is very healthy as the HOTAS wakes up on power up in a strange psychedelic way. THE BATTLE OF THE HOTAS: WARTHOG VS X52, G940 and CH handling: X52 is best, followed closely by the warthog. Next is the g940, that stays behind because of the center slop and grainy feel of the stick. I hate the Ch stick handling the most. Long throw and too light for may taste. Ergonomics: X52 Wins light years ahead of all others. It has much less buttons but feels so much nicer than any other desk HOTAS. The WARTHOG comes far behind it, as explained I feel that its realist feel actually gets in the way. Most of us will use it on top of a desk. Only those using in on home cockpits with flight gloves on will be able to properly enjoy this feature. Next is the G940. Force feedback need to be optimized for each game, meaning you probably never get rid of its disadvantages like I did(nt). following close by closely there is the CH, hurt by its stick size and weird throttle hat positions. Programming: hard to make out a winner here, but CH manager and T.A.R.G.E.T. are truly programming powerhouses. They feel mostly bug free too. I rather prefer T.A.R.G.E.T. for its slightly better (and good looking) interface. Next Is SAITEK's a bit buggy but easy to use, and lastly at the depths of bug hell is the logitech pseudo-programing software. In my opinion almost useless and right down inflexible. you cant assign scripted commands to each of its 4 way hats for example. The recorded commands sometimes will not be read properly by games. That is perplexing. I had better experiences with hardware that had cost me 3 times less many many years before, like the MS sidewinder II or my earlier rather fragile Thrusmaster Afterburner II, despite its many hardware flaws had a simple and intuitive programming software. BANG for the buck: The X52 wins hands down here. You get quite a nice hardware kit for so much less than the WARTHOG or the CH setup. Mind the CH setup can STILL be more expensive than the WARTHOG outside the US. I have bought my 3 pieces nearly 200€ each! Again down in the gutter is the G940. For 300€ this is a monster of a price for a midget amount of features. C'mon what does it have? Dual throttle? no longer its an unique feature. Plus the cheap pots went bad on mine just after 3 months. FFSB? why have it if you have to wait for optimized games? reminds me of SSE CPU instructions, for which we had to wait years before it got any software optimized tittles. Whats left for the g940 is a bunch of rather ordinary set of features that everyone else can offer for far far less money. Durability: The CH wins light years ahead of everyone else. Its well proven in the flight SIM community. Despite being made of plastic this stick will still work years down the road. Its hard to make out the next best. The Warthog is unproven and it does have its weak spots as explained above. The X52 develops precision bugs over the years. The G940 deserves the garbage bin after just a few months of use, specially the throttle. Its in so many technical hells that even the Hindus would have difficulty making enough of them for this hardware. Ohter players: the COUGAR and the SAITEK X65F. I have never played with the cougar except when in display at expos and stores, and never tested the X65. I have not much to say about them except that the cougar is somewhat infamous in the community for its early batches flaws. The redesign in later batches has few changes, so dont expect radical changes in their handling except when you MOD it. I would very much own a force sensing MOD with hall sensors on the throttle. Unfortunately that would be way above my budget. the warthog was alot. A MODed cougar would be too much. The X65 is a real dark horse here. like I said never tried it, but I suspect that it may trade blows with the Warthog. Its main strength may be also its main weakness. The force sensing stick. Some dislike it. Some of the disadvantages pointed out in web critics are also reflected on the Warthog, in what regards the ergonomics and handling. For example they say because the stick will not move, may cause undesired inputs. I have the same in warthog as described above, the sticks deflection is not matched with increased return to center force. So considering the SAITEK offer to be 100€ cheaper and no less features, this is one serious contender NOT to be dismissed. But while the WARTHOG gets in the way of the player by its roughness for some titltes ouside the JET study SIM genre, the X65F, if the force sensing doesnt upset you, might even be a better choice for all tittles. The HOTAS is a niche universe, and the WARTHOG is in a niche within the niche! So I would say the difference between the the X65 and WARTHOG is that while the WARTHOG is for the realism purists, the X65F is just a more complex HOTAS than the others, and may infact be better positioned for the general public. Its price is also considerably lower, 100€ less, and its has rotaries, something missing in the WARTHOG, that many players value so much (specially WWII types) and as for buttons and hats there isnt much difference between the 2. -Conclusion and final thoughts: The choice all depends on on you budget and intended use. For generalist gamers I have to advise the X52. It not only is great value for money, but you can use it for flight and Space SIM alike (or even cars or others). For those wanting alot of buttons and wish something more there are 3 choices: The X65F. Should be great for many types of genres, not just jet fighters study SIMs. The CH, if you like light sticks. It has the added bonus of being extremely durable. And the HOTAS WARTHOG. I have to recommend this one for purists only. This HOTAS deserves a home cockpit, even flight gloves if you have them. Your bare hands might feel sore after a while. If your looking for generalist HOTAS designed for gaming, not cockpits you might want to stay away, be warned. This might not be what you think it is. Im satisfied with it, but I also wonder what would the X65F feel like, and I do have fast action paced space SIM's for which this HOTAS WARTHOG might get somewhat in the way... PROS: Simply drop dead gorgeous, worthy of a dedicated display stand. Have no better words for it. Above average stick handling (though not perfect) Realism for those who put it as a priority. Buttload of buttons. very good programmability. CONS: Price!! It has the potential to explodicate your wallet matched only by its potential to kill other players... Might get in the way of other types of gaming. Certain ergonomic features. hard to get the space to place it, beware. At night its like trying to sleep in a disco (lights).

