ASAP

Its not just visibile from the outside though. Its very audible from inside the cockpit, which should be fairly easy to add in. There's also a 2 minute cooling cycle after you fire the gun and you can hear a loud clunk from the gun every 30 seconds as its rotating 180 degrees.

I also think there’s a tanker bug. There were plenty of clouds in my scenario and the tanker didn’t intentionally fly into any of them! Totally unrealistic. In seriousness though 180 is reeeeally slow for a big heavy airplane like that at 20K feet. I don’t know if they can actually do that which may be why the sim is wigging out. Have you tried doing it at something like 16K and 250 true air speed? Does it do the same acceleration then? I know real world at high altitudes like 20K feet the tankers will fly min speed in a slight dive which the A-10s would need to be able to keep up to the tanker. I don’t think you can simulate that in DCS though

I usually have it set to 4, try higher numbers to make it slave slower. If that still doesn't do it for you go to the stat page, click next page and slew down to the HOTAS slew switch, then with OSB 8 you can adjust the slew switch sensitivity. That will impact everything the slew switch controls. I personally like it set to 2. Find something that works for you.

To the best of my knowledge the active duty were all flying the A models without PGM capability. Guns, Mavericks, Rockets for marking, Mark 82/84s, CBU (Maybe that would be mission dependent because of ROE and ground commanders intent). If I were going to make a mission based around 2003 weapons i'd rock something like an ECM pod, 2xAIM-9s, pod of WP rockets, pod of HE rockets, 6x TER mounted Mark-82s and 4 mavericks (2 Ds on one lau, and 2 Hs on the other). I've heard flying with LAU-88s and and CBU seperately are like flying with your speed breaks open because they have so much drag so I'd imagine they wouldn't want to carry both at the same time. But I could very well be wrong about that. Also my understanding is that they only cary 2 Mavericks on the LAU-88 was due to concerns about the flaps being damaged as the engine lights off, not the gear. I've heard this was because there was a time when the technique was to leave the flaps in MVR and rely on the Q sensor to raise/lower the flaps based on airspeed so there was a chance the flaps would be down and directly in the exauhst blast of the maverick if the pilot was slow at pickle. That's all anecdotal and I can't find where I read that so take it that for what its worth.

Technically true but could me misunderstood by many here. If you make your TGP SPI the SPI is whatever is at the center of your crosshairs. If you have a point track on a mover the crosshairs are following the target. While technically your spi will be the coordinates at the center of the crosshairs, the coordinates and your Spi are constantly moving in synch with the object you are targeting. This is how a GBU-54 derives velocity when used against a mover. you are correct though that the SPI is the coordinates of the target, and not the actual physical object itself

For weapons employment its pretty much meaningless. It just indicates what point of contrast the TGP is tracking. If there is a small high contrast feature on the vehicle the TGP may lock onto that. If the vehicle has a lot of contrast to the background its moving along it might lock onto that instead. As long as the TGP is looking at the vehicle you want, either a small chunk or the vehicle itself, makes no practical difference to you. The center of the crosshairs is still where the laser is designating, and when you take a mark its still going to be at the center of the crosshairs as well. The mark is no more or less accurate based on the size of that container.

Oh yeah and this song should start playing when you click the button...

Add that to the ground crew comm... Chief clean my windshield and wipe these smudges of my MFCDs!

Based on my one conversation with a strike pilot... "There's never been a knot of airspeed the Strike Eagle couldn't bleed" or something to that effect. It was designed to be a bomb truck that can self escort with an amazing radar and excellent BVR capability. Not designed to get into a turning fight.

The NVGs pilots fly with don't have a gain control either. They gain up and down automatically based on ambient light levels. DCS should simulate that functionality instead.

If only there was a way to model the pilot putting up his hand to block the sun to see it better

Yeah, I saw that too... the PAC is using all the LASTE inputs to null line of sight rates with the target through the SAS. But there isn't anything that would cause a pitch change when setting the switch in the ARM position (at least that I can find). setting the switch to GUN/ARM doesn't engage PAC, or cause anything on the aircraft to actually move, so there's no reason why the elevator trim moves. The first and only time the PAC system sends any output to the flight control surfaces (through the SAS) is when PAC-1 or PAC-2 are engaged with the trigger.

