ASAP

It’s NVG compatible, just doesn’t show up as well from what I heard. The filter is easily damaged by direct sunlight though.

I’m not sure there’s any error at all. Doing low angle bombing like the OP is doing in the video is already inherently very sensitive to elevation error, pickle placement and release timing. The bombs didn’t miss by much. If anything I think the problem is that the terrain is rapidly changing in that area. The DTS doesn’t have every square foot of the earth mapped out, it is calculating an average elevation based on “stakes” in the ground around the target coordinates. So some error will exist in elevation which makes for some inaccuracies. Use the elevation in the targeting pod and/or drop at a higher angle where the elevation errors will impact accuracy less.

I’m not sure how DCS does birdstrikes but that’s not what I’d expect from one. I would think you would get some other bad stuff along with it, possible fire indications, high ITT, rapid rpm drop, rpm freezing. In general a bunch of bad indications, not just the engine flaming out and winding down peacefully. That is what I’d expect from fuel starvation, like pulling the fire handle or something like if you left the boost pumps off and did some aggressive negative Gs (although they suction feed just fine unless you do some real hiyaka maneuvers). I’d start with checking engine, fire handle and fuel/air control bindings to make sure it’s not your controls.

The only timer is the fuel totalizer. was the engine failure preceded by anything? Master caution, low oil pressure, high ITT, etc… do you have the fire handle mapped to anything? Accidentally hitting that will kill an engine.

Well DSMS load shouldn't stop a physical switch from switching, so it definitely sounds like a bug... but I'm even more curious now, how do you incorporate it into your ground ops? I mean what are you checking by flipping that switch? and how does it stop a takeoff roll? I thought that switch was there pretty much exclusively for a maintenance function.

Steps should be, 1) make mav SOI, 2) hold DMS up, 3) slew to target ,lock and fire

I agree it’d be really cool. But… No operational A-10 has them. And they can’t carry them yet. That’s a picture of test just meant to verify the aircraft can safely carry them without it causing any issues to the airframe. eagle dynamics has been working on an existing radio for years. I doubt they will get the newest weapon the A-10 doesn’t even have yet to us before the operational aircraft.

Not it shouldn’t if you set QTY 3 you’ll get three bombs. System is working correctly. If you want 6 bombs select rip pairs / QTY 6 the quantity is the quantity of bombs not the quantity of pairs of bombs. RIP pairs just means it will release two at a time, wait a few milliseconds and then release a another pair, wait, release, etc… In your case it performed correctly. it dropped the first two at the same time, one from each TER, and the third a few milliseconds later. When bombs fall off TERs they alternate between symmetrical TERS (not stations 5/7). So if TERs are on 4/8 and you rip pairs you’d get the center bombs from both TERS. Then the next pair you’d get the left bombs, and finally the right bombs. If you dropped rip single you’d get 4 center, 8 center, 4, left, 8 left, 4 right, 8 right.

The markpoint shows up in the waypoint page. So just press the number of the waypoint you want and then press the top left LSK should jump back to it

Big airplanes and fighters work that totally different with regards to fuel planning. A tanker can take off, fly to an area, give gas, and fly for hours on end, come home and land, all without a full tank. They also know what altitude they will be at and can accurately calculate fuel burn rates. Fighters have to take off, drive to a MOA, which are rarely right over the base, and then fight until bingo, which will invovle being in max a lot. If they are going to get worthwhile training they need all the gas they can get. I could be wrong, but I thought they have other forms of explosion suppression materials in the wing tanks, so I wouldn't think it would be a big deal. Otherwise they'd have to take off and fly around for quite a while before they could go kill something. That just doesn't sound very "attack pilot" to me.

I’m pretty sure it’s generally full fuel every time. Unless your at a base at high altitude and it’s super hot outside and takeoff distance starts to become a factor. the jet is designed to be able to fight with a full tank. The only thing carrying less fuel would buy them is less training time. big exception is the demo team. There’s a video they put out where right after takeoff he says he’s only got like 1800 lbs of fuel total which explains how he can whip the jet around like he does during the demo.

