Leaderboard

The 10thGunFighters virtual squadron presents new chart packages for the DCS flight simulation (v1.2.4+): - Aerodrome (Ground) Charts for DCS: A-10C and Flaming Cliffs 3 - Visual Approach and Departure (VAD) Charts for DCS: A-10C - Visual Approach and Departure (VAD) Charts for FC3 aircraft (new) To do justice to the current development of the DCS series and the permanent requests regarding a FC3-specific version, the charts have been adjusted accordingly during the last few months. Therefore this new version is centered entirely on compatibility to Flaming Cliffs 3. An update to the charts was also necessary after the decision to make our squadron-internal software accessible to a broader audience. A special feature that we would like to point out in this context is the full integration of the GND charts in the soon-to-be-released Aries ATC simulation. The charts have been exported in the ATC software using geocoding. Download: http://www.ariescon.com/index10.html Version: 3.6.0 Date: 03/15/2013 DCS Version: 1.2.4+ Regards, 10th Gunfighters Schleudersitz

Well Mr “12 years in the active duty AF” it works both ways! ;) Provide a technical reason why “ Mk-83 or derivative GBU” cannot be used either with or without a MER on an A-10/F-16 etc, if you can provide no technical reasoning as to why they cannot be used and given the A-10 is perhaps as old or older than you and the MK-80’s are even older are you going to say that the MK-83 has never departed a rack or MER of a USAF A-10/F-16. :P You would have to be extremely dumb to preclude the use of MK-83 or derivative GBU from compatibility of a launch platform such as the A-10/F-16 even if its not the normal every day payload/inventory. :music_whistling: so given the campaign’s/mission possibilities offered in game along with geographical & logistical constraints on supply or the fact that in real life no USN carrier with catapults would be in the black sea you would have a lot of multi service air bases just so you can keep an amount of capability close to hand. :thumbup:

Посмотрел с огромным удовольствием, к сожалению в очередной раз как зритель. Хочется поблагодарить в первую очередь организаторов за этот праздник, дело очень нужное, хоть и не простое! Опять же входит в традицию, а это приятно. Хочу пожелать дальнейшего альтруизма, новых идей и пусть лаги (трижды тьфу через плечо) обходят стороной. Никакой оценкой мастерства заниматься неохота, да и нпе нужно участники молодцы что организовались, нашли время и приняли участие. Хотя украине всяко нужно плюсик ставить, браво! :thumbup:

Ya... The weapons mod provides for no more than 4 77's or with a mix of 2 ER's, 2 77's. So lets not have anyone flying around on the 104th with 10 77's or some other sillyness. It does not extend to the Su-33. As for the MiG-29Ghey, in the absence of MoGas, he says that in the event of all out war, Ze Jermins would modify it to carry 120B. The weapons mod provides for no more than 4 120B's (+2 heaters) and also an advanced Multirole, 2 120's + AGM-65D's, or dedicated advanced Multirole (4 AGM-65's). So again... no guys with 6 120's B's or any C's, or mad triple ejector jacks. lol

Hi all! Noob here...:) I'm currently using a Logitech Extreme 3D Pro and I've decided that if I really want to do this sim justice I'm going to have to get a HOTAS setup. Which stick is the most popular / best? I know it's a subjective question, but please humor me anyway. I see TM has HOTAS Warthog, but that's a tad too expensive! Is there a cheaper equivalent? I also want to get TrackIR and they appear to have two flavors: a version 5 and a version 4 Pro. For those of you who use TrackIR, which version are you running? Thanks in advance! JP

Well you gotta hand it to somebody that can get that many red reputation marks in 21 posts.

How make the sun smaller? fly further away. (sorry I couldnt resist) Tom

Ta :)

The USAF has MK-83 warheads in stockpile, this is a fact as it forms the backbone of the largest GBU ordinance that will fit in an F-22, the USAF has used the MK-83 in history and yes it did give most of them up to the USN/USMC at one time, ergo the MK-83 warhead is in the USAF inventory under one of its pseudonyms and given the nose and tail sections of the GBU’s are essentially retrofit to MK-8# LDGP’s it would be no big step in times of operational need to fit MK-83/BLU-110/GBU derivatives under A-10 in the field if operating from a joint USAF/USN/USMC base. If you want to play the “real world card” then why is the MK-83 missing from the US Navy/etc aircraft in-game, oh and while were at it what’s a USN carrier doing in the black sea, you have a dam sight more chance of MK-83 etc on an A-10 than that ever happening! :laugh: Did I call him “dumb” no, I said “You would have to be extremely dumb to preclude the use of MK-83 or derivative GBU from compatibility of a launch platform such as the A-10/F-16 even if its not the normal every day payload/inventory.” one assumes he is a minion in the USAF rather than the person/s who decides anything of any major importance in the grand scheme of things therefore wont be privy of absolutely all circumstance or operational “what ifs” over the years and would be the logic shared by many people both in and out of service though it would be a different matter if there was a technical consideration like “we don’t use MK-83/BLU-110 ever on USAF A-10 etc plane because when you do the wings fall off yet strangely don’t with MK-84‘s” :smilewink:

Jesus.......It's only a game.Deal with it.

