Snoopy
-
Posts
6772 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
19
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Snoopy
-
-
On 7/27/2025 at 2:51 PM, Yurgon said:
The A-10A did not have any autopilot at all. Pilots crossing the Atlantic en route to the middle East in 1990 for Operation Desert Shield had to hand-fly many hours in lose formation with tankers. What fun that must have been!
The Low Altitude Autopilot with its fairly basic modes is thus a big step forward and allows pilots to spend more time heads down and focus on the mission.
While I'm not sure if it actually played a role, USAF leadership was never a fan of the A-10 and has tried many times to get rid of it. The request for additional funds might not have gone down well with them.
Plus there are probably technical reasons.
None that I know of.
Just to clarify, are you mad at Fairchild Republic or at DCS? Because DCS is a simulation, and adding an autopilot that doesn't exist on the real aircraft would put it in fairy tale land. And criticism towards the aircraft's manufacturer is a bit ill-placed in a forum about its simulation.
Small correction…the A-10A didn’t initially but with LASTE came auto pilot after Desert Storm.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, TheSkipjack95 said:
You can fix this by using scenery objects removal trigger zones, but yeah I would like to have the highway strips function like airports, I think Kola does that already.
True but that also doesn't work 100% of the time in MP.
-
On 7/23/2025 at 3:46 PM, Tarres said:
No. The gateway is present (WiP) in the A10C2.
The A10C (first version) doesn’t have an Arc-210 so no gateway is available so only the SADL datalink must be functional.
The bug is more related with the use of the eprls on/off code that enables or disabled the “datalink”. When the A10C was launched it was a “standalone module” so no other DL was implemented.
Now we have 3 or 4 different DL and the eprls code now enables or disabled the DL “all of them”.
This is a bug report for the A10C, the first one, without the ARC-210 and the associated gateway.
It's been long time but IIRC that's incorrect the gateway was around before the ARC-210 was added to the real jet.
Even if I'm not remembering correctly I think ED could put their resources to better use than to fix something that isn't that big of a deal like have them model the actual gateway so we can see client F-16s or F/A-18s (and maybe add some missing TAD & HMCS symbology:)).-
2
-
-
47 minutes ago, draconus said:
Because their project manager selected other priorities for the team to work on. I try to avoid saying how easy it is to do though.
And also from this very thread:
Yes I can read but I'm sorry referencing a response from 2022 ....3 years ago with no updates on status since isn't valid, at least to me.
Anyway, based on your responses to me this morning if it's so easy to add the lighting like you are insinuating ED not having it added to the NTTR map by now is ridiculous, other priorities or not.
ED can't get timely updates to Iraq or Afghanistan out, no way we're getting any updates to the NTTR map. -
24 minutes ago, draconus said:
Maybe certain features, yes, like high res mesh, but we're in the lighting thread and I'm sure because lighting visibility is just a number in the config and dynamic lights work independtently of the map used.
Although I agree with you in principle If it’s so easy than why hasn’t it been added almost 4 years after PG?
-
3 hours ago, draconus said:
There's no "tech" that prevents updating the map lighting, no excuses.
Really how are you so sure ED has said in the past certain new features/tech for new maps can’t be done to old maps like the NTTR and Caucuses.
-
The NTTR map is basically abandoned and likely such old “tech” that the only way it gets the latest map features/tech is to start over. Although I would enjoy that. Especially if the map was expanded to include the UTTR up north and other key military locations that should be there now and the coast of cali I don’t see that happening.
-
So what you're saying is you don't want the gateway modeled in DCS so the A-10 can get Link 16 equipped aircraft data (which to be fair and to your point right now only AI aicraft data is shared not client)?
This is the first time I've seen someone report a bug for a feature most want to actually work (i.e. have the gateway modeled so SADL and Link 16 equipped aircraft can talk)
-
Track? I’ve never had this occur
-
On 1/1/2024 at 10:50 PM, ASAP said:
From what I've observed in the actual sim the trim is realistic in DCS
This, I’ve spent a few hours in the realms on and talked to many A-10 pilots over the course of my career and they all say they are constantly trimming the jet.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:
A Sniper Pod will required a Suite 8 A-10C.
That’s incorrect we carried the sniper all the time in suites older than 7+ when HMCS was introduced. The A-10C never stopped being able to carry it we just didn’t it.