Warthog covers are closed thanks for all of your orders With out the embroidered call sign This is an example.With the embroidered call sign mine is placed in the position where yours will be embroidered on the cover. An example of the embroidery.

Hi, I've been struggling a little with the default snap views even with TIR5 it's just not comfortable for more than a glance at certain instruments. So I set about adjusting the snap views and thought I'd share both the views I'm now using and what I've learnt with regards to adjusting them. Disclaimer All data and information provided in this post is for informational purposes only. I make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information in this post and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. 1. Backup the files you're going to change .\Eagle Dynamics\DCS A-10C Beta\Config\View\View.lua .\Eagle Dynamics\DCS A-10C Beta\Config\View\SnapViews.lua No, seriously backup! 2. Enable your own custom snap views .\Eagle Dynamics\DCS A-10C Beta\Config\View\View.lua UseDefaultSnapViews = false 3. Change KEYPAD1 Snap View (Radios) .\Eagle Dynamics\DCS A-10C Beta\Config\View\SnapViews.lua Snap[11][2] = {} Snap[11][2]["y_trans"] = 0.15 Snap[11][2]["x_trans"] = 0.15 Snap[11][2]["z_trans"] = -0.5 Snap[11][2]["vAngle"] = -90 Snap[11][2]["rollAngle"] = 0 Snap[11][2]["viewAngle"] = 45 Snap[11][2]["hAngle"] = 0 RCTRL + 0, KEYPAD1 in game should now give you the radio stack. 3. Change KEYPAD2 Snap View (CDU) .\Eagle Dynamics\DCS A-10C Beta\Config\View\SnapViews.lua Snap[11][3] = {} Snap[11][3]["y_trans"] = 0.15 Snap[11][3]["x_trans"] = 0.32 Snap[11][3]["z_trans"] = 0.75 Snap[11][3]["vAngle"] = -90 Snap[11][3]["rollAngle"] = 0 Snap[11][3]["viewAngle"] = 30 Snap[11][3]["hAngle"] = 0 RCTRL + 0, KEYPAD2 in game should now give you the CDU. 4. Change KEYPAD3 Snap View (Lights) .\Eagle Dynamics\DCS A-10C Beta\Config\View\SnapViews.lua Snap[11][4] = {} Snap[11][4]["y_trans"] = 0.15 Snap[11][4]["x_trans"] = 0.15 Snap[11][4]["z_trans"] = 0.5 Snap[11][4]["vAngle"] = -90 Snap[11][4]["rollAngle"] = 0 Snap[11][4]["viewAngle"] = 45 Snap[11][4]["hAngle"] = 0 RCTRL + 0, KEYPAD3 in game should now give you the light controls 5. Change KEYPAD4 Snap View (Left MFD) .\Eagle Dynamics\DCS A-10C Beta\Config\View\SnapViews.lua Snap[11][5] = {} Snap[11][5]["y_trans"] = -0.27820714509734 Snap[11][5]["x_trans"] = 0.32762247014528 Snap[11][5]["z_trans"] = -0.24479886800933 Snap[11][5]["vAngle"] = -10.651849345676 Snap[11][5]["rollAngle"] = 0 Snap[11][5]["viewAngle"] = 35 Snap[11][5]["hAngle"] = 0 RCTRL + 0, KEYPAD4 in game should now give you the left MFD. 5. Change KEYPAD4 Snap View (Left MFD) .\Eagle Dynamics\DCS A-10C Beta\Config\View\SnapViews.lua Snap[11][7] = {} Snap[11][7]["y_trans"] = -0.27820714509734 Snap[11][7]["x_trans"] = 0.32762247014528 Snap[11][7]["z_trans"] = 0.24479886800933 Snap[11][7]["vAngle"] = -10.651849345676 Snap[11][7]["rollAngle"] = 0 Snap[11][7]["viewAngle"] = 35 Snap[11][7]["hAngle"] = 0 RCTRL + 0, KEYPAD6 in game should now give you the right MFD. 7. Tweak to your liking Snap[L][M]["N"]=O L is the plane and 11 is the id for the A10 M is the KEYPAD value + 1, so for example KEYPAD1 would be Snap[11][2], KEYPAD2 Snap[11][3] etc. N is the value you're changing where:- y_trans up(+) and down (-) z_trans right(+) and left (-) x_trans back(+) and forward(-) vAngle pan view rollAngle look left (-) and look right (+) viewAngle = field of view / zoom hAngle pan view By the way it's RCTRL + KEYPAD0 again to turn off snap view and return to your normal view. Anyway hope you find the above useful. bt