Sorry, I'm not the best artist in the world. Flight lead is blue, wingman is red (normally reserved for the bad guy I guess, but my kids stole my markers, so this is what I got). Based on what was written above, here is how I interpret that and would draw it out. I'm making assumption that this is done from flying in a line abreast formation. 1) They are flying straight ahead in line abreast when the lead calls "circle". 2) Lead starts an aggressive turn into WM turning inside the formation, WM drives straight ahead and watches FL at this point (lines and angles are not exactly to scale looking at it now FL's line 2 should have overturned another 45 degrees or so). 3) once FL's nose passes through the WM, the WM starts a much gentler turn toward the FL. When WM starts his turn, the FL reverses his own turn back toward his wingman (FL would delay reversing his turn and/or play out how hard he is turning to set the spacing between the two in the circle.) 4) Now FL and WM have started their circle, they flow out to the correct spacing. 5) Circle is established, now they can get a rotating 360 degree lookout so a mig can't sneak up on one without being threatened by the other. (right image)

No worries mate. I can see how people read my comments and think I’m trying to be confrontational sometimes. I’m just another guy who really likes this game and I’m a bit of an A-10 enthusiast. I’m never trying to argue, I’m just excited to discuss a topic I find really fascinating. I wish I could fly them myself. Instead I play this game, I do a lot of reading and have the pleasure of having a few A-10 pilot friends. The only point I was trying to make is that the pilots make sure they take things like this TGP jump issue (if it’s accurately modeled) into account and know how to safely use their weapons without this impacting things. Sometimes it seems like engineers give the military less than perfect equipment, but adapting and overcoming those challenges is kind of the military’s whole thing.

Interesting, never noticed that before. I read the 80% thing, and I never bothered to look at the brakes in a dive. I'll eat my humble pie on that one. I have no idea if the game is accurate or what I read is. I agree. I would definitly think its a rare exception to the rule. My understanding is when pilots do any kind of diving deliveries its not just "point your nose at the ground and let 'er rip" They are actually trying to meet some specific parameters for dive angle and airspeed for lots of reason (safety is one of the big ones) and being on the right bomb triangle. Speed brakes would only be used if you are way above speed and trying avoid being too fast.

I've been in the military for the last 17 years. Not that it is at all relevant to the topic of the TGP's gimbal unwind. Like this quote below ago that I was responding to? I get it, your very tough. This is a video game that is a simulation of a real world airplane. We are in a forum where people discuss that airplane and how it flies in the game and in real life. If you are this irritated by discussions of what airplanes do in "real life" Don't post an opinion about what they do in "real life" and get upset if someone wants to discuss it.

Pilots are also trained to know the characteristics and behavior of their targeting pods. This isn't a problem in real life because they use real world tactics that account for this kind of stuff. Its only an issue for DCS users because we don't know or use real world tactics.

Pretty sure that's not true. The speed brake is limited to 80% in flight and 100% on the ground. The wing is plenty strong enough to withstand the stress. I've heard somewhere that the speed brake will be forced closed, or you cannot open them if you are going at extremely high speeds close to the barber pole, but that's because of aerodynamic force overcoming hydraulic pressure available. Can't find a source that states that anywhere, so feel free to believe it or not. But I'm fairly certain there's no in between limits based on airspeed , its purely "is there weight on wheels or not" with how much the jet will try to open them. I've heard there are times when they would open the boards. when doing high angle guns passes they can get going very fast, at least cracking the boards open isn't unheard of.

For the same reason you don’t have one switch that turns on every piece of electronics in your house all at once. You want to be able to manually decide what you want to turn on and off. Also if something breaks you want to be able to isolate it and turn it off without causing problems. The kind of automation you are talking about comes with a lot of interconnection that makes things more complicated, costly, and more difficult to troubleshoot. Also it makes maintenance on the jet a lot easier which means it can be done faster which means the jets can fly more missions which means they can kill more stuff. That is very important in war. More modern doesn’t always mean more complex and automated.

