Leaderboard

So I got access to some training and operating procedures from Nellis (A-10 Weapons School) and updated the attached Operating Instruction. Unfortunately I can't release the original document as it's unclassified but For Official use Only but what I've done is use what isn't sensitive and updated the OI we use in the 25th for Air-to-Air qualifications. If includes picture references for formation with the tanker, precontact, contact, and gives the real world procedures for conducting refueling. Hopefully this will help some folks out.

But, in addition to combat, you will also be able to take part in crop-dusting competitions! Not only will you be able to blow up insurgents, you will also be able to help your community grow more and better crops, and gain resources to acquire weapons etc. Destroying your enemy's air tractors and crops will help you dominate!

I thought it would be useful for all if we collect all useful information we find about this plane IF this project is real. I'll start with the simple "what". The Air Tractor AT-802U is a two-seat, one-engine propeller plane developed and built by Air Tractor Inc. With a max. speed of 200 kn, it can carry 9.000 pounds of blowable stuff - like unguided rockets, the Hellfire AT-missile or guided bombs, which makes a target marking system also necessary. Think of a poor man's exportable Warthog. It's currently only used by the Arabian Emirates, while other organizations/countrys are considering acquisition programs. Pictures taken from Google:

If you dont have anything to do today, watching the Airpower air show live from Austria might be a good way to kill some time. You'll find the stream here and the programme for today here Enjoy! :)

Оно конечно. Жаль только, что пропадёт столько замечательных кампаний и миссий... Сколько труда вложено людьми! Может будет создан инструмент какой (конвертер там или транслятор) прилагаемый к патчу? Для адаптации ценного имущества.

Q: What is a Whisper List? A: A whisper list is communication setup in TS3, so that more than once channel at a time can be interacted with Q: Ok.....got it. How do i set it up? A: Simple. Start TS3, goto tools then Whisper lists. click new, then add a key press as per the layout below. Then drag and drop the appropriate channels in the centre field. click apply. The Default setup requirements for using the 74th Whisper channels are as follows: Key Press: LCtrl + 6 Channels: ATC / GC / Air Ops & YOUR FLIGHT CHANNEL Key Press: LCtrl + 1 Channels: Flight 1 - Boar & YOUR FLIGHT CHANNEL Key Press: LCtrl + 2 Channels: Flight 2 - Dodge & YOUR FLIGHT CHANNEL Key Press: LCtrl + 3 Channels: Flight 3 - Chevy & YOUR FLIGHT CHANNEL Key Press: LCtrl + 4 Channels: Flight 4 - Hog & YOUR FLIGHT CHANNEL Key Press: LCtrl + 5 Channels: Flight 5 - Pontiac & YOUR FLIGHT CHANNEL Key Press: LCtrl + 7 Channels: ATC / GC / Air Ops, Flight 1 - Boar, Flight 2 - Dodge, Flight 3 - Chevy, Flight 4 - Hog, Flight 5 - Pontiac Points of note: * The last Whisper list (LCtrl + 7) is known as a Guard Net and is used for minimal communications because it transmits to all channels. Esentially 'On Station' & 'Off Station' * Each Flight lead determines whether he wants to include his 'OWN' channel in each of the whisper lists. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. The Main advantage is that everyone in the flight knows of 'external communications' by the flight to other force elements. The main disadvantage is that it causes an awfull lot of 'in channel' comms of different content mixes. When talking 'in the flight' channel only, brevity is lax, speed and acuracy important and this is generally less formal. The flight 'talk' to each other. essentially, the UHF Radio. When you use a whisper list, it is because you need to talk 'out' of the closed 'Flight net' and so it is far more formal. * EVERY member of a flight should have the same setup as flight lead in order for any flight member to be able to assume command. Regards 'T'

Hold the "read me" up in front of your eyes for at least 1 sec.... no wait.. hold the release weapons button or buttons.. whatever your using for at least 1 second..

Congrats for the new Rig Pilo. Is your CPU 32 or 64 bits? What rating do you get in the "Performance Information and Tools" window?

Thanks for this

Nice! Thanks for sharing!

