BlueRidgeDx

Disregard...wrong forum.

This is what I see:

Following the link to the beta forum gives me an error message that I don't have access. The link in the purchase confirmation says to register for access...do we have to make a new account?

It all depends on range. With a cold barrel, 80% of GAU-8/A rounds impact within 5 mils of the aimpoint, and 100% of rounds fall within 13 mils. A hot barrel can yield 20 mils for 80%, and 30 mils for 100%. Not so noticeable when you're shooting a T-72 in the ass at 2500ft slant range, but on a 15,000ft slant range LRS attack, it's a big pattern. Also consider dive angle. The steeper the dive, the less effect dispersion has on the bullet footprint. Normal dispersion will have a much larger effect on bullet footprint for a LAS delivery. EDIT: Wags beat me to it. Sorry.

I have nothing but respect for developers that create products like the DCS series, and I'm keenly aware of the kind of decisions that have to be made with respect to feature inclusion. I'm also very aware that sometimes seemingly "easy" features are, in fact, very difficult to implement. So I'm not approaching this like a spoiled gamer. But what I'm hearing is an awful lot of rationalization about why it doesn't really need to be done correctly. Afterall, metric is "superior", and you can just eyeball the difference between a mile and a kilometer, right? Come on... Again, you'd be singing a different song if you had to constantly convert from imperial to your beloved metric when using the ME. The obvious and smart solution is to provide the ability to use either. If the cockpit instruments can display imperial even though the engine uses metric, why can't the ME? I've spelled out very clearly all of the aspects of preflight planning that are affected by not having the correct units available in the ME, but instead of addressing those, people want to focus on the red herring issue of flying AoA on approach. Ok, but you're only half right: The fact of the matter is, you also use a minimum computed airspeed for the base turn, and final approach. Furthermore, if you're landing on a short field you would fly a particular airspeed for a minimum run landing. So yes, airspeed is important for landing. Olgerd already provided a definitive answer, and I thanked him for doing so. I'm going to buy Warthog regardless of the units issue, and I'm going to enjoy the hell out of it.

That's ok. Thanks for the concise answer.

Obviously this is a losing battle - so after this - I'll stop beating the dead horse. Whether it's difficult or not isn't the question. The point is: we don't use metric in the US, and it's not realistic to be forced to use it. Pilot's don't use CWDS to plan their weapon deliveries using metric; they don't use PFPS to calculate the flight plan in metric; and they certainly don't convert from one set of units to another...that situation just BEGS for human error. I bet you'd be singing a different tune if the ME forced you to use Imperial units to the exclusion of all others.

You're right, referencing meters/klicks inflight when talking to a JTAC or ground unit is normal and expected. But someone asked: "What units are used for weight when loading the aircraft, kg or pounds?" And the reply was: "Almost certainly going to be KG still..." Does the ME have such an option? I've asked several times, but no one answered. If it does, then fantastic!

That's too bad. No one has responded to any of my posts on the matter, but as I've said several times; In the US, neither the airplanes, the pilots, the flight planners, the mission planning software, nor any of the manuals or documentation use the metric system. IP's, VRP's, OAP's, flight plan distances, etc., are predicated on Feet or Nautical Miles. Aircraft Gross Weight, structural limitations, fuel loads, fuel burns, and fuel flows are predicated on Pounds and Pounds-per-Hour. Acceleration Check Speed, Takeoff Speed, Approach Speed, and Airspeed Limitations are predicated on knots. It will be hard to realistically plan things if users are forced to use a system of measure that is not realistic for what's being simulated.

Hopefully, DCS will allow us to choose the desired format from the Options screen, thus everyone can have their cake and eat it too. For US aircraft, all of the real-world performance data, all of the manuals, and all of the cockpit instruments and displays are computed, printed, formatted and displayed in Imperial units. Personally, I don't have any desire to use the metric system in the game, and especially not in the mission editor. With few exceptions, the metric system is irrelevant to mission planning, weaponeering, and flying in the USAF.

It sounds like the TGP is going to be modeled to relatively high degree. Does this mean that we'll have to adhere to proper laser tactics as far as attack geometry is concerned? Attack geometry is more critical when buddy-lasing or when attacking a target illuminated by a GLTD, but you can still hose yourself when self-lasing. By the same token, any further word on the implementation of things like GLTD's and buddy-lasing? Based on previous comments, I get the impression that the feature is on the bubble. No one's specifically said it won't be there yet...at least not that I've seen.

One thing I'd like to see is the ability to setup training BFM scenarios with other friendly units and/or wingmen. Specifically, I mean 3/6/9k perch setups with specific Learning Objectives appropriate to the airframe in question (the A-10 in this case). For Offensive BFM training, the defender is often a "limited" bandit that flies a specific profile to aid in training. For instance, in a Guns-Track or Heat-to-Guns excercise, the defender must reverse his turn in order to present the proper sight picture to the attacker. Flying against a predictable bandit from a consistent starting position and energy state helps isolate errors quickly. Flying against the enemy AI drastically diminishes training value due to the unpredictability of the bandit at the merge.

