arteedecco

Hmm... I may not have given it enough time. I'll have to give'r another try. It was a moment I'd like to keep for sure :) Thanks for the response.

Newbaroo question here, so sorry about that. I'm trying to watch the track (.trk) file from a multiplayer mission where I deadsticked the plane in after a triple CBU obliteration of a poor Shilka (Grreeeaaattt success!!); I neglected to pay any heed to my Master Caution warning me of my nil fuel status. Anyhow, when I try to replay all I get is the wonderful F10 map. Not quite the highlight reel I was hoping for. How on earth do I view my aircraft and other views? Many thanks. I mean... what's the point of flying if you can't look __t hot doing it right!? :)

Too bad. Oh well, better to get some of the kinks worked out and interoperability w/ BS buttoned up. But I do like the idea. BTW, I haven't seen anything out there about this, but are there plans to release an SDK, or some detailed documentation on interacting with all the exposed .lua scripts? Would be good help to those of us interested in mod'ing. Then again, I wouldn't consider flying around in a light, single-engine (reciprocating) aircraft, armed primarily with WP over severely hostile territory a real plausible solution either. War has a way of driving previously unthinkable improvisation. Or using an A-10 as a fire bomber. Anyhow, my arguments are somewhat different in nature and I tend to agree with your summation. Why don't you like Carlo? I didn't realize he was notorious! Out of curiosity, what is your background?

Yeah, in Carlo Kopp's article that I linked earlier he details the interaction of the RC-135, JSTARS, and semi-dedicated SEAD aircraft like the F/A-18c via datalink sharing of emitters. Crazy stuff. Well.. FWIW, I vote for adding the HARM to the A-10c available payloads. Seems like a lot of missions (and fun!) are designed w/ A-10c pilots providing their own SEAD. Would be a cool addition IMO even if it's not necessarily true to RL as we know it today... could change in the next conflict.

Good point. I think the aircraft has to have some ability to communicate w/ the HARM, but I've heard rumor that A-10s were equipped with HARM, maybe even just as a test. This source seems pretty comprehensive on the HARM and all the various modes: http://www.ausairpower.net/API-AGM-88-HARM.html A quote from the ausairpower.net article: The thing I noted from that writeup was that the HTS allows the HARM to fire with position info on an emitter and then acquire the emitter enroute, increasing range potential of the weapon.

HARM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM HTS - HARM Targeting System http://defense-update.com/products/h/HTS.htm New, "sniper" pod http://defense-update.com/directory/sniper-xr.htm As was mentioned previously the aircraft carrying the HARM does *not* require radar. However, it does require a targeting pod (HTS, or "Sniper" pods; see above). I don't believe the TGP on the A-10C will suffice and assume it just doesn't have the RWR sensors / processors. The symbology used on the HTS MFCD page uses the same emitter representations as the RWR. From what I've read, it is not enough to simply patch the RWR to the HARM as the HARM uses GPS position to prosecute it's targets. Note that the RWR does not give the pilot range to target, simply azimuth and radar mode indication (inner ring). The HTS is essentially more capable of determining position of the emitter in relation to the aircraft including range. However, there's no reason the HARM couldn't be fitted to the A-10C, including the HTS, or adding HTS capability to the TGP potentially, though that doesn't seem to have been done in RL. As other people have stated the A-10 performance (or lack of) pretty much makes it an airframe that wouldn't be employed in a manner that would put it in the SAM threat environment w/out cover from SEAD a/c. However, I might argue that constantly having 2 AIM-9s on the wing is almost more useless, IMO. Yes, the A-10 has some air-to-air kills (I know of one against a helo), but the one I've read about / heard about was a GAU-8 kill. Frankly, if I was buzzing around in the A-10 I would feel a lot better if at least one ship in the flight had some HARMs on it. They can be fired 180 degrees off azimuth, though they bleed a lot of energy, but at least it gives you a chance. Seems like most enemies we're fighting nowdays have been relegated to MANPADs, which a HARM is completely useless against, so I guess you could go either way on my argument for HARMs on A-10s. Seems like in Kosovo, it would have been nice, or the early days of any invasion when IADS are still somewhat in place and there's a potential for sleeper SAM sites to pop up and target friendly flights.