Yes, but if we get DCS: F/A-18C, then we should be getting AGM-84E, extended range version. It looks like the F/A-18C can carry the SLAM-ER, though, I wouldn't mind someone with more knowledge on the subject (lots of those folks on here) confirming or denying that. SLAM-ER is like our own little cruise missile we get to steer after launch and can go like 150 miles :thumbup: AGM-130 on the F-15E is really nice too, though. Either of them would add some seriously awesome striking power.

Why are you calling names? I gave my opinion. If you don't agree that is your right. Name calling is immature on your part. Is this representative how 104th members treat others? I'm ashamed of you. The other members of 104th should be too. Your response meets that criteria. I gave an opinion you replied with childish insults. You should be ashamed of yourself. The 104th should be embarrassed by your reply. I'm sad that the people who disagree with you must endure disrespectful behavior from you. It is immature and childish.

hehe. sorry about that. I get quite excited sometimes :pilotfly::pilotfly:

I am going to have to call you on this. Considering every USAF fighter manual I have seen does not have this as a configuration. Also of note, I am going on 12 years in the active duty AF and have yet to see a Mk-83 or any any version of a gbu outside of the normal loads(31's, 38's, 12's, 10's, 24's, etc) on an USAF fighter. And this coming from a -15 guy, so I have seen about everything the AF inventory has loaded at one time or another. So if I am wrong them by all means provide me the right FACTUAL info, but I am going to go ahead and say that you are not speaking in anyway correctly about what you are talking about.

Из под ЧА трек запускается без проблем. А вот с upload.com.ua у меня ничего не качает пишет Сервер не найден

Hmm out of the list of things to vote for only one is viable, the F/A18. The F22 is too classified. The F14 is retired and the Lightning is barely out of Prototype.

Где можно скачать видео Парада? http://upload.com.ua - не хочет работать. Запускайте не в LockOn, а в Ка-50

I think its cool that the 104th is doing this. I probably wont fly on the server. But it is a good idea and should provide HAWX type fun.

Devil's Cross 02B video In this CAS mission you are tasked to defeat an assault from the Motor Rifle Regiment attacking from the West. Your 4 person flight will be aided by AWACS, a CAP flight and a SEAD flight to help take out the major SAM threats. For this mission I again loaded out our flight with 4AGM-65Ds + 4 CBU97s and a TGP pod. The ramp start, takeoff and ingress are uneventful. I circle at the CP and contact JTAC. He assigns us the tanks from one of the two regimental groups. When I first spot the column(s) with my TGP, the original two armor columns have split off into several columns showing a wider front. We push from orbit and head towards the columns. As we head towards the targets, the column formation changes again and shows a broad line of T-80s with a line of BMP-2s behind and some Shilkas bring up the rear for AAA cover. At around 8nm out I send #3 and #4 to attack the AAA guarding the columns with Mavs. Order #2 to hold 8 miles out. At this point, I decide to break right and flank the column from the North. My plan was to his the leading line of T-80s with a ripple of CBUs down the line to see how many I could take out. Then send in the rest of the flight to mop up with the Mavs they had left. As I turn in on the line of tanks, I basically guess at the lead to give when release, and rely on the SPI diamond in the HUD. I pickle off the 4 CBUs and it ends up I did some significant damage to the line. The debrief showed I ended up taking out 11 of the tanks with that one pass :). On egress from the line I send in the rest of the flight to take out armor with their mavs as I pull back to a safe distance and height to wait. After the flight finishes their attack I roll in to fir off my Mavs on the BMP-2s. I wanted to get rid of them because they cause havod with their guns when you are low and slow over the target....and right now the wingman AI when dropping unguided bombs, they get too close and too slow and are a prime target for the BMPs. When I take 3 of the BMPs out JTAC calls for a new target, the armored vehicles that are left in the advancing attack. After getting the new target, I call for the rest of the flight to hit the armor with their CBUs while I fire off my last Mav. I hit one BMP with the mav and the flight takes out a couple with their first CBU run. I attempt to go guns on one tank and completely miss, but #4 comes in with a CBU run to that that last tank out. When that tank is destroyed JTAC comes in to tell us we have cleaned the area of threats. Unfortunately #3 got taken out by one of the BMPs. A final scan of the area with the TGP and eyeball showing things he rest of us clear the area and head back to base. Back at base the debrief shows that I took out 16 of the armored vehicles, with 11 of them coming from my CBU run. The mission score only turned out to be 75% though. After the mission I opened it up in the ME to see how the points were distributed. You get 50 pts for starting the mission and 1 pt for landing. You are supposed to get 25 pts for delaying the column from reaching their destination and 25 points for completely wiping them out. Turns out we didn't get the 25 for delaying the column, but I think the way the mission goes it will be very tough to get the delay points. The column doesn't stop and defend like they do in the first devil's cross mission, they keep charging forward. Totally destroying the units would be tough also because our flight barely took them all out even with my 11 kills on my CBU run. As it turns out, the flag for the points are kinda screwed up in they reference the wrong flags. Something that should be addressed by the developers (or you could go in and edit the mission yourself to correct it if you feel like doing so). Although this mission didn't net us the complete 100% score, I felt this mission to be more satisfying than the first Devil's Cross mission. Our flight of 4 ended up taking all of the armor out, and surely helped save the lives of some of our retreating forces. The lighting was tricky here, NVGs would be no use here, good use of the IR Mavs and IR from the TGP helped spot the armor and put weapons on target (even though I was guestimating on how much lead I needed on dropping my CBUs). We will see what is store for us in Mission three next time!