I bought it months after the A-10, flew it 2 times and said ''screw it, choppers are not for me'' :music_whistling::D

I've not said anything about that. Yes there are people who would buy out of loyalty, and you know what? That's their prerogative. A lot of people bought DCS:BS not because they wanted to fly the Shark very much, but because they wanted to help ED keep the cashflow required to keep making that type of games. However, if we look at what you posted you are actually not talking about that. "Actually what concerned me the most is apparently some folks here would have loved it if it were serious." ...and then you go on about "blind loyalty". The apparent implication is that the only reason people might like the idea of a DCS:AT-802U would be "blind loyalty". That, sir, is completely rediculous. There are other reasons than stupidity, fanboyism, "blind loyalty" or whatever for having tastes other than yours. Again, if someone has to be a fanboy to like the idea of DCS:AT-802U, you need to really re-examine this community. People are not copies of each other, and some happily commit the atrocity of liking things that you don't - such as budget turboprop COIN aircraft. How would this be strange for you? I've been propagandizing for that platform for at least a year now, it's a love at first sight. But you don't like it, so seeing people like it when it's presented like in this thread is something that you get worried by and start talking crap about fanboyism for? Sorry dude, you need to stow your attitude and learn to appreciate that people are different. Err, dude, you need to read the thread. ;) I did a quick count through the thread just now: People expressly stating they'll buy: 1 People expressly stating they'll not buy: 1 People looking at the info: 2 People positive: 6 People negative: 8 Other unsorted: 7 (ED staff, Moderators, Testers, people with no apparent position.) That's 25 people in total after a day, on a forum that will often have 50+ online at any one time (even if discounting guests) and a record of 702 at the same time (though that includes the russian section). Your analysis requires better data before it can even pretend to support your conclusion. But let's not kid ourselves here - you didn't gather any data. You saw something that you don't like, was shocked at the realization that there are people out there who actually like things that you don't like, and proceeded to draw the conclusion that fanboyism or "blind loyalty" is the explanation? Absurd. I wonder how you react when you meet people who like Lassie better than Flipper? Sorry, sir, but your position is quite simply absurd. You've just had an experience of "humans being different" and you need to get accustomed to it. Wow. I won't dignify that silliness with a response. You left reality a looooong time ago. Sooo many strange assumptions here, and you know what they say about assumptions... 1st: attracting people who aren't as obsessed, meaning the casual player, includes roughly 500 trillion MSFS users and civil aviation nuts - and quite a few of those have flown planes like the AT-802. We use a similar model. Bet you didn't think about that market? Or did you only think about the traditional Falcon target audience? Protip: ED isn't alive because they targeted stereotype markets. 2nd: that it would alienate customers... What? How? Why would someone who enjoys DCS:A-10C be "alienated" by the sale of something else? So maybe they wouldn't buy DCS:AT-802U, but so what? They can still fly DCS:A-10C, and they can still fly DCS:BS, and they'd still be able to purchase DCS:Fastmover whenever it comes. If they'd be alienated through not being given what they want every single time then they'd just have to grow up and enter the world of adults where you don't always get everything you want. It isn't up to you, and to a certain extent it's not up to ED either. They have a slew of aircraft they've done groundwork on (dig through the forums and you can find some stuff), but final implementation relies on a lot of things coming into place. What you personally would like is not the big variable, they make their decisions based on a huge amount of variables including marketability (again: and the potential market is bigger than just the Falcon crowd...), development time, complexity, synergies with the military side, ease of integration of new components into the existing codebase and so on and so forth. Says you. The person who also says that people are not allowed to have different taste in airplanes than you. Personally I think the only people here who are really capable of saying what could and couldn't work market-wise is the guys at TFC and ED, and I won't have a meltdown if I find people liking planes I don't like. I've grown accustomed to the fact that people are different, probably because I'm sort of quirky myself, so to me all y'all are just fruitcakes and loons. The whole lot of you. ;) (EDIT: Except those of you who support the AT-802U. :D )

So therefore the concept of 'bad taste' doesn't exist? Are you saying that it's inconceivable that it could possibly be true? That brand loyalty has never sold software before? That that's pretty much the main reason COD is still spawning clone sequels? That nobody on this forum has said 'I'll buy whatever ED makes' before? That the niche market that games like the DCS series and ArmA appeal to aren't full of fiercely rabid fans who defend products from every scrap of criticism and seem to have a belief that the respective companies can do no harm? The colloquial term for someone like that is a 'fanboy', though if I'd used that earlier this place woudl implode. This place has plenty of fanboys, and to disagree with this notion is absurd. I've been lurking around long enough to identify many of them. I've seen posts by people suggesting that others buy multiple copies of a game 'to support ED', as well as people saying that they'd buy any product ED would put out just to give them money to make the next game. Both of those are irrational behaviors and are, well, kind of disturbing. Let me put it this way: This is a joke. You're supposed to be offended at the notion of it being real. Rather than do what you're expected to do, "everyone" celebrates, starts researching data, announces that they'll buy enough copies to craft into a human-shaped mannequin with which to have sex with... something is wrong. That 'something' isn't people simply having "different tastes", it's the scary reality that ED really could probably put out anything, put any pricetag on it, and the customers of this forum would buy it no matter what. What makes that 'wrong' is that customers who aren't as lovingly attached to the DCS brand as you guys are would *not*. So to respond to your statement, Speed - yes, your opinion is wrong. ED has managed to somewhat revive the ailing flight sim genre and attract people who aren't as obsessed as one used to be expected to be, and assuming a lack of military contract, to try to push such a product out would alienate a huge amount of customers and undoubtedly cost them a serious amount of sales. It's not a matter of it existing. It's a matter of ED only being able to put out one product at a time, and if my choice was to get this joke in two years and in FOUR years finally get an F-15 or, hell, even an F/A-18C, it's a non-issue. If this were able to be put out as some sort of pack or DLC (basically released in any format that didn't consume huge amounts of time better spent on other airframes), sure, whatever - worked for LOMAC... sort of. Could this little toy be interesting? Certainly. Would it be worth the time and money? God no.