Whether or not the CBU-105 has seen more action than the one account in 2003 is inconsequential to this discussion, though it would be an interesting topic as a separate thread in the correct section of the forums. I think the main thing here is, in the interest of improving this awesome SIM, I felt like the results of the 97 / 105 on buildings was disproportionately destructive. I've really appreciated the discussion surrounding the game's damage model as that is really what we're talking about here. Obviously working on improving the game is a series of cost (time) / value decisions, so I completely understand the predicament. Refactoring the damage model is no small task. However, it seems to have been insinuated that there is a potential for reworking the damage model down the road at some point. I would strongly encourage that effort. To me this game has two major aspects, 1.) Realism of aircraft modeling (flight dynamics, instrumentation, systems, ...), 2.) Combat modeling (weapons, targets, reactions of weapons on targets). Many SIMs have done the first point pretty well and I think it's safe to say that the time and effort ED put into this SIM is evident every time I go through the startup procedures for the aircraft and fly it around. It truly is amazing. The second point is also pretty effectively accomplished. It took me several months of intense play to get to the point where I was even aware enough to realize the subtleties of how targets react to taking damage. However, ED has set the amazing standard of being a part of the community, absorbing feedback, and making improvements, which I applaud. It makes the game experience so much richer and it makes me excited each time a new release is coming out. With that said, returning to my original post, it seems to me that the CBU-105 exposes an area in this amazing SIM (damage model) that could stand to be on the slate for improvement in a future release. After all, it is the subtleties about a game that make it timeless. ED has already hit so much of that, but as someone who is truly in love with this game, I would be remiss if I didn't talk about ways to make it even better. I would be interested to hear what the feasibility of implementing a damage model that considered the difference between a CBU skeet hitting a building and a 500 lb Mk.82. The game already has database objects for each object in the game, which I've reviewed in the Scripts/database/ directories in the install directory. When the game runs, it builds a large global table "_G" containing just about everything used in the game, from function references to individual vehicle references. Would it be possible to simply say, if object X is hit by Weapon Y, check to see (a value in the table) if a modifier should be applied to the damage taken by object X based upon Weapon Y's damage type and object X's armor / structure type? Thanks again for all the good thoughts! One of the reasons I love this game is the interaction of the community and developers. Thanks so much! Bombs away! :)

Ah, good to know. Still think they're effect on buildings is too much.