None of that is accurate to real life. Real world pilots fence in with master arm and gun/pac arm. There is no aerodynamic penalty to the PAC like you say. A-10 pilots use the gun as a point weapon, sparying bullets over a large area is viewed by their community as a waist of precious ammo, bullet density on targets is what matters. PAC off strafe is a rare exception to the rule. From what I've heard the pitch change is not accurate to real life. The pilots I've talked to said they never noticed a pitch change there and there is no reason for the elevator trim to automatically move when you arm the gun, since it doesn't actually effect any control surfaces until you engage PAC-1. From reading through a copy of a dash-1 I found, there is no mention of any pitch trim compensation for the Arming of the GUN/PAC. Not sure what DCS based it off of, but its been a part of the game for ever.

china hat aft short isn't cycling to the next pylon it's rejecting the missile. if you have a second missile on the pylon it will step through all the missiles on one pylon before going to a missile on the other pylon.

How close/far are you holding from the target and what altitude are you at? The closer and lower you are the more you're going to have to bank it up to stay over the top of the target which means you are going to mask more. Most the time I've heard people complain about this it is because they are setting themselves up for failure with how they are holding. Also make sure you are in a right hand wheel because that's the side your targeting pod is on.

Basically if the > on the left of the screen is inside the bracket immediately to its right the bomb will make it to the target. If it’s pointing at the bottom part of the bracket that has a bar the bomb will hit the target at the desired impact angle set in the profile page. The vertical steering line should be lined up in the center of the HUD frame (put your GBL on it) for best bomb range. The verticals line is a steering reference only though. As long as you are in LAR the bomb can get to the target.

Lol. I love how often people say “just no” like they are making a solid point while referencing nothing. What is the actual aft CG limit and how high does the difference have to be pray tell? To get more pedantic and say what the -1 actually says… the light means there’s a difference of 750 +- 250 pounds. The -1 just says that if the right tank has a greater than 1000 pounds difference you have speed restrictions to abide by based on your altitude due to pitch sensitivity when flying faster. A fuel imbalance with the left tank heavy will not cause CG problems. the tank gate is obviously not the only Solution (I provided three of them in my previous post). Shutting off the low side boost pumps and splitting the throttles would also work. Those are slower methods, best initiated sooner rather than later… like when you notice the needles for your wing tanks developing an imbalance prior to the wings running dry. It also explicitly states that you should use “differential throttles, boost pump switches, or the tank gate switch as necessary to correct the fuel imbalance.” So your “just no” doesn’t jive with the checklist obviously a trained pilot understands their fuel system well enough to not open the tank gate in an aggressive climb and slosh all the fuel into the right main. But just in case the checklist also cautions against climbing and diving with the tank gate open or leaving it open longer than required to correct the imbalance. Correcting an imbalance is the purpose of the tank gate so it’s odd you’re so vehemently against using it for that purpose. In straight and level flight opening the gate would rapidly equalize the tanks, not exacerbate the problem Anyway I feel this poor horse has been beaten to death already. I only brought it up because while playing with a friend with some real world experience I asked how he does it and he said they are trained to do it the way I outlined above. I thought the community might appreciate the insight into real world ops. To my original suggestion for the checklist, yeah “as required” works great, or just have that step say “fuel indicator -test”

It still has the note saying what should happen when you hold the test button. It just doesn’t have the second note saying to return it to main at the completion of the test.

Well the whole reason I brought up the fuel indicator in the first place was because before my first post I was talking to a current pilot who told me they monitor the tanks that are currently feeding (xternal tanks, then wing, then main). But I realize this is like saying I have a girlfriend who goes to a different school, you wouldn’t know her. Believe it if you want or not If a wing tank is not feeding and proper action is not taken the wing won’t gravity feed until the main tank is nearly empty. At which point the TO says that it MIGHT gravity feed. At this point though your fuel system has already proven unreliable so trust it at your own risk. This is called trapped fuel and it’s possible that it will stay trapped. looking at your mains to determine what is happening in your wings is relying on a secondary indication.

fuel leaks for instance are a much bigger emergency with a far higher likelihood of explosion. Trapped fuel is also a bigger problem because you have less gas available to get home. cg out of limits just gives you a speed restriction at altitudes that it’s pretty hard to exceed anyway. Set crossfeed and use the split throttles/tank gate as necessary to fix it. The wing tanks are not self sealing. If you get shot by small arms and have a slow leak in your wing you’d want to know about it before the wing tank is completely empty. If your first indication is a main feeding when it shouldn’t be dropping it means that the wing tank is completely dry. If you monitor your wing tanks you’d see it dropping faster and you could use the extra couple of minutes to get headed home.

