Yurgon

I don't know what the weird numbers in the log in the lower part of the debriefing screen are about. The SCORE ("66" in the screenshot) looks plausible, assuming that you destroyed targets for a combined score of 66 points. The RESULTS ("0" in the screenshot) have nothing to do with the score. It's up to mission designers to award players a result from 0 to 100. This can be awarded for anything: time passed, group or unit destroyed, unit inside trigger zone... These results are usually ignored in single missions, because the only place where this value is used is in campaigns to determine which mission comes next. Not sure if that answers your question; if the score does not add up to the vehicles you've destroyed, we'd need to see a short track that shows what the issue is, and a description how this differs from previous DCS versions.

The mission (which is really just a Zip archive that ends in .miz instead of .zip) contains a whole bunch of folders that it doesn't need. Chief among them "DSMS". You can simply delete them from the Zip archive and all should be back to normal. The only folders and files (in this mission) that are required and need to stay are: Config KNEEBOARD l10n ("Localization") Scripts mission option theatre warehouses All others can be deleted. The most definite cause for these folders to show up is when "Prepare Mission" is used, but there are numerous instances of mission designers who never used that function and still had some or all of these folders showing up.

Super.

This is a known issue, and hopefully it'll be fixed soon.

Great find, thanks! I've amended the internal report.

Winds from 083 at 47 knots? Don't they teach you in flight school not to fly into the middle of a thunderstorm? G 135, I really hope that's the ground speed and not the maximum wind gusts in knots...

Awesome read, thanks for sharing that with us! If you have more to share, I'm sure we'll all be soaking it up like a sponge.

True that. Regarding the outdated information in the A-10C II manual, yeah, that should be updated and thankfully, if I understand Raptor correctly, that's already planned. When I take a deep dive into a DCS module, I usually find one or two YouTube channels with top notch content and then I tend to stick with these. Then flying a lot and trying various missions, and building my own training missions, is a great way to learn. Of course it would be best if all information was available in a single place. But even before the A-10C II update that wasn't the case. What are the best parameters to orbit around a target without masking the TGP? How do you calculate takeoff performance, rotation speed, single engine rate of climb? What's the meaning of the marks on the AoA gauge? Why does the standby ADI go out of whack every so often? What's the best workflow when you're given a set of coordinates and want to slew your sensors and gain/maintain situational awareness? There are so many things the manual doesn't mention. It's up to us to figure these things out, if we're so inclined. For instance, when I get into an AO, I tend to zoom (EXP1 or EXP2) the TAD. For me it's a massive SA boost just to have the map oriented to the north. I think many players don't use that function, either because they don't know what it's good for, or because their brains are simply wired differently and for them it would decrease their SA. One of these is obviously a very good reason not to use the EXP modes, the other is obviously not great. Just how long would the manual need to be in order to teach all these small things? As far as being correct goes: Yes, of course the manual needs to be correct and up to date, and that's something to be tackled with high priority. As much as I wish the manual had the same didactic value as that of a certain other sim around the early 2000s did, I don't think such a major rework is going to happen.