Just made one to test lofc2 :P btw, is there shift+esc function as in lofc 1.12 ? :)

If you want to get pedantic (and who doesn't around the Holidays), the turn coordinator and the turn indicator are both indicators in the sense they are indicating instruments. It's what they are indicating that differs. One indicates yaw angular velocity while the other indicates combined yaw and roll angular velocity. The yaw-only gyro instrument is known as the "turn indicator." The lateral accelerometer is known as the "inclinometer." If combined into one instrument together they are known as the "turn and slip indicator." The term "turn coordinator" is the name for the combined instrument consisting of both a turn indicator and the inclinometer where the turn indicator has some bank rate coupling to its gyro. There is no common name for for the coupled-axis turn indicator without an inclinometer. As far as I can figure the coupled-axis nature of the turn indicator's gryo is simply to make the instrument more responsive and "ADI-like" to bank inputs when starting and stopping a turn for the pilot's benefit. The angle is probably chosen such that the bank sensing tendency reaches the standard rate mark just as that amount of bank which (when coordinated) results in a standard rate level turn. The goof is in calling the inclinometer a "slip indicator" since it doesn't necessarily show slip. That's an approximation of what it can show in most fixed-wing aircraft. It's an accelerometer and all it does is show you acceleration and in only one dimension at that. You could be flying sideways at right angles while doing loops but as long as you weren't accelerating laterally the ball would be centered. ========== The nutty thing about the off-the-shelf inclinometer is that it's marked with the assumption that straight, non-slipped flight is done with the ball centered. It took me a lot of head pounding to wrap my brain around the idea that this assumption isn't always true when it comes to the Ka-50 or any helicopter. It took a lot of looking but this is by far the best description of what's been going on I've seen: http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?z=0&a=14170