Sorry, I was more ambiguous than I realized. I was referencing the "Euphoria" link posted above, which appears to use technology that goes far beyond "basic" rag doll physics. The video there shows movements and behaviors that look far superior to standard key-framed animations typically seen these days.

^^^^^^ In a fast jet sim, I agree. One of the few places it might add something palpable is in the area of ground crew interaction. I'm thinking in terms of a crew chief, the arming/disarming crew at EOR, hot refueling, etc. But beyond that, the existing infantry capabilities showcased in the footage of GA's trailer seems sufficient for strafing them at 300kt and 5,000ft slant range. This technology would certainly pique my interest if we were talking about using FLIR to watch insurgents plant IED's in a hypothetical DCS:Apache.

Thats certainly doable, but it's not a particularly elegant solution. Again, I understand the time limitations and design decisions a developer has to deal with, so I'm not being critical. Hopefully though, at some point in the future DCS will support some of the additional functions available with the DTC: Weapons Profiles (delivery modes, fuzing, SEM, etc) Air-to-Air Settings (wingspan, TAS, etc) GCAS settings Standard navigation points (local DAFIF waypoints) Specific mission points (Bullseye, SARDOT, IP's, etc) Stereo routes (common flight plans to/from the range airspace, etc)

One for the wishlist, then. Tracks are nice, but lengthy and cumbersome. A simulated VTR tape would be much shorter and to-the-point. But I understand the resource implications could be prohibitive. Maybe in the future...

Wasn't really sure if this should go here or in the Wishlist thread, but here goes anyway: It would be really nice if proper use of the VTR would result in the automatic creation of an .avi that covers only the relevant time period (initial titling, and FENCE in to FENCE out) and cockpit displays (HUD, MAV/TGP/SOI). Just like in the real world, the result would be a condensed video useful for debrief, BDA, and also a nice way to share tutorials and highlight/blooper reels.

Obviously, I have no knowledge of how DCS will handle these capabilities. That said, yes, a low-level loft delivery is a valid tactic in the A-10, but is generally limited due to the low kinetic range of free-fall bombs at typical release airspeeds. On the other hand, the A-10 makes extensive use of low-altitude CCRP loft rockets, especially when marking targets in the FAC(A) role in a high-threat environment.

The 2007 price for a tritonal-based Mk-82 "All Up Round" was $1898.29 according to the Department of the Air Force procurement program. For comparison, in that same year, the Air Force bought 7,261 JDAM kits at a cost of $21,000 each. EDITED to add the JDAM reference.

If my math is right, a level delivery of a Mk-82 at 30,000ft and 280KIAS would yield a max slant range of about 42,000ft or 7nm which equates to an actual bomb range of about 30,000ft or 5nm. I assume that the increased lift provided by the strakes of the GBU-38 would be offset by its maneuvering, so the end result would be roughly analogous to a slick Mk-82.

I'm not sure if the schematic shows it or not, but like "Avilator" said, the GEN switches are more like a consent switch. In this case, you're giving the GCU consent to bring the respective IDG online provided the output is within limits. I'm interested to see how deeply DCS models the electrical system.

I thought the same thing, but a check of the -1CL shows that this is normal. Part of the engine start procedure is to look for the Generator Caution Lights to go out by a specific RPM. On a similar note, in the original startup video (the Producer's Note by Wags), he incorrectly shutdown the APU before turning off the APU GEN. The new startup video corrects that.

I'd explain it in my own words, but I'm not terribly eloquent or succinct. So here's a link to a nice article that should shed some light on the similarities and relationship between Vx and a best L/D descent: http://www.erau.edu/er/newsmedia/articles/wp6.html

Looks and sounds fantastic! Somebody else mentioned it, and I noticed it too; the A-10 flying the overhead sounded very realistic. The engine start modelling looked really nice, and I especially appreciate the finer details like the APU EGT increase during start, realistic FF behavior, and a nice "rollback" once stable idle had been reached. Even the Core (N2) idle speed was correct assuming the temperature was ISA (15c). The only discrepancy I noticed is that the engine Oil Pressure gauges look like they're not hooked up yet.

Any chance we'll be able to use various fuzing options? I don't mean the pilot-selectable nose/tail (HD/LD) settings, but the actual fuzing configuration of the weapon. It would be nice to be able to select from proximity, delayed, or instantaneous fuzing for iron bombs as required by the weaponeering. Arming delays might be a outside the scope of DCS, but functioning delays would add a nice layer of realism. Especially with the diversity of targets available, ranging from troops in the open to bunker/HAS type targets.