Like someone said. It would be a good 2 seater test bed for DCS. And yes I would buy it.

Watch this thread grow and grow . . .

This whole thread makes me sad for the future of the world. Some of you must be in politics. Bring on the AT I say BRING IT ON

I'm also very interested in the rear projection front console. It may make it very easy to make some interchangeable front consoles!

I'll check.

The Facebook Farmville plug-in module options are endless...

I for one, cannot wait for this release! Because we will have to build farms and keep them productive with crop dusting, that this means that there will have to be a dynamic campaign! Will the actual uh, ground tractors be drivable too? That would be really cool! EDIT: I've just discovered that if you do a domain name search on http://www.digitalcombatfarming-simulator.com, then you'll find that it appears that ED and Giants software, makers of Farming Simulator 2011 (http://www.farming-simulator.com/) appear to be in the process of merging. The Georgia/Caucuses theater would probably be an excellent place for this, as it has a rich and bloody agrarian history! Check out the whois: This will be unbelievably awesome. Just think of the possibilities! One mission, you have to dodge like 8 SAMs, kill 15 ground targets, but get shot up. Next mission, because your aircraft is still being repaired, they go make you cut hay all day long!

Bad dream ? No, it's a nightmare. E.D. is always split the community and not unit us ! :cry: Who will "fly" with this :thumbdown: AntiTank-802Ugly stuff against a serious machine: Warthog ? Black Shark is also just a experiment-joke what is never realized. The Russians just thrown into the trash finally. One-seater attack helicopter ? > Joke DCS Multiplayer with these 3 Series ? > Ridiculous We will experimental rats again, for $40-$60 ! Will we be (all of us) unoffical testers agains ? Testing a 90% real military product and "making" it better in the next two years instead of soldiers ? No thanks, no more DCS to me. :badmood:I just saw Wags's new avatar here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=74330 First i was totally upset :bomb:, but now i am just sad, really sad with this "mighty future" :( No radars, no fast moves, no joy, no MP life, no HyperLobby ! Forward to the past is more enjoyable to me: im going to play FC1 and FC2 again, or wake me up if FC3 or Combat-FSX is coming.

Su-25 has met its maker!

I like the concept, this kind of aircraft can perform Attack Chopper duties at a much lower cost. It is the true IL-2 Sturmovik of the 21. Centruy and a Sim around it could be very interesting.

^^^^^ It's not that bad.........we'll all be Propeller-Heads in no time:

My personal checklist in case this module would come true: Step 1: Drop jar! (<- BKLronin mentioned that point already!) :surprise: Step 2: Avoid puking one your expensive simmer-hardware! :puke::joystick: Step 3: Step in front of a mirror and tell yourself loud and clear: "You're gonna be a hog-driver for at least further 3 years! Forget about afterburners" :huh: :doh: :lol:

:lol: My head's spinnin' from the stuff I just thought now to make the gameplay even more challenging and fun. I don't know weather I should laugh or cry.:wallbash:

So from top notch supersonic war machines to an air tractor originally designed for agriculture and firefighting ? tell me that's just a bad dream...wake me up ! Am sure the simulation of this plane would be of high standards just like BS and WH, still there is a huge and faithful community coming from Flanker and Lock On Series desperate to see DCS fighter jet.

A collection of very funny military pics... http://fotogaleri.ntvmsnbc.com/askerin-eglencesi.html

In a way the AT-802U would be a logical addition since it would be a great test bed for evaluating the 2-seater concept in the DCS universe without having to develop too many complex subsystems like the Apache would require.

That's a neat little plane. I usually don't like planes at all, but if this is Ed's new module I will fly it. First a helo, then a Jet, and now a propeller plane.. Hmmm....Why not?

