Taco-Taylor

This is because they are physically the same button, "LAAP Engage" . Which when long pressed performs the function "Capture Image" but as the feature is not implemented in the module it doesn't matter how long you press for the sim just registers it as LAAP Engage/Disengage command. Some more discussion here about the feature but mainly just arguments.

I agree and think there should have been a roadmap from the start. That said I know it previously was requested by 9L not too long ago but my best guess is as soon as the idea got higher up the chain it was shot down as it would at current require basically admitting the assumptions of most regarding EDs resource 'management' and how it's left us with no expected progress for the foreseeable future that can be reported on in a format like a roadmap.

It's a very interesting and drawn out scenario we have ourselves in here with a module so complete on the surface but still with a 'key' shiny new feature (so key it's the 4th down of the 12 listed on the product advertisement...) missing. it is what it is though, The ARC-210 once implemented should be a gamechanger for the SRS-driven milsim and multiplayer crowd and a nice cool new feature for justifying the existence of the the module as an expansion of the original 10C. As soon as the responses to the "so when are we getting the 210" switched from 'coming soon' to 'free dev time' this has been asked like dozens of times and it's pretty obvious. Priority, the 10C II is not it, nothing more nothing less imho. Honestly the common topic surrounding these 210 threads has never really been the radio itself more so EDs handling of it's edition. We've heard basically nothing regarding the radio capabilities wise or what the implementation will be like from ED so everyone's basically holding onto the "ARC-210 radio (coming soon)." line and trying to stretch it out to get a better idea of the radio and work out how much they should care about it, a topic I believe has been covered to the near fullest extend it can be at current in this thread and in previous ones.

Tagline at current is "When we have free dev time". which has a rough translation of "this is not a priority, please buy the Apache"

The radio yes, control interface no. What we see and interact with in the cockpit is in actual fact just the 'control unit' or 'radio head' the radio itself is the same as the Hornet and Harrier but the control head is the new cool bit

Oh how I wish that was true. Wouldn't surprise me if at the time of initial release it was 90% done but as we know "The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time.". As has been eluded to before I guess core game limitations are coming into play, Given EDs relationship with the AF and the way 2008s era-A-10 docs washed up on the internet supposedly including pretty detailed ARC-210 data I doubt it's a info thing

From today over on the Discord, can't say it leaves me overly confident but it is something at least. Gandalf- "is the ARC-210 radio for the Warthog II still confirmed? it's been over year since release and still absolutely no update on it" BIGNEWY- "as soon as we have free dev time" A sad state of affairs to be sure...

For context me and Swift were discussing the A-10Cs ARC-210 real world integration in response to a "what does the ARC-210 mean for the A-10C II" comment over on the ED Discord and 9L popped out of the blue with that seemingly to help ease our "where ARC-210 details" concerns

Since this thread follows the "What's happening with the A-10C II" trend i thought i'd post this here.

Exact capabilities the ARC-210 will provide depends on what version of it we get and to what level the core DCS underlying radio system improves to add things like SATCOM which is a ARC-210 capability (BIGNEWY — 23/08/2021 "Satellite radio will be added, just needs time as it is new for DCS") That said the general info above by SJBMX is seemingly correct. If we're comparing the current vs advertised upgrade setup the biggest upgrade imo, if the radio is implemented relatively well, should be the integration of the radio with the rest of the modern systems including the HUD, UFC and MFD. It should in theory allow you to do stuff like switch freq and generally command the radio configuration using the UFC and COMM MFD page and view the ARC-210s current settings via the HUD along with a lot of cool stuff to help manage radios during ops. As with all communication upgrades through it will be most appreciated by the multiplayer and milsim crowd who heavily utilize mission frequency planning and SRS to simulate the comm experience to a high level because "the airquake players don't need 69 different radios like we do lol"

As ironic as it is, seems to be 'radio silence' from ED regarding the ARC-210. It being advertised on release as "a later in EA" feature was alright with me but can't say i thought later in EA would mean 1 year+

Incorrect the USN and USMC have no ties to the Scorpion HMD on the fixed wing side atleast. They instead use the JHMCS (Hornets) and the F35 HMDS. (Sources: Collins Aerospace and Thales information publications)

That has zero relation to this module or forum area, the A-10Cs HUD is as i previously stated not a primary flight instrument as far as IFR is concerned and no amount of "but X service/airframe can do it" or "there are patents about system X" will change that fact. We can already do ILS landings so we can already fly IFR approaches and landings if that's your concern.

Worth noting the HUD in the A-10C is not certified as a primary flight instrument and should only be used as an aditional instrument during night/IMC conditions. That, and the lack of evidence OP has to base any of their claims, leads me to believe this is just a 'gib fantasy feature pls' post.

+1