I thought I would release the beta version of my airfield diagrams for DCSW as the charts are at the point where I need to print a copy and then work my way through the airfields to get the rest of the detail right. The radio frequencies, elevations, directions and measurements should be accurate with the mission editor the F10 view and the A10C's internal MAGVAR. I'll do the release as a separate thread to the design discussion to avoid the release getting lost in that thread. I'm working through tower placement and taxiway labelling in addition to points of interest however a lot of the Russian airfields dont have the taxiways labelled which complicates the matter, I'm thinking it may be worth waiting until the DCS release prior to revisiting this. I've also added references to the ADF's from the BS manual and if the interest is there I will release a Russian air force version with Metric measurements once the maps are finished. If anyone picks a bug or has some reference notes for the airfields let me know. UPDATE: Updated airfield name plus some error corrections For those of you printing this, I recommend printing in color to A5 directly, as the map lines blend better in color then gray-scale, however you can print 2 per page on A4/letter Airfield Diagrams.pdf

I used to use these all the time in Falcon 4, so I decided to make one up for DCS A-10C. It's attached below. Hope you enjoy it. Edit: added a few things and expanded some abbreviations where possible for those not so familiar. Edit 2: I attached the cold start checklist I made up, it also has things from the Beta 2 manual that I thought I would want quick access to. Edit 3: Mission Data Card changes; added elevation for airbase data squares, added TGP laser designator code as well as GBU laser designator code....cause nothing sucks worse than dropping a GBU that did not have a matching laser code with the TGP! Also color in the PRI/SEC target boxes, and last, dedicated Lat/Lon UTM coordinate boxes for JTAC target locations. Edit 4: JTAC section additions, misc changes. Edit 5: Cold Start Checklist updated to Final Release parameters. Edit 6: Cold Start Checklist revised, now Version 2. Edit 7: Mission Data Card now provided in A5 Format as well as 8.5X11 Look for A5 at the end of file description for A5 version. Edit 8: Cold Start Checklist added Environmental Controls, now Version 3. Edit 9: External Light activation was moved post APU GEN start. Version 4. WarriorX's DCS A-10C Warthog Mission Data Card COLOR 01-27-2011.pdf WarriorX's DCS A-10C Warthog Mission Data Card COLOR A5 03-17-2011.pdf DCS A-10 COLD START CHECKLIST FINAL RELEASE VERSION 4 04-02-2011.pdf

I came across a promising flight game that looks like it will be enjoyable when it's done. It's called Radikal Combat. It's still in early development, but it will have crazy mixed up aircraft, like an A-10 combined with an F-16! It's not exactly a flight sim, but I like they're doing. What do you guys think?

Hey there. I've received numerous requests to make additional videos about DCS A-10 since the multiple JDAM drop video. I enjoy making these. Feel free to suggest what topic you would like covered next. Gonna consolidate these into a master list of vids. As of now, there are 4 "main" ones, with the Targeting Pod guide being the latest: The above video describes how to range targets and create more accurate markpoints with the targeting pod. I made this fairly (as study sims go) newbie-friendly vid to show how to land. Part 1 is a basic VFR approach from the pattern; Part 2 has a crosswind landing and missed approach + additional info on crab angle calculation. I have introduced my personal preferences into the procedures very slightly, so I'm sure it'll deviate from the official Landing training mission. But, this is how I usually do it. I am not going to get particularly hardcore in the landing series of vids, because they're meant to be a starting point to practice and not an encyclopedic repository of pitch-perfect landings. Lately I've been experimenting with the trim system and MRFCS, and so I made a video about that. There was some confusion in the openbeta forum about how these systems work. It's also motivated by my desire not to end up in the state of confusion that I (and many others) were in about Black Shark's trimmer. I went into the A-10A manual that's linked in the "A-10 documentation" thread, read up on the trim/MRFCS topics in that, and then compared it to the functionality in the beta. The result was that it works as described in that document. Which is very cool. Please note that since the MFRCS is still a WIP item, I'm not going to do part 2 until there's either a good way to portray it as WIP, or until it's finished. The original JDAM video; shows the user how to launch multiple JDAMS and explains how the markpoint system can be used to input new navigation waypoints for flight plans. _______________________ I'll annotate any technical errors people find.

