SmokeyTheLung

I don't have enough knowledge to say. All I can say is that when I look back at what I "knew" when flying the FC2 A10a and compare that to what I "know" now flying the DCS a10c I can't help but smile... and cry a bit :pilotfly: ...Did I mention that I'm crazy :D

No, did I ever say that? I'm re-reading my post wondering how you extrapolated that. I think I agree with this one... Kinda :D The original post referred to "pilot workload." I guess I'm of the mind that if a pilot doesn't have sweat the small stuff, he'll be more freed up to see the big picture so to speak. IMHO that makes flying and fighting in FC3 fidelity aircraft advantageous (In a competition i.e. who can blow up the most stuff in 20 mins :D) Doesn't make FC3 any less valid as a flight simulation. It's just simulating a little bit less

@ferriwheel Watch the first clip in this video

I'm an air to ground guy all the way, so you'll have to get down and dirty with me on this one :D (for the record I largely agree with your post) This is so hypothetical, that it's a bit silly...But what the heck: Two versions of the A10c are modeled. One a la FC3 and the other DCS. Both are tasked to search for and destroy a target. My guess is that the FC3 pilot won't have to worry about the gimbal limits of his targeting pod, or his Maverick seeker not behaving in a predictable manner, or his EO timer being active, or his safe escape maneuver not being set up properly for his attack, or his elevation being set to the wrong source. Assuming all those little quirks are equalized, the actual attacking part would without doubt be on level ground. Given the fact that I'm one of the few "crazies" out there that likes to use hot elevation and set up my profiles to the letter and do all the crap I see real pilots do in HUD tapes I have to admit I might be a little hard to reach on this one :D

If you're talking about the historical definition of decimate (to kill one of ten) than yeah, that might be about right

AFAIK the CBU-87 is designed to be effective against armor. The bomblets are a combination of shaped charge and fragmentation. The CBU-97, on the other hand, is a thoroughbred armor killer... With fragmentation as an afterthought As to the performance in DCS, you can kill armor with the 87. You need to set the HOF and RPM very low though, in order to get a really tight footprint and concentration of the bomblets

I think I tend to agree. What about a theoretical Flaming Cliffs a-10C vs DCS a-10c? (btw, there was no a10c in the 1970s) I think the latter would be at a distinct disadvantage. ...Admittedly a pretty "out there" and useless comparison. :D But maybe you get my point That's certainly true, but what about sensors and weapons that have more nuanced modeling. More quirks and things to worry about...I'm sure those same quirks might also give a DCS version a serious advantage in some situations (Assuming we are talking about a hypothetical FC3 A-10C vs DCS A10C)

Really nice shots HungaroJET. It would be nice if ED released the old beta version to the public. It looks amazing from high altitude. The mission editor gets a bit buggy but despite the issues it's such a nice change of scenery.

Also, if you're flying erratically and way off bore sight with the MAV, slew speed has nothing to do with how much the seeker head appears to "jump" around. It's a function of the seeker gimbals not being able to keep up with aircraft manuvering

I think that's desirable. Everyone is different though, I for one set slew speed via the stat page to 0.5 (TAD cursor, TGP, TDC). And always set my MAV to 1. I'm using the HOTAS warthog and swear by those settings...but I fly with plenty of guys who use the same hardware but do the exact opposite with slew speed.

Damn, I didn't have a chance to ditch in that beautiful water yet!

+1

The most noticeable difference to me is the effect of speed on the appearance of the tracer in real life vs DCS. When shooting real tracers they look like streaks in the sky right out of the barrel, after they ricochet they slow down and look brighter and more circular. When shooting in DCS they look circular and orb like right out of the barrel, after they ricochet you start to notice the streak effect ED put on the back of the tracer. It's tough to say on the brightness. In WWII many special tracer rounds were made for aerial combat, including extremely bright ones check this one out...

Thanks for the tip. With this method the SPI still does not carry over to the new Mark Z (with the last Mark Z actively hooked and set as SPI). The hook disappears (does not jump to new Mark Z) but the SPI remains where the last Mark Z was. I have to test it a bit more, as I type I realize I was still in mark mode. Might work differently in mission or flight plan mode

DCS better resembles realitity on that front You can do a couple of things to make life easier: * Get in the habit of ground stabilizing after every slew (even the tiniest adjustment) * Line up your Maverick attack so that the wagon wheel (Mav HUD symbol) is close to your TVV. The Mav seeker will be more predictable like this * Use your TGP to line up your shot...yawn :D

:megalol:

I think it looks ridiculous too. Hopefully they will fix that

If they're kicking up dust far away from initial impact they're API rounds. The effect of bullets hitting the ground is just unrealistic and misleading in this case. HE rounds never ricochet in DCS afaik

Hopefully all you have to do is what was suggested a couple of posts ago... Not re-install DCS world in it's entirety

A good reference (a bit old though) as to what happens when the Maverick seeker attempts to lock a building @ 1:55 The tracking gate clearly can't expand enough. And the pilot(s) obviously didn't pickle

Agreed

Thanks, As to the Maverick... The in game Mav will track much larger objects (such as static buildings) Also, Bunker 2 is a square bunker (compare to bunker 1 which is a camouflaged "organically" shaped object which incidentally you can lock with the Mav) with clearly defined edges. You know far more than I on the subject, but I'm afraid that a lot of objects would have to get looked at if your statement is correct.

They probably don't work anymore. It's very common for missions to break after an update. Not sure if they'll be fixed or not.

If it bothers you use HEI, those don't ricochet. They hit the ground and go bang:D

This could definitely be the way the real thing behaves. I have seen a fair amount of RL hud tape that would indicate that real pilots use Mark Z a lot in training (You see the target sans pipper with no steer box, pilot lines up and shoots and as he pulls away the steer box appears over the target.) Just seems kind of off that this will only work before you place any markpoints