Vortex225

I don't know if this will help, but I just made the leap into SweetFX myself. I have a 64-bit version of Win7, two GTX 590s, and an i7 3930k. I just installed PeterP's SweetFX files and Mustang's cloud/lighting/environment mod and my game is orders of magnitude more beautiful than it was before. I will never be able to go back to a vanilla version of DCS. To install, I simply dragged the appropriate folders into my DCS World OpenBeta folder and allowed it to merge and overwrite. I understand many use JSGME, which is fine, but I didn't bother for my open beta installation. Everything ran on the first attempt without any problems. I enabled split screen the first time to ensure SweetFX was working, and then I disabled for actual play. Hope this helps!:thumbup:

Awesome work, Mustang. I'm very grateful for your efforts here. SweetFX really works well with this mod too. :thumbup:

Good to know. What do you use then? IRL?

I must admit that I've been tempted to pursue a multi-monitor setup, but Oculus has changed everything. I'll just wait patiently until it's available. :music_whistling:

It was a good landing, but I would recommend a higher AOA next time. You were at 18-19 right before touchdown, and 20-22 would have allowed you to hit the deck at a lower speed. This, in turn, would allow you to stop in a shorter distance. Thanks for sharing! I'll try and post one of my landings at Batumi tonight.

Thanks!

Is anyone else having problems with F-15C trim? I would like to trim the aircraft for landing, but it doesn't seem to work after the latest beta update.

I'm playing with an unmodified version of the 1.2.8 open beta. What other changes, like the one proposed above, should I be using to achieve an enhanced graphical experience? Should I use SweetFX with DCS?

I did throw this caveat in to avoid concerns about not flaring. :doh: No worries, though; to each their own. I find the flare unnecessary until aerobraking. IMHO, a smoother response is achieved with the throttle vice pulling the stick back for more pitch/AOA. Again, mileage may vary depending on your aircraft configuration and preferences. :thumbup:

This. Configure your attitude to achieve the desired AOA and handle pitch/altitude corrections with throttle only. Remember: power for altitude, pitch for airspeed. The former is really the more important consideration. In my practice runs landing at Batumi with the new F-15C PFM, I don't flare my aircraft before/at touchdown. If you're at 20-22 units of AOA, you shouldn't need to adjust pitch until after touchdown for aerobraking. If my rate of descent is a tad too high, or if my FPM is a tad lower than desired, I'll power up to reduce that vertical velocity. A modest increase in thrust right before touchdown will effectively pad your landing for that perfect runway "kiss." Season to taste based on your specific situation. I can't stress this enough - use AOA to land your aircraft; set it and hold it at the desired value. Then use power for altitude/VV and everything will take care of itself. :pilotfly:

I've tried everything listed in the last few pages of this thread, but nothing has worked. :doh:

This. JDAMs are not ideally suited to targets that require precision down to a few meters. They are quite effective, however, for buildings, bridges, and other static targets for which the GPS precision provided is sufficient. For tank plinking, as described in the flight manual, you're better served by laser guided bombs like the GBU-12/10. As Eddie indicated earlier, slant range errors are only noticeable when the target is far away. As you approach the target, the effect becomes negligible. I recommend you check out ExcessiveHeadspace's video for more details. The images below are his work and are copied from his video.

Me too. However, I wasn't able to get it to work for the open beta.

Have you tested your TM Warthog to verify the pinky switch (PS) if functioning properly (i.e. all three positions register correctly in the device analyzer)? Keep in mind PS forward will set your external lights to a default value, which means the switches on the panel will not affect the actual state of your exterior lights. PS aft will use the settings on the panel.

Does anyone know which altitude is displayed (e.g. MSL) when viewing your aircraft from the F2 external view? I ask because my aircraft altimeter did not match the altitude in F2 view when I'm dialed into QNH (based on a quick test done in the ME). I also flew over some mountainous terrain to compare it to AGL; the F2 altitude definitely did not match my radar altimeter. My ultimate purpose here is to use the right pressure indication for ALT SRC data on the AHCP. Based on the info in this thread, it seems clear I'm interested in QNH to make sure my ownship altitude estimate may be compared properly with target elevation estimates from DTS or the TGP. Thoughts?

Great - thanks again for your help!

Indeed. I wasn't aware of any distinction until I read JayPee's Looking for comprehensive dumb bombing guides thread on CCIP bombing. The following guidance from BlueRidgeDx was what initiated my quest for more information. Although the answers above have helped (specifically that HOT elevations can only be adjusted in integer multiples of 10 from the UFC), it would be great if someone with more experience could add some detail. As for HOT elevation itself, I just found the following post: This might mean it's better to turn DTS off and just use markpoints or waypoints to bomb in CCIP mode. This is particularly true if the HOT elevation resolution is limited to 10-meter increments when entered from the UFC. Some in this thread have suggested this, but I didn't think the CCIP solution would utilize elevation information from a steerpoint. Thoughts?

Thanks again for your help. I tried both approaches, but in each case it does not seem to work. I'm using an example near Batumi. The target is at an elevation of 33 feet; DTS indicates 31 feet. I then hit the DATA rocker to put it into manual mode, then enter the height into the UFC scratchpad and press enter. However, the blinking height indication stays on 30 feet in the HUD. The same is true when I attempt this using your markpoint method; my blinking height shows up as 30 when I hit the data rocker from the laser-derived markpoint height.