One of the best things of this sim is this board. People are really helpful. --now that I've buttered you up...I've got a noob Q. I'm learning ILS landing as per the tutorial. ...GPS CUD DIVert ...UFC "Func" + "Nav" (2) button Then I suppose I sent the ATC Frequency plus set up the ILS receiver. On the left panel I set it up to 1300.00 which, I suppose, is the ACT frequency. I get this and the ILS receiver confused. --At any rate, on the right panel... I want to set up the radio freq. But have not found the correct radio setting in the manual for that field. Question 1: Is there info on board--perhaps on the UFCD? to guide me to a particular airfield's radio frequency? --the data to be entered on my lower right panel, that is? I wasn't able to contact ATC... Many thanks for the help. I can't remember when something as simple as landing felt so immersive--esp at night. Question 2: I don't see PAPI lights at this and other airfields. --I've seen one at one end of Batumi...but not the other. What happens if I have to land into the wind towards the shore-one day when the wind direction is in the reverse direction? MANY Thanks for the help. Moosh P.S. I'm in Seoul and there are Naval drills off the coast in the West Sea tomorrow... If I don't respond immediately in this thread...it's probably cause artillery fire has taken out my WIFI.:bye_3:

At one point today every thread on the front page was about the HW! :P LOL I'd encourage everyone to start using http://www.warthogworld.com as well and help us build its knowledge base up by registering and posting reviews, concerns, tips or asking for help - anything! You can also register your HW serial # in a list under your user profile (instead of having it in a thread/sticky). ;)

Hi, You guys may find this useful too http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=62820. bt

Time perspective: The same thing happened during my father's generation with Japan and Taiwan. Bloody low-cost countries stealing all the manufacturing jobs... :( If you get my drift. ;) And actually, saying that "their product" is made by investments and job transfers from "us" is way too simplistic. For example, the chinese portfolio of companies in the US and Europe is impressive, and they are investing massively in Africa and indo-china. I sort of get the feeling that what you are talking about is 10 years old, because it sure as hell doesn't match the chinese shopping spree that's going on around me... ;) The basic fact of it is quite simply such that all our economies are now so tightly intertwined that war is just too risky in most cases. There's no such thing as an "overseas war" anymore, at least not amongst the major and semi-major powers, since any escalated conflict would hit both economies in un-fun ways. The worrying thing is the exceptions though, like North Korea, but they are (perhaps ironically) protected by evryone else's trade ties with the South. War with the DPRK would mean conflict in the ROK meaning an economic hit to yourself - no matter if "yourself" in this case is the USA, China, Russia, Japan or Switzerland.

Usually Maximum Takeoff Weight is higher than Maximum Landing Weight. Certification regulation states that MLW may never be higher than MTW. As you pointed out yourself, forces on the aircraft are higher upon landing due to touchdown, which generates a momentarily increased G-loading. Maximum Takeoff Weight (as defined by the factory, so do not confuse this with performance limited weights which result in possible lower takeoff weight, due to limitations by weather conditions, runway lenght available, etc) is, among other things, based on engine performance and wingloading and of course structural limitations. Maximum Landing Weight is usually based on structural limitations alone. I can't find a MLW for the A-10, but a book I have states 22.860kgs for maximun takeoff weight (pg. 267 Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aviation part 3), while its empty weight is 11.300kgs (note that this might not be a fixed value for every A-10C. It usually depends on systems on board). So, the MLW of the A-10 will at least not be higher than 22.860kgs. A real life example. Our 737s usually have a MTW of around 72.000kgs while MLW lies around 66.000kgs IIRC. The question wether its modelled in the sim; I just tried to make a hard landing with a fully loaded aircraft and my gear broke. So yes it seems to be modelled. :D