As far as I can tell, the module currently always uses the default trim mode, and ignores the "Central Position Trimmer mode". For now, this selection doesn't do anything. CD REL is currently non-functional, and neither do the 4 directions of the "beep trim" do anything (the 4 way hat next to CD REL). Trim Control is correct for now. Regarding Trimmer Reset, I know many DCS players use it when their trim goes foobar. Just be aware that this does not exist in the real aircraft. You have the pitch position indicator on the front dash that will always show you the fore and aft position of the cyclic to help you neutralize the stick (at least in pitch). This is pretty much up to you, and there are different schools of thought. As far as I'm aware, Russian doctrine is to input small stick deflections, then quickly push and release the trim button, whereas western doctrine is to push the trim button, hold it depressed, deflect the stick, and finally release the trim button when the aircraft is doing the desired thing. However, I've also learned that helicopter pilots will usually NOT trim into a turn, and instead hold the stick in place during a turn. If something was to happen to them and they let go of the stick, the helicopter will then roll out of the turn and fly level. It's kind of a safeguard for special circumstances, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear from pilots who say this actually saved their life. In DCS, though, I trim into turns all the time because I'm lazy and worst case I might lose a virtual life. So and so. Sometimes I work with incremental trim clicks: deflect stick, push and release trim, center my stick (like you, I do not have a Force Feedback stick), rinse and repeat until I'm happy with the helicopter's attitude. Sometimes I push and hold the trim button, maneuver the helicopter and then let go of the trimmer. I don't like rudder trim. Unfortunately, the CH-47F came into Early Access with no way to decouple the rudder from trim, so whenever you release the trimmer, be sure to center the pedals right away. As far as I'm concerned, never. I haven't even mapped it in any helicopter module and I never, ever use it. But I know of many DCS players who come up with all sorts of scenarios where they say they need it. I guess if your trim goes completely bananas, maybe try trim reset, and be prepared for weird things. Basically, try to understand what trim does and how it works in DCS. Right now in the Chinook, as soon as you release the trim button, your current cyclic pitch, cyclic roll and pedal positions are accepted as the new center position: if you center your physical stick and pedals, DCS will have the virtual controls in the place where they were when you released the trim button. BUT: the instant when you release trim, your physical controls probably aren't centered (why would you trim when they are? ), so you get a "trim bump" where your inputs get doubled. So always immediately center your controls the instant you let go of the trim button. That's where Central Position Trimmer mode comes into play (when it's implemented, and I'm pretty sure right now it's not): When Central Position Trimmer mode is selected, when you release the trim button, your entire stick (and pedal) input gets 100% ignored, until you've centered it. This is pretty cool, because it entirely removes the trim bump. It's also horrible, because if you fail to center your hardware, you're locked out of the controls. Some DCS helicopters have additional options, for example the Ka-50 has a trim mode where stick inputs get ignored for a fraction of a second after trimming, so if you're quick to center your controls, there's no trim bump, but you definitely won't get locked out of the controls. Polychop offer an additional smoothing or averaging option (can't remember what it's called exactly) and that works really well IMO. So in the future, I'm sure we'll see additional trim options in the Chinook. For now and with the default mode being the only one that works, just figure out which method works best for you, and remember to always center the stick and the pedals immediately after releasing the trim button. Sorry for the wall of text, but I hope this help a little.

The axis commands are obviously the most important ones (cyclic roll, cyclic pitch, thrust control lever, pedals). If you can spare 2 axes for the toe brakes, that's a nice bonus. As far as buttons go, for now we can do with a pretty minimal setup because so many functions are not yet implemented or work in progress. The biggest one for me is trim (in the real aircraft, this would be the centering device release or CD REL, but in DCS it's actually called "Trim Control" for now). I also find it useful to map the cargo hook release button, and since it's guarded, I've also mapped the cargo hook release cover. As more functions get implemented, I think a lot of additional buttons will become useful later on.

Excellent tracks, thanks! I'm seeing the exact same thing that you're describing. I'm not sure if it's a bug or just the flight model being work in progress. As far as I can tell, you're not doing anything wrong.

I must confess I've never read the manual in its entirety, only sections that were of particular interest to me. What you describe sounds like a good summary of the entire manual (as far as I've read it). It hardly ever explains how to achieve a specific task and rather serves as a reference. The flight school chapter is maybe the closest to a training aid, but there I'd say the manual is actually overly superficial. However, with the in-game tutorials, with the huge A-10C and A-10C II forums sections, and with an enormous amount of videos on YouTube, I personally think it's okay to have the manual as a reference rather than a training aid. It does go into a lot of detail regarding most systems, and writing it must have been an absolutely enormous task already. Adding new training chapters that almost no one reads (especially for a module that's 10+ years on the market, if we take the A-10C module as a basis) might actually lead to confusion, when the same content is presented twice in different chapters. All things considered, while I don't disagree that a training manual would be a good thing, I don't think we'll see any major updates to the manual. All that said, reading the entire manual will give you a very good understanding of the aircraft's systems, even if you don't fully understand everything while reading it. At the very least you'll know where to look up the details when specific questions arise.

Might be worth a try to start fresh. First, I'd go with a long and slow DCS Repair from the new Launcher. Then go to Saved Games\DCS\Config\Input\ and rename the A-10C II folder or move it to a different location altogether. When you next launch DCS, set just a handful of keybinds, restart DCS (or maybe even reboot the PC) and check if the problem is still there. Does that solve the problem?

Make sure your AFCS SYSTEM SEL switch on the center console is set to BOTH. Other than that, practice, practice, practice.

Windows file systems have historically been case insensitive. I don't think Microsoft is ever going to change that. So yes, upper- and lowercase shouldn't matter in the DCS filesystem.

