Leaderboard

@ DCS a request please to write DCS's own version of Easy Monitor Configurator compatible with DCS-A10c 1.1.0.9 / 1.1.1.0 (etc) I suspect hundreds of users are/want to export their views (I'm running 1.1.0.8 because of this, and others are too) "have to reinstall after applying EMC in 1.1.0.9": http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1295135#post1295135

AMD Catalyst 11.9 Win 7 | Vista (64-bit) AMD Catalyst 11.9 Win 7 | Vista (32-bit) AMD Catalyst 11.9 Win XP (64-bit) AMD Catalyst 11.9 Win XP (32-bit) AMD Catalyst 11.9 Win 7 | Vista (64-bit) AMD Catalyst Mobility 11.9 Win 7 | Vista (32-bit) AMD Media Codec 11.9 Win 7 | Vista (32-bit & 64-bit) AMD Media Codec 11.9 Win XP (32-bit & 64-bit) AMD Media Codec Mobility 11.9 Win 7 | Vista (32-bit & 64-bit) AMD HydraVision 11.9 Win 7 | Vista (32-bit & 64-bit) AMD HydraVision 11.9 Win XP (32-bit & 64-bit) AMD HydraVision Mobility 11.9 Win 7 | Vista (32-bit & 64-bit) Build info: 8.892-110914m-125030C-ATI DriverVer=09/08/2011, 8.892.0.0000 Sign date: September 21 (Microsoft WHQL)

Any chance we will ever get a better track editor? With rewind, pause, and fast forward? When you fly a 40 minute mission or so, and just want to see one part of it, its a real pain to get 20 minutes into the track, and then also not be able to rewind it.

+1

I would call it a great welcome when senior forum members react to one of my first posts? On the issue itself I have the impression there are a lot of misconceptions about DCS:A10C. In many ways it does feel like FC3, in particular when you fly Su-25T and A-10A in FC. It is also absolutely not a difficult game to play, I really do not understand why some seem hesitant to adopt it. It amounts to the same thing as in FC: RTFM. DCS:BS is different imho since it is quite something else to fly a chopper instead of an airplane, and it can be damn hard to fly (still being a wonderfull sim). But DCS:A10C is really within reach of all FC players: it just takes a few more buttons and you are Go! Take for an example the startup: I just printed out a short checklist that some kind forum member compiled, I have it in front of me and I just hit the buttons and it was a done deal. After about 10 times I didn't need the paper anymore. So really what is the point? ED just kept developing state of the art sims, why would we complain about that? (The cockpit shadows eg are an absolute delight that you must experience, period.) I still fly Su-25T, A-10A and A-10C during the same evening, I often make the same mission in both sims.

Note: You only have 10 activations. If you are only using the ME. You do not need to use one.

Got my answer here, by the way.

Not to mention that the Force pwns everything else you throw at it. Speaking of which, ED doesn't have to model an AI human co-pilot if they make a sim of a two-seat aircraft. They might as well model an R2-D2! *beep boop blip!" Enemy bogey at two o'clock? OK R2, take him out! *blip bleep boop beep!* <distant explosion sound> Nice job R2! Now sit tight while I get another medal and you get nothing. *booeep booeep*

они есть, но прячутся:D главное, чтоб сервер был:)

Thanks Mustang! + Rep inbound sir...

Congratulations 59th! I ghope you have many more years in the Virtual Skies!

Хотас управление режимами ИЛС -кн М ,это.

No, that'd be because you were too busy looking in the mirror to attach the weapons correctly. :p It belongs to the Navy and is therefore operated by Men who like spending their time locked in a metal box full of Seaman?