Yeah this is why later versions of the checklist don’t tell you to set it to main. The line in the before start checklist just says to test the gauge.

1) it’s directed by an AFI. 2) Because a wing boost pump failure could result in a trapped fuel condition where you have thousands of pounds less available than what your totalizer is telling you. You want to diagnose that sooner rather than later so you don’t flame out an engine, or have to divert with a fuel emergency 3) relying on a master caution as a first indication of a problem is not how the Air Force generally wants to fly their planes. Also the fuel unbalanced light only comes on once there is already a significant fuel imbalance. 4)Also a wing tank not feeding is what’s going to cause the mains to become unbalanced. And you’ll notice it faster by looking at the wing tanks. 5) Also you can see it earlier and fix it earlier if you look at the wing tanks. 6) if fuel isn’t feeding in your jet properly you have additional concerns than other than just the CG limits 7) two needles pointing at 3.5 for the first half the flight provides no useful information about what the fuel system is doing. Getting a real time indication of how much fuel is in the tanks feeding the engine is far more useful 8)ops checks are mandated right before attacks and air to air engagements (at a minimum obviously, they are done every couple of minutes) those are all times pilots don’t want to have to make extra switch actuations for no real reason. 9) if you have to flip a switch back and forth to get useable info every time you look at a gauge why wouldn’t you just leave it in the position that’s telling you what you want to know 10) again. It’s in an AFI. Pilots don’t have the option to ignore it. And if a wingman reaches wings dry prior to the flight lead calling for an ops check they are required to inform the flight lead. They can’t keep SA on how much fuel is in their wing tanks if their fuel gauge is pointlessly showing full main tanks all the time

What’s the date? These docs change over time. May be one’s more current than the other. but you can’t fulfill the requirements outlined in 11-2A10 if the switch is in MAIN. There’s also no good reason to be in that position because you won’t see the needles move until the wings are dry. Maybe but what would that get you other than less situational awareness of your fuel state? Especially if you’re on the ground with the APU running for during extended ground ops. The resulting fuel imbalance would only be apparent if looking at the wing tanks.

Nope, that’s fleet wide standard. The only mention the fuel quantity indicator gets in the real checklist is “fuel quantity - check” The requirements for the “wings dry” call comes from other procedural guidance documents that applies to all A-10 ops. Also the pilot is required to monitor proper operation of the fuel system and it is not possible to do that sufficiently with the selector is set to main.

The autopilot is trying to fly the jet with rudder and elevator trim only so it is very susceptible to disconnects when things happen that require a lot of trim changes like speed changes and asymmetric drag. with path hold in particular, if you takeoff and set path hold to 10 degrees nose high for instance your airspeed will decay as the jet holds that attitude. At some point the the speed will have changed enough that the AP trim will run out of authority and can cause disconnects. Normally while climbing a pilot would trim the aircraft up so that a constant speed would be maintained and the climb angle would slowly decrease to maintain that speed as you climb into less dense air. Path hold is good for short durations when you need to go heads down for a couple of seconds, but it’s probably going to present issues if you engage it from takeoff all the way up to 20K feet. Although you could disengage, reset climb angle, trim and reengage. Asymetric stores will cause problems as well especially with aim-9s or a massive jamming pod. The shape of the A-10 is prone to yaw buildup where the more the jet slips the more air is hitting the sides of long objects hanging under the wing which means the more it wants to slip requiring greater rudder inputs to counteract it. The YSAS fights a lot of this for you but it’s possible if all the autopilot has is rudder to try and hold heading and a side slip develops it could lead to the AP trimming all the way to the APs authority limit and kicking off. At which point the rudder trim could induce a roll. I’ve heard the autopilot normally flys a bit uncoordinated. It holds heading and attitude pretty well but it’s generally not super comfortable because of the lack of coordination. Also sometimes weird disconnects happen and it’s not always clear why. So theres apparently a couple of possible causes if it’s not random control input issues.