Seriously I would fly it with pride. Fits well into ED´s "ugly but awesome" aircraft list :D

Are you teasing us right?? It cannot be true. We cannot go from F-16/F-18 discussion to assume that a small turboprop for COIN missions will be the next product. Oh shit this is like a nightmare... Regards!

My thoughts also :D

If they were taking it seriously it would be under "Simulation Research" instead of "DCS: Wish List" I do think the AT-802U deserves a spot in DCS though, it would be great to see as an AI aircraft. Anyway, in the spirit of research, I found out it has its own Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Air-Tractor-AT-802/119909338055876

I don't think 'amazing' would be the word I would use to describe it. The picture of it armed up looks like something out of Mad Max. Really though... you guys are taking this seriously?

Amazing aircraft. Thanks for the info dump Nate.

Official Website... http://www.802u.com/ Official Brochure.... http://www.scribd.com/doc/37923411/Air-Tractor-At802u-Brochure Obligatory wiki entry... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802 Interview about the AT-802U (Gunship variant). http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1213900496?bclid=-1&bctid=27413124001 Nate

Exactly. The point that there seems to be difficulties in getting across is that to make a DC you need the entire cost, which is at a minimum many hundreds of thousands of dollars, up-front. This applies also if you do it "on the side". You then have several years of development time during which this working capital creates no return. This feature then, when finished, must translate into extra sales that cover the development cost, capital costs, inflation, and overheads. This is not a big market. The reason we have DCS at all is that ED are able to leverage multiple markets in the same codebase - military contracts and consumer products collaborate in funding development. A DC on the other hand can only act on one of these markets. What ED's strategy appears to be (again, while I might have a wee bit of insider knowledge it's not exactly like I'm sitting in on their planning meetings or read the minutes of them - I'm on "need-to-know") is to work iteratively as illustrated by Grimes above, and if you look closely at it you'll notice a trend; more and more of the pieces that would be required for a DC are falling into place. 4 years ago there was absolutely nothing even resembling groundwork for DC in the consumer line from ED. Now we have a powerful mission scripting toolkit, both in the sense of capability and precision but also in the sense of extendability, and we have an actual generator! Progress is being made, but it's being made iteratively and in a financially safe and sound way - each advance is leveraged to pay for itself and offers a relatively goot rate of return on working capital. I'm certain they'll get there, eventually. Maybe in DCS:Next, maybe in DCS:After THat One. The point is they're not charging headlong into major features with no consideration for the financial realities. And yes, giving people the features they want can and often do lead to bankruptcy - if your attempt is not tempered by good planning, project management, an appreciation of where the market is etcetera you'll end up fronting so much cash for the development that the game simply cannot pay for itself due to how small the market is. It's a bit like when people complain about the terrain engine and the issues that exist in that, and why isn't ED using Outerra or doing something new that looks as cool and awesome as the terrain in HAWX etcetera? Well, they could, and people would be thrilled at it's awesomeness, but it would be a major project that most likely wouldn't pay for itself. Another would be the question of fully utilising multi-core and/or many-core systems - yes, they could do a crash project to fully multithread the engine, but it wouldn't pay for itself. Instead, they work iteratively through the engine components and thread out as and when it's possible (like it was done with the new sound engine). If ED were to do all the things that customers (and many customers at that) want, they'd do the following: 1 - DC from scratch. 2 - New graphics engine from scratch. 3 - New terrain engine from scratch. 4 - Multithreaded simulation engine implementation ...and thus tie down so much of the resources that they can't actually release anything in the next 4-6 years, and then pray to the gods that what gets released sells well enough to cover all of that at the same time. So, obviously they can't do that, it's just not possible. How about selecting one of them and work on that in the background? Well, which one? All of them have people religiously claiming that that specific thing would translate into sooo much extra sales... That said, maybe they are actually working on those things in the background - to a certain extent I'd even wager a couple months salary that all of those aspects see some attention in the desired direction every month. But at all times ED has to literally "keep their eyes on the money", because surviving in this market is really really hard. (Remember, they don't have the backing of a major publisher; they do all of this with their own money. No-one's coming to the rescue if they make a bad bet on a major project. It's not like DICE who had all expenses covered by Gremlin, then by Microsoft, then by EA.) So: a DC is probably coming. But it has to live as a project according to the same realities and considerations as all other parts of the product. Anyone thinking that a DC is some sort of magic bullet towards getting sales is, however, just plain wrong. (Or, rather, I don't doubt that it would add sales, and probably considerably, but not enough to cover it's expenses.)