My understanding is that they are taking off with full gas unless the weight is a factor for a safe takeoff. If they have to offload fuel they’d hook a fuel truck up to the single point refueling port and offload fuel.

I was able to find a copy of the A-10 dash 1 online. Not allowed to repost it here, but the first line of the section on servicing has a note that says to refuel the tanks immediately after flight to the max extent possible to avoid the issue of water condensation. The Air Force does routinely refuel the jets after flight. I’m sure it’s a very overly conservative precaution. also this solution is obviously only practical for small airplanes that always take off with a full tank of gas. It obviously wouldn’t make any sense to do this with an airliner. That’d use so much fuel and also the airplane would be well over max weight in many configurations. I’m sure they solve the problem a different way for jets that sit around and don’t fly for long periods of time.

True. I would imagine the fuel trucks and equipment probably have some inspection schedule or something to minimize that risk. Immediate refueling is just one way to help mitigate the risk, not the end all be all. I remember reading there were numerous F-86 crashes in the Korean War because of water contamination in the fuel trucks but I can’t remember specifics and my google search is coming up empty *shrug*.

Not sure how it is in other Services but the Air Force have POL guys (petroleum, oil, lubricants) that have to take samples from all the fuel tanks and analyze samples taken from the jet on a regular schedule to make sure the fuel is good to go, that way the pilot can focus on killing bad guys. To be clear I have no idea how quickly water contamination would be an issue in the A-10 (if at all) or any other jet, or how often the fuel gets sampled. I have just always heard that as a general best practice for any aircraft is to leave it with the tanks full.

because when fuel leaves the tank it is replaced by air. Even with tank inerting there is some amount of water vapor that is in the air. When gasses get colder they can hold less water molecules and they condense. That’s certainly not the only reason to keep tanks filled. Overall convenience for the maintenance squadron and having he jet ready for the next go is also a big reason. here’s a link to a website where you can read all about fuel contamination. (https://www.aircraftsystemstech.com/2017/04/aircraft-fuel-system-servicing.html#:~:text=The water vapor in the vapor space above,However%2C time is required for this to happen.)In the military this is more an issue for POL guys and maintenance to worry about than line pilots. Most civilian guys starting out in small planes are used to regularly checking the fuel sumps pre flight specificity looking for water and other contaminants. here is the relevant paragraph from that link if you don’t feel like clicking on. The bold font for emphasis is my own: “water can enter a fuel system via condensation. The water vapor in the vapor space above the liquid fuel in a fuel tank condenses when the temperature changes. It normally sinks to the bottom of the fuel tank into the sump where it can be drained off before flight. [Figure 1] However, time is required for this to happen. On some aircraft, a large amount of fuel needs to be drained before settled water reaches the drain valve. Awareness of this type of sump idiosyncrasy for a particular aircraft is important. The condition of the fuel and recent fueling practices need to be considered and are equally important. If the aircraft has been flown often and filled immediately after flight, there is little reason to suspect water contamination beyond what would be exposed during a routine sumping.An aircraft that has sat for a long period of time with partially full fuel tanks is a cause of concern” To be fair a military pilot wouldn’t check this. The crew chief and fuels guys worry about all this. I’d wager airline pilots also aren’t taking their own fuel samples either

It’s a feature (although not tremendously useful if you ask me). You can put a steerpoint number in there and it will use that coordinate when you drop IFFCC SPI. Or you can just leave it at the default value of 9999 and drop it steerpoint SPI on the exact same coordinates. Plus now you can use the weapon profile on any target vs just one.

Yeah I tried to find a breakdown but that was the best I could find. I wonder if the Air Force hasn’t bothered to do any more testing because the gun proved itself against the Iraqi tanks so well that no further testing was necessary.