Nah, the F-15E's avionics were upgraded to allow good support to employ the M61 on ground targets. Accuracy is problematic due to the lack of PAC control, but the gun even on the A-10 isn't that great against softies either simply because of the nature of trying to hit a little dude hiding and running around in cover. If you watch videos of all kinds of gun runs in the 'stan, mostly they land all around the make a hell of a racket. Generally the cannon is used to flush them out of cover. Against vehicles and such, the M61 works just fine, and the GAU-8 is just overkill - nothing in Afghanistan needs the 30mm, and API hasn't even been used in-theater. The gun isn't that bad though - last time I was in the sandbox we got an excellent kill against one of the Top 5s with some HEI :D Speed and accuracy of the rest of the package are way better than that stupid gun anyway - when the alarm comes down and troops need help *now*, F-15Es are always the first to respond. Which is why they'd want an F-15E where one guy is glued to the pod, instead of an F-16 where the pilot is too busy thinking about how much his helmet is messing up his bitchin' haircut while trying to fly and not drop bombs on every Canadian, Brit, or Aussie within 50 miles :D We showed off the aircraft and cockpit to some Bundeswehr IDS pilots and when they saw how much crap we have inside they went: O_O The key words there is 'forward based'. That isn't a luxury the F-15E nor the A-10 currently has, and Afghanistan is a huge, huge country with these aircraft only based out of Bagram and Kandahar respectively. As such, the A-10s can stay in an area longer, but the F-15Es can get there three times faster. When it comes to AOWs or the like, A-10s are just fine, and if they split the load evenly when it comes to planned ATOs, but when things go tits up and troops are in trouble the A-10 is useless. Surely you can't be serious. The Harrier is probably even more useless than the F/A-18 in Afghanistan. Because of lack of stealth? I don't think that's really a strike against it, since stealth is hardly the 'norm' for anyone these days. In thirty years when the F-15E finally has a replacement, it most likely will be a bigger concern, but until then, that's what EF-111s and EA-6Bs are for :D I mostly just hope we would get at least a Suite 5 model. The avionics package will *destroy your brain*. The A-10Cs avionics package is a Speak and Spell in comparison :D

if you wait too long then enemy reinforcements and artillery might pop up and kill your tanks. The best way is to call the other available CAS when you order your tanks to move since you are most probably out of ammo and the new CAS will generally kill the remaining artillery and tanks around. Always send the M1A1 platoon first, then wait few minutes and send the M2 Bradleys

I surely hope so, too. I have flown the first 2 that came with, a couple of times each under 3 different personas. The first, a short one, was not too time consuming to fix. The second is just excellent, and the 3rd is a lost cause. Once Nevada is released, I aim to create missions and maybe a campaign. I had thought about one for the current area, but know so little about the geo-politics, it would surely be lacking. I hope Wags is toiling on a campaign for the next terrain, as he did the second one in the current terrain, and did one heckuva job, IMHO...

if anything its this stupid squirrel taking resources and buying beer with it. does this squirrel look like the sharing type?!? its feisty!!

Glad you figured it out, I was certain it was hardware related, strange that only DCS exhibited problems. Nate

***Where's my soap box... Ah! There it is! :smartass: In our current "modern theaters of war" Afghanistan and Iraq, actually something much slower and forward based is what ground troops desire for CAS, like the currently proposed AT-6B: They want something that can get lower and slower and mix it up with the ground troops. Personally, that holds ZERO appeal to me, as survivability is directly proportional to speed and the number of engines attached to my aircraft... and inversely proportional to the number of crew members :megalol: But then again... I'm an air superiority guy... :smile wink: The hawg is still the preferred CAS platform in our "current" AOR until then. It would be even more preferred if it was forward based to decrease reaction times... but that's not how the USAF rolls. :music_whistling: The marines, OTOH.... Which could explain why the harrier is the next, best CAS platform requested by those who play with rifles and carry their socks into combat (God bless them!). The Mudhen also has its limitations when it comes to real, high-intensity conflict, with a mature IADS. I would kick someone's ass for not buying 4x as many Raptors, and half as many lightnings as planned. Any conflict requiring air superiority will be sorely pressed to plan with C & E model Eagles, with a smattering of Raptors and Lightnings for back-up. We enjoy the fruits of our labor when it comes to air superiority. That is, we enjoy it, our enemies don't. It allows A-10s, AT-6s, and ground forces to operate unmolested in current battlefields. With future conflicts protected with newer generation IADS, that's no longer guaranteed. Our combat losses will increase with concomitant lengthening of conflicts. I really don't think many people understand that, especially those who make decisions, and I might add, many who believe they're military aviation experts.