That’s my point mate, we are all in the same boat. We have all been driven into finically supporting countries and possibly regimes that we don’t believe in. Here in the UK the majority of our airports the BAA one are not owned by us but are solely own by the Spanish company Ferrovial, The UK’s car industry by China and the Indians, Power, water and gas is owned by the French and Germans. Santander (Spanish) controls a huge proportion of the UK’s banking. The frightening thing is that the majority of Brits don’t realise any of this because its not put out in the media. If and when it is it gets a quick clip and the rest is completely off topic. Korea, That’s be careful we don’t all get ‘gung hoe’. We know we have been suckered there before. I for one was all for nuking that bas**rd Sadam after we were going to be attacked by chemical weapons of mass destruction. All this media hype and war ‘games’ crap is just fueling the fire and placing NK on the world stage. Vietnam war. …French having to release there hold on part of their empire due to WW2. Western powers promised to help regain control after war ends…. French get massacred in Dien Bien Phu. The Americans get thrown into a war to fight against communism? Yet the public wasn’t told about the deal with the Vietnamese War Lords, the drugs, the CIA and Air America. Oh and the people we were meant to help are still living in agent orange. No because the war would have probably never got off the ground. Anyone know why we are in Afghanistan? And why the Russians left? Be prepared to be open-minded STOP, LOOK and QUESTION.

The top part of Russian fighter pylon indicator is covered by HUD base. The MOD will show it. :-) http://bbs.3gofly.com/en/thread-229-1-1.html

Попробуй переключиться на английскую раскладку (Shift+Alt) или Shift+Ctrl у некоторых ;)

Ready to go! Thanks :)

After you aquire the helmet, buy a bike and get some fresh air :D

Добавил, искать в конце списка смайлов.

Well, its a whole lot of, HEAD OVER HERE TEN SECONDS FROM WHERE YOU STARTED, fun as long as you dont take it, SHOOT THE FLASHING RED CURSOR ON THE SCREEN THEY ARE BAD GUYS, too seriously and treat it as a, DESTROY ENEMY CLOSE BUT IF YOU TRY AND SNIPE FROM MORE THAN ONE MILE AWAY YOU WILL BE TELEPORTED TO DIRECTLY OVER THE ENEMY LOCATION BUT THEY ARE DUMB THEY ARE BAD GUYS, console game and therefore a bit of, MISSION COMPLETE HERE ARE SOME ACHIEVEMENTS NEW SKIN, fun then you wont be dissapointed. Those who go expecting, DEFAULT 3RD PERSON VIEW, blackshark with next gen graphics are in for a shock. Fun game once you setup cockpit view, 'realistic mode', TrackIR and your HOTAS, and a nice distraction and a break from the effing BS trimmer :) Oh, and you need to be online to login to game i think. No probs for us towny broadbanders, but if you are on hill in Wales........

The Stick is perfect! The Throttle could be better procesed. In my point of view it is not perfect but there is no better system on the market.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us

A US E-3 AWACS has a long update rate due to the physical rotation of the radar. Other nations (Sweden, Israel, and clients of the same) have electronically steered AESA AWACS that don't have the same refresh rate limitations (although they scan a more limited area). In general, pilots try to maintain situational awareness which means they know who is close-by. You would generally know who shot you unless you are not paying attention or were engaged when someone else sneaked in (something proper element/division tactics try to avoid). Furballs are great fun online but ever since the late 1990's they are much less likely to happen in real-life (compared to this game set in the 1980s) with the advent of better long-range missiles and better inter-aircraft communication and the great expansion of capacity for essentially un-jammable encrypted satellite links between them. Furballs are less likely when modern aircraft meet (caveat: if the Rules of Engagement require positive visual ID of a target then ranges get closer). What is known of current USAF doctrine is it seems to try to avoid furballs since that negates the electronic superiority of their fighter radars and missiles. US aircraft can engage, extend and re-engage at range. This maintains the advantage they have in AWACS control, fighter radar, and missile electronics. If the US has the strategic initiative (which it almost always does) then they dictate the range of the engagement (since they are not forced to close), making furballs more rare. Sure the US trains for WVR ('dogfight') combat (via the famous Red Flag, Navy Topgun, etc etc) since they *can* eventuate, but with proper AWACS control US fighters simply shouldn't get that close (if you do then it is a 'fail' tactically, since they're giving an advantage to the Russian aircraft which are very good in a furball). Even if the pilots versed in Russian tactics try to close the US will try to extend to maintain advantage. The proportion of medium-range missile shots to short-range missile shots changed between 1990 (think first Gulf War) and mid-1990s and beyond (Bosnia and Second Gulf War). This makes the question about 'would you know who shot you' of academic interest but not really applicable to real-life. You might not know straight away, but if you survived then the post-battle debrief would use numerous sources (E-3, E-8, ELINT, X-Band radar, Aegis AN/SPY-1 if these are nearby and there is an investigation/court-martial about a possible BLUE-on-BLUE) to find out. Even if some of these can't see missiles (many can) you can infer launches from aircraft locations and attitudes.

