ferriwheel

I want to go to Las Vegas!! Many thanks!

I usually F7 to my target and zoom out from there along my ingress direction trying to locate a "puff of smoke" in the air and that's usually where the bomblets are. It takes some time and patience but it's not very difficult to locate them cuz you generally know where to look given that you dropped them yourself. This bomb is modeled with great detail, you can see not only every piece of bomblet hanging below its parachute, but every piece of the broken canister and the rack that stores the bomblets after the breaking up. You can also see the bomblets spin up trying to locate a target at the terminal stage as well. Very cool and satisfying to watch if they do hit something!

I can totally understand that fixing this problem may not be on the top of ED's to do list. But I hope someone from ED can confirm that it has been noted and they intend to fix it eventually. Cuz when employed correctly, CBU-97 is deadly effective and it's just COOL to look at the domblets fire upon target acquisition.

The problem is not with the bomb units but with the bomb trajectory computation. With mobile targets try ingress low head on, designate targets with CCRP pipper (which will give you your distance from the target at the center of your HUD), manually release bombs at about 0.2 nm from the target (just before you are on top of the target). This usually yields devastating results. Only to demonstrate the very lethal effect of CBU-97's cuz technically you are not supposed to over fly your target...

Any words on this issue yet? Can anybody confirm that it's a bug or not at least? Thanks!

Don't worry about it lxsapper, as long as we can get to the bottom of this CBU behavior. It appears that this indeed is a bug carried over from an earlier version of the A-10C code. Apparently it has already been fixed for A-10C.

I can confirm this roll to the right tendency. It's barely noticeable, so subtle that trimming the ailerons in the opposite direction by even one short hit of the "trim left" key/button would over compensate it. It's noticeable if you cruise over long distances like in those campaign missions. Frequent course adjustment is necessary. My joysticks are well calibrated.

Given the current state of the CCIP/CCRP code for A-10A, is the impact point of CBU's calculated the same way as low drag dumb bombs? Because it surely feels that way, i.e., bomblets fall short significantly unless released at high altitude or in a near vertical dive (tricks practiced by many DCS pilots to achieve better accuracy). Some people are arguing that CBU impact point calculation is written for high altitude CCRP release but I'm suspecting that it's simply because during a high altitude release the bomb travels long enough that in the end it loses most of its forward momentum and falls nearly vertically. If the bomb breaks into bomblets after this point, the impact point is bound to be close to that of a dumb bomb released with the same parameters because all that's left to do is free fall in either case (assuming no wind). I'm also wondering how this compares to the real word algorithm. Do real world pilots also employ the same tricks for reasonably accurate CBU release or rely on superior bomb trajectory algorithm?

Thanks for the update Wags! That's great news!

The information Pepec provided is correct and historically accurate. Even F-16's don't have the ability of route following. Altitude/Bank Hold, Altitude/Heading Hold and Path Hold are all their autopilot can do as well.

P*Funk sorry I didn't read your first thread carefully enough. I thought you were referring to pre-gulf war era (70's-80's). However are you positive that CCRP was not available for gulf war A-10A drivers? I'm a little surprised given the amount of cluster bombs used during the conflict. Without CCRP, accurate deliver of cluster bombs would have to be done with near vertical dives (Stuka style) ... Per reference provided in an earlier thread, EAC/PAC was introduced in 1990 in time for desert storm.

The A-10A modeled does come with PAC. Here is proof:

Problem with that (just like with what P-51D is facing) is most of the weapon systems in DCS outdate that era by far and you'll often find yourself in a practice target situation.

Thanks George! This is awesome!

Exorcet can you find any reference to when exactly PAC was installed on the A version? My search yielded nothing. But I suppose you are right about the initial A's did not come with PAC because the odd location of the PAC switch, which seems like an add on.

Awesome videos Eurofor! Really enjoyed it! Around 3:25 to 3:35 shows flares being released as the Su-25 is running in. It confirms my suspicion that at the speed a jet fighter is traveling the flares in DCS are being ejected way too high. I think that it means pumping out flares in real life does you little good unless you follow it with a drastic change in course, while in DCS if you stay straight and true after flare release, you still have a reasonable chance of "fooling" the missile.

Just think about this, in real life the size of a MFD is almost as large as your entire screen, in a flight sim it is scaled down to nearly the size of a button on a real MFD. The apparent size (the portion of angular area of your total field of view it takes up) of everything else is scaled down by the same ratio compared to their real life counterpart. It's natural to have trouble spotting them even with infinite resolution. Playing a flight sim on a IMAX screen with infinite resolution will probably make target searching no more difficult than in real life. For this reason, not only do I not believe that having the ability to zoom (at least to the point of real life apparent size) is cheating, I'd say it's still inferior to real life target recognition in that your field of view decreases as you zoom in.

Thanks wrecking crew, very informative thread!

Well I think the argument here is that PAC is an intrinsic and indispensable feature of the A-10A in order to be able to employ the A/C effectively rather than being just a step further towards an all-inclusive in-depth simulation.

George you are right. I never had much problem employing the cannon with SFM. PAC is a must now that we have AFM.

I'm pretty sure that group set to start from day one also spawn on the first day of the mission. If you take a look at and fiddle a little bit with the first mission in the Su-25 campaign, units with no trigger activation and the same starting time on both day 0 and 1 appear simultaneously on the first day of the battle.

Well, I think I saw a rather noticeable PAC switch mounted on the canopy frame. I don't think any key input interacts with that switch though.

I guess they have a maximum number of days for a mission and probably any value outside of that range being 0 or 134 or 12345 just default to day one and simply shift the indices of the dates for that unit.

Thank you for the handy tips guys. Though I still think in the spirit of accurate simulation, ED oughta implement PAC at some point.

In the first mission, they are set to spawn at 9:00:00/2 with no associated activation trigger. After reading your reply, I realized that ED must intended to trigger them by some specific event but forgot to add that in. Thanks again.