Thanks for all of the input, gents! :thumbup: I'm assuming from this point on that "HOT" has two possible meanings: (1) a target elevation entered quickly (i.e. on the fly) - thus "hot" or (2) height of target. In either case, the implications are basically the same for our purposes. I'm familiar with how to read elevation from the TGP, but I'm not so clear on how to use it for CCIP bombing. Based on your description above, it sounds like I can manually enter an elevation. The only way I can think to do this is to use DATA and SEL rockers on the UFC, and in this manner I'm only able change elevation in tens of meters (i.e. 10, 20, 30, etc.). I'm not clear on why TGP-derived markpoint elevation is helpful; to my knowledge, the CCIP targeting solution will not use the TGP data or any markpoint information. I tried to use your TGP-derived markpoint method with a subsequent HOT elevation entry from the UFC, but the elevation still only adjusts in tens of meters. Am I missing something? As an aside, the flight manual suggests that the ENT button on the UFC does the following: "Enters a target elevation update for the current steerpoint." When I press enter, I get a 0D and a 0G on the HUD. Does anyone know what this means? On a related note, should I be selecting a particular altitude source on the AHCP? My intuition is suggesting that a radar-derived aircraft altitude would be more accurate for CCIP bombing than barometric or delta. Thoughts?

Based on the great information provided by some of the folks posting in JayPee's Looking for comprehensive dumb bombing guides thread (e.g. Eddie, Noodle, etc.), I have managed to notably improve my CCIP bombing and canon runs. :joystick: However, one piece of information has remained somewhat opaque. I posted this question in the original thread here, but none of our resident SMEs have responded yet. Since it's buried in a rather long thread, and may be helpful to many other Hog pilots, I thought this question may deserve its own stage. :smartass: In particular, I'm trying to determine if there is a more accurate method of specifying target elevation. By default, the CCIP solution appears to utilize DTS for elevation. However, the thread above made oblique references to HOT elevation entries that are virtually absent from the flight manual. For example: The only entry for "HOT elevation" I could find is on page 205 under the SYSTEM / LASTE Sub-Page subsection. Searching for "target elevation" in the flight manual reveals some guidance on manually modifying the height of the current steerpoint via the UFC. Alas, my attempts to search this forum (and Google) for more robust descriptions haven't been that helpful either. :book: The DCS A-10C Warthog FAQ offers the following reference: Thus, I would like to pose the following question(s) to the experts in our community: what is HOT elevation, when/how would I use it, and is it better than DTS for CCIP bombing and cannon runs? :helpsmilie: tl;dr answer/update:

I'd like to thank all of the SMEs in this thread for their effort and information. I don't post that often, but I certainly attempt to follow the latest tactics, tips, and procedures provided on these forums. This thread is at least one standard deviation above the canonical mean when it comes to adding value to our community and collective Hog-driving skills. I'm especially grateful for the introduction to proper DB techniques, as demonstrated by the guys from the 476th (e.g. Eddie, Noodle, etc.). Their YT tutorials were quite helpful in learning how to execute 45 HADB runs. Having said this, however, I do have one follow-up question regarding target height. In one of the links provided earlier, the following tip was introduced: "Remember to add target elevation in order to convert to MSL. Pro Tip: It's always better to use HOT elevation with the actual target elevation than to rely on the DTSAS Auto Elevation function (often referred to as "DTS")." While I understand that I can enter my own height/elevation for offset markpoints and waypoints, and by extension the current steerpoint, I've never modified the target height when doing CCIP or CCRP bombing runs. Should I be doing this? How would I do this? In the training missions I build in the editor, DTS elevation is utilized by default. The flight manual specifically recommends using DTS elevation as well. With all this in mind, how, what, and why should I be using the HOT elevation? Also, does HOT stand for height of target?

This thread has certainly caught my attention. I was under the belief that the Saitek rudder pedals were the best available on the market. Since I'm not not entirely satisfied with their combat rudder pedals, I would be interested to hear from anyone who has purchased the MFG Crosswind pedals. It wouldn't take much to push me over the edge. I just want to make sure the company is legitimate and that others - particularly the folks on these forums - have been satisfied with their purchases. It would be nice to have some pedals that actually belong next to the fantastic Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS.

This thread was not titled optimally. Here's a tip: TWS is your best friend as an Eagle driver (when wearing AIM-120s). :thumbup:

Not to get OT, but is it really up for debate? While individual pilots were not necessarily "bad," and it's certainly fun to simulate combat between both sides in computer games, there is absolutely no room for debate about who were the good and bad guys in World War 2. The military and political objectives of the Axis forces would be rejected by the vast majority of people and nations today. Where is the debate? No need to engage in a lengthy discussion about historical matters which are beyond the scope of this thread. Nor should we inject modern political biases that are irrelevant to the period. We don't need to expend 3000 words to realize we're discussing semantics. I almost hesitate to write this response. Nevertheless, it's quite simple: WW2 Allies = good; WW2 Axis = bad. Period.

Have you tried dropping two CBU-97s in ripple single? The overlap near the center of the drop line should provide better coverage for the core of the target area. As mentioned before, I also use low altitude HOF values when dropping in windy conditions. Here's a great video I used to get comfortable with the CBUs.