Swift, don't judge real RWR based on what you've seen in FC2, A-10C or Falcon. There are things in that one that are very very classified. :P (Point being, I dunno, but the RWR is one of the components I'd definitely NOT want to try draw any conclusions on RL based on sims.)

Of course I would like to see a terrain mesh and textures with more resolution and detail. More terrain features and references will make target search from altitude more easy. But like Trident said, that depends of data availability and processing. In US, high resolution digital terrain data and aerial photography images are available for all of the country. That isn’t true for the rest of the world. And that isn’t enough for a final product. In Caucasus, the public available data that I know the existence are SRTM DTMs with three-arc-second (about 80-90 meters) resolution and Landsat TM satellite images, with 15 meters resolution for panchromatic images and 30 meters for multi-spectral images (convertible to 15 meters resolution by sharpening) . ED is using SRTM data for the elevation mesh. A standard Landsat TM WRS scene covers a land area approximately 185 kilomenters (across-track) by 180 kilometers (along-track). Like Trident said, their use presupposes atmospheric correction (easy), topographic normalization with correction for slope and aspect (difficult) and equalization between images. This is not the harshest work. The nightmare, like Trident said, is to register (make congruent) the vectorial database (roads, railroads, cities, forests) with this images. The model that ED is using is a vectorial one: assigning textures to vectorial objects. I'm not a programmer but I think that this is the better way to manage LODs. And I don't know if a hybrid model (vectorial-raster) is possible. Who played F-15 Strike Eagle II, EF2000 or even ADF/TAW, knows that we are light years distance from that. Someone talked about Storm of War. One friend which is addicted to that game told me that they are doing a 1:1 scale model of SE of England and NW of France, using aerial photography from that time. That must had taken an enormous amount of time. The ED designers certainly know all this. They have a difficult negotiation between quality, time and cost. But for what we are seeing on DCS A-10C they are on the right way. Keep the good work.

ED is not going to add something like this. They have their hands full trying to get DCS A-10C done.

Bug noted, will have devs add ceremony to CTDs. .... :D

hello dragon, i will use the orange light but i will desaturate a bit and probably dark it. i will use my chrismas hollyday to work on the night part of the pit.:smartass:

You win the intriguing question of the day award, congrats :) The only clue I can think of is the RWR chirp if a friendly radar was painting the poor guy, but it'd be very ambiguous. The cursing over the net and the words blue-on-blue would give some hints too.

Polish Flucrum A2G duty 1. Slightly take-off :smilewink:: 2. Few another low slides :joystick: 3. Easy ride to the MATZ: 4. A bit of work: 5. Finishing... 5. Arrival to Gudauta... Time for beer :thumbup: Cheers!

I've said this a bunch of times, but clearly it bears repeating.... Notwithstanding anything TM may come up with regarding firmware updates....nothing you do...nothing....is saved to the stick or throttle. You don't "download" a program to them...or flash them...or however you want to think about it like other sticks. They don't have the ability to take a program. When you're using TARGET to execute a profile, a Windows service runs in the background and acts as an interpreter. Your code/profile/script tells that interpreter how to work. Anytime you don't actively have a script running, the two units are ordinary directx joysticks. Thus...to get it "back to default"...after running a TARGET profile...you do nothing more than click 'stop' in target.

Yes, F4 is a better game. The A-10C is (arguably for now) the better military simulation.

Nice screenshots. Check out the A-10C Screenshot threat for some others.

Thanks Lots! I'll check those charts out. I'll look out for more PAPIs as well. Cheers, Moosh **For others' reference** http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=60370 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=61349

И тут засада. Виртуальной картой не хотелось бы, переплачиваешь вдвое. Может, что нибудь еще придумаете?

Thanks for your suggestions, Chromium. I put it onto the list, althought it's not an editor theme.