17 hours ago, Mad Dog 762 said:Looking back through my pics it looks like the Fort Smith and Moody Hawgs were the ones most often carrying the Sniper.
We carried sniper only at Moody until around 2012ish.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Mad Dog 762 said:
Well, I'll get you guys a pic next time one flies over my back yard.
Cool, all I know is the units I've been a part of and/or visited the last few years aren't using them (Moody, Whiteman, & DM). And soon you won't get to see it in your back yard at all since they're divesting their A-10s soon IIRC.
On the topic of DCS though it isn't going to matter we aren't getting it.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Victor3 said:
Just my humble opinion, but if it was used as an option on the real AC why not make it available as an option on the DCS version??
Likely because it's not a plug and play from one airframe to another, even on the real jets. ED does "just enough" to keep the A-10C II viable (how long have we been waiting on the in-cockpit pilot) so I wouldn't expect any additions. Heck we can't even get a simulated gateway to share network information with client Vipers or Hornets (but we can see AI viper & hornet network data last I checked) they're not going to invest the time to develop the Sniper for the A-10C.
-
4
-
-
On 6/5/2025 at 9:51 PM, Mad Dog 762 said:
A-10C's fly with the Sniper Pod every day. It is probably more common than the litening these days.
That’s incorrect the Sniper pod hasn’t been used regularly in the A-10 community since around 2012.
On 6/7/2025 at 5:03 PM, Mad Dog 762 said:I live near a A-10 base (190th FS) and I see them all the time. There is still a mixture of pods, and I would say more Sniper than Litening these days.
At Moody now and at Whiteman for 2.5 years and I can tell you that isn’t the case at either of these bases.
-
2
-
-
v303 Fighter squadron Elephant Walk last night before we broke up into our separate flights to knock out student training sorties in B-Course and MQT.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Muchocracker said:
and as mentioned in replies above. It is not modelled.
Yes I know bro, I've talked to Nineline multiple times over the years on it. Was simply clarifying your statement on what capabilities should exist for Link-16 and SADL to communicate.
-
On 4/12/2025 at 7:04 AM, Muchocracker said:
The A-10's SADL is not link-16 bro. They are entirely separate tactical datalink's and dont cross-talk. You are seeing him because he's being tracked by an AWACS and you're getting that donated track over L16.
Technically they can through a gateway
-
-
6 hours ago, Avalanche110 said:
Yes, other departure and approach procedures are planned, Including the A-10 VFR departures.
Thank you!!
-
1
-
-
Very nice, will other VFR departures such as A-10 VFR north and west be added eventually?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:
You can use it for now by using "take off from ground" instead of "take off from ramp" and placing the jets on the ramp or on open spots or helo spawns. There are two hangars in which you can fit the A-10 inside and pretend you're starting in a shelter, but you'll also have to place it there by using "take off from ground". Also, there's a couple of positions where you can put the aircraft in front of a shelter.
It's a bit of a bummer that the shelters are literally one size too small, but the base is workable.
Well aware of that but doesn’t fix the fact the HAS is to small from what they actually are.
-
f-4 reference showing the HAS on the western part of Spang are to small.
instead of focusing on the A-10 let’s focus on the HAS not being the correct size.
-
5
-
-
People need to stop focusing on the A-10 and the fact that the HAS on the western part of the airfield are to small. Yes I referenced the A-10 not fitting in my bug report but it is more about the HAS being to small and used the A-10 as a reference.
-
2
-
-
41 minutes ago, western_JPN said:
ah ... how about the YEAR of the map module ?
This is Cold War Germany map --- focusing 1980s.A-10's moving to Spangdahlem was 1993 or 1994 .... after German reunification, wasn't it ?
I'm not sure when western area hangers were built in bigger size .... already in 1980s ?
They didn't build new HASs for the A-10s but thanks for playing LOL
38 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:From 1985:
Looks like the same hangars.
Correct and thanks for the picture. Marked as correct as is so guess we're stuck with what we got.
-
2
-
SADL and EPRLS ON/OFF
in Bugs and Problems
Posted
To be fair the aircraft itself doesn't have a gateway function the AWACS and other assets do. You're also making assumptions based on limited or no data. ED folks have said the gateway is modeled others have said it's not so who knows what is/isn't actually going on. Personally I think if we can't see client aircraft data on the TAD through the gateway we shouldn't see AI aircraft data. Keep it the same for both then it removes any confusion.