No, it doesn't. What makes you think that's the case? Are you following any tutorials or guides that say these weapons are in any way linked or tied together? Like the others already said, there is absolutely no link or tie between Maverick and Sidewinder. The Mav is a dedicated air to ground missile, the other is a dedicated air to air missile. Not a clue. I only responded because you posted in the A-10C section of the forum. However, with the A-10C, I feel confident in saying that many of the instant action missions are located in fairy tale land and have nothing to do whatsoever with real life employment. I suppose the A-10A missions might be similarly, shall we say, "liberal" with the setup they propose. Maybe look at the user files to see if there are better missions.

Looks like this thread should go here: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/241-a-10a-for-dcs-world/ Not sure I follow. What do you mean when you say the AGM-65D is tied to the AIM-9? I know next to nothing about the DCS A-10A, but I'm not aware of any ties between Sidewinder and Maverick, other than maybe the basic seeker technology (Infrared, in case of the AGM-65D). When you mention the range of these missiles, do you refer to the maximum kinetic range or the maximum tracking range? The AIM-9 seeker tries to pick up a heat signature. A fighter flying away from you in full afterburner should be easy to track from a relatively long distance, whereas a jet coming at you (so blocking the line of sight to its exhaust) might only provide a sufficiently strong heat signature at relatively short ranges. Either way, when you find yourself fighting a hostile aircraft in the A-10, something has gone very wrong. Sidewinders are self defense missiles. If you get jumped by a fighter, they're like your last resort to try and get out of the situation alive. But if you ever feel that you should be going after bandits voluntarily - don't! That's not your job as a Hog driver. Your job is to protect the 19 year old kid on the ground.

I understood this a bit differently. The transition from Huey to Chinook sounds like just the backstory and wouldn't mean the player actually has to fly the Huey (though it would actually pretty cool to have such mixed campaigns). And going to Afghanistan could be a second, but separate campaign. At least that's what Baltic Dragon is aiming for with Iron Flag. And players who play several of his campaigns might recognize characters appearing in more than one campaign.

1000%! I think Baltic Dragon has his hands full with a myriad of projects already, but it's definitely something that would be totally amazing.

Great report, thanks! Seeing the same. As far as I can tell, this only happens with 3 x APKWS pods loaded onto a BRU-42 TER. When only 2 pods are loaded onto a BRU-42, or with a single LAU-131, the rockets all seem to leave okay from the external view. And with any rocket type other than APKWS, they also look okay with 3 x LAU-131 pods (but TBH, I haven't cross-checked LAU-68 and all other perceivable rocket type combinations ). Either way, looks like a minor omission on the APKWS rockets in this particular situation. I've filed a report.

So you're happy with Early Access?

a) Be mindful of forum rule 1.16! b) That sounds like a gross misrepresentation of what the manual says. Can you find a reference to the outside air temperature there? Again, be mindful of forum rule 1.16 and don't just post a quote from a manual. If you have evidence, contact a community manager and ask them if it's okay to share your evidence. Let me make two observations in either case. First, the DCS A-10 used to be able to start up just fine with cold outside air temperatures in DCS prior to... 2.9.5? Not sure which version exactly introduced the change. Second, A-10s have been stationed in cold climates, and I have read regarding this very issue that in real life operations, they didn't require any kind of specialized equipment for starting the engines just because temps were at or around freezing.

There is a known and reported bug where the A-10's engines fail to start (as in: the ENG START CYCLE light never goes off) when the outside air temperature is at or around 4 or so degrees. Is that what you're experiencing? If so, yes, it's reported, and I'm waiting for a fix as eagerly as you are.

Awesome! Not sure if that's the be-all end-all answer, but sounds like a very promising correlation.

Track or it didn't happen (a short one, please). For the time being I still have a 2.9.5 installation available to cross-check. In your screenshot, the TGP situational awareness cue is on the outside of the display at the 3 o'clock position. As you've obviously read by now in the linked thread, that is where (among others) AIM-9s and ALQ-131 and ALQ-184 pods might block the TGP's line of sight, and as jaylw314 already alluded to, the DCS A-10C TGP masking isn't directly linked to TGP line of sight, as indicated both by the "M" indication and the fact the TGP went to inertial point track, which also coincides with the laser no longer being able to fire. Note, I can't tell if any of this is actually realistic. From your report, the included screenshot, and anecdotal evidence, it looks like you might simply be misunderstanding how the system has been working for 10+ years. If you can show that there is a change between the previous DCS 2.9.6 and the current DCS 2.9.7, I'll be more than happy to file a report.