seems to me that most people that like this move by the 104th don't understand that people (ie me) don't like it is not because the whole of it but because of parts of it that are simply putting it into HAWX type category. Once again I will say that I can understand and agree that Flanker could be "upgraded" to its upgraded version as they do exist. GG is arguing (with understanding also) that version of the Flanker that is in the game cannot carry the R-77, and most accept this also... so all is good when 104th decides to try and simulate a later serving Flanker version (to what can be done with FC2 code and not too much changing in the cockpit etc which is not easy and lot of it not possible), and this to me at least is acceptable. What brings it to HAWX level is when they also decide to go completely fictional just for the hell of it to have some fun and add 120's onto MiG also... how does this not sound like going HAWX direction? I really don't want to post in here any more as I am also stiring up trouble so I just wanted to be clear as to why I do not like this move... in short.. it's not the whole "Flanker should not carry R-77, full stop" type of thing... but not to go overboard and start adding 120's on MiG's... ET's to A-10's... AIM-54 on F-15 (they have been test fired also)... does everyone finaly get my point? In the end, 104th is not my squad nor is the server paid by me so I can't dictate what they will use... but I do wish to say how I feel about this mod... I'll accept people don't like my opinion about it, but also if anyone just wants to have fun and try fictional things they can do that, but please they should not then try to back their choice based on reality... We all know FC2 is not fully realistic on its own but going completely fictional just makes it worse, that's all I'm saying.

Your opinion is noted. For the record, there is a reason for the different Program Files directories. The following link explains the differences. Not necessarily definitive, but the best single-source explanation I could find. In short, 64 bit programs should be installed under the Program Files directory. Do some installations have trouble with this? Sure. But, ED for one, got it straightened out and it works as it should. So, to say you should never install programs under the Program Files directory or have your head examined is not correct.

It took me a while to figure out how to change both lua files to work with my dual monitor setup. Here's how I did it - hopefully it will help. My monitors - Primary, 1920 x 1080 - Secondary, 1680 x 1050 Screen resolution config in Windows Make sure they're aligned - primary at [0,0] and secondary at [0,height of primary]. If you put them side by side (my default is primary on the right and secondary on the left), then text commands during flight will overlap and you won't be able to read them :( options.lua - "multiMonitorSetup" - make sure you enter the setup name used in monitor setup file. In my case it's "my_setup2". - "aspect" is based on your primary monitor. - "width" is from your primary as well. - " height" is the total of primary plus secondary, so in my case: 1080+1050=2130. - "resolution" is from primary as well. My monitor setup file - "name" - make sure the name you use here is unique and used in options.lua file. In my case it's 'my_setup2'. - "height" is from your primary display. - "aspect" from primary as well (1920 / 1080 = 1.7777778 ). Shkval: - x = 0 - y = height of your primary display. - width = first I tried to enter half of the width of my secondary but it didn't work for some reason. So I started experimenting with values and finally discovered that - in my specific case - 840 is 50% of the width. No idea why but it works. ABRIS: - x = width of Shkval - y = height of your primary display. - width = should be the same as width of Shkval. This way they'll share the secondary display 50% each. Good luck!

Here's a preview of Version 2, which I've already started working on and includes a combination UFC/MFCD view! Not only that, but I've finally gotten a little time to sit down and learn how to blow stuff up!