I'm beginning to feel that the CBU-105 when set to an HOF (Height Of Fall) of 3,000 is pretty much a "cheat" in the game. I suppose that statement is a bit inflammatory, but let me explain. For those who aren't too familiar with the CBU line of weapons, there are two categories of Cluster Bomb Units (CBUs) available in the game: Anti-infantry / soft target (e.g. Urals, UAZs, Troops, and the like) CBU-87 CBU-103 [*]Anti-armor / armored targets (e.g. tanks and APCs) CBU-97 CBU-105 You can also split things up according to "dumb" vs. "GPS" as well: Dumb (free fall once released) [*]GPS (guide to SPI that was designated prior to release) CBU-103 CBU-105 All cluster bombs operate using the same basic design, which is that when the canister reaches it's HOF (Height Of Fall) it bursts open and releases a horde of tiny bomblet submunitions. These bomblets vary depending upon the type of CBU you're using, but generally get more and more sophisticated as you move from CBU-87 to CBU-105. If you don't already know this, you can set the HOF for the canister for each CBU loaded on the aircraft. You do it via the DSMS, using the INV (Inventory) OSB selection, select the station you wish to edit, select the weapon type (e.g. "CBU-XXX"), adjust the HOF setting by repeatedly pressing the HOF OSB (max is 3000 then it cycles back to the default 500), then select the LOAD OSB. Now, when you bring up the DSMS status page on your MFCD that shows the various stations loadouts for the aircraft, select the station you updated, and note the weapon Profile page shows the updated HOF you selected. The GPS guided CBU's (103 and 105) are dropped just like a GBU-38 (500 lb.) and a GBU-31 (2000 lb.). Easiest way is to designate a target on your TGP, use the TMS forward long to make the TGP your acting SPI. Check the User Manual (in your Doc/ directory in your game install folder) for the full details. So, if you haven't already, try setting a CBU-105 to an HOF of 3000 and drop it over a group of buildings, armor, or any array of vehicles / troops. Carnage. I have been avoiding the CBU-105s for some reason up until this point, but last night I decided to fly on =Iron Angels= server, Op. First Strike (awesome mission). I saved a CBU-105 for the second EWR site in the mountains and one CBU-105 for the Chemical facility (both set to HOF 3000). Results: EWR: all trucks, all APCs, and all troops obliterated (Tunguska up the hill was not under bomblet dispersal pattern and lived) Chemical Facility: entire facility leveled (including buildings) The second result form above is where i started to speculate that perhaps the CBU-105 was modeled perhaps just a little bit more powerful than it actually is. I have heard that the individual submunitions (bomblets) of the CBUs are not modeled individually to save servers / clients from lagging / crashing. To mimic the sophisticated bomblets of the CBU-105, each of which have their own IR sensors and Radar altimeters to guide them to targets, the damage of the CBU-105 has been increased substantially. IMO, it seems a bit much, as it leveled a radio antenna, all tanks (chemical tanks, not "tank" tanks), and buildings at the chemical facility. It seems a bit of a doomsday device to me. Plus it usually has no trouble killing all troops in the blast area, which I suppose is fairly believable. I also thought the CBU-105 had significantly less bomblets than the CBU-87 and 97s, which would make explosions further apart within a blast area for a CBU-105, though each blast would be more accurate due to the capabilities of the bomblets. I would stipulate that the CBU-105 damage model should be tweaked a bit. Alternatively, perhaps it would make more sense to increase the hitpoints of buildings, especially hardened bunkers to avoid destruction by CBUs. In First Strike there are ammunition bunkers (hardened structures), which are located near the first EWR site (near the airport and SA6 site). These hardened structures are easily destroyed by GBU-38s (500 lb'ers). I was under the impression that it would take a 2000 lb. bomb to ruin one of these large hardened structures, but I could be off on that one? I know a MAV with it's 125lb shaped charge bounces off these structures, which seems accurate. I haven't tried the 300lb. Mav's (K's and G's) yet. I know that this post is in severe danger of being TLDR :) But thanks to those who found value in the discussion... hoping ED team may have a response. Thanks gang! LOVE THIS SIM!!!! [snipe == Arteedecco == Artee == Turd_Fergusen] CBU-87 CBU-97

Has anyone opened the mission in the ME to look under the hood? I know that airborne FAC works because I made a mission the other night to test it, using a Predator JTAC and a separate Kiowa JTAC, both worked fine. However, JTAC is known to be a bit buggy and looking over the notes on the upcoming 1.1.0.8 patch from Wag I can see that ED is making some tweaks to the JTAC functionality. Not having tried the mission you're asking about lately, I am thinking that perhaps it is an issue of the TASKS setting (ME) on the JTAC, having to do with him possibly being assigned FAC to a specific group / groups. In the ME I would hope that the JTAC is set to orbit a specific area and is set to Enroute Task FAC without being assigned a specific group. Another idea is that since the JTAC needs line of sight on the group. If the JTAC moves off (RTB / out of gas / damaged / flying flight plan), or it takes a long time for you to get to that point of the mission, the targets may have moved off relative to the JTAC, which will no longer be in contact with any enemies. Also, having looked through the .lua scripts, specifically the ones that have the detection modifiers for various units, it is possible that the airborne FAC in that mission just isn't detecting the units and may need some positional tweaking to ensure that he detects the enemy. Whew... none of that may help you, other than to say, you're not crazy! :) I'd say try flying the mission again and see if you can find the FAC (unless he's invisible per the ME settings) and the enemies he's supposed to point you to. Pay attention to enemy formation movement. The F7 enemy 3rd person view is really helpful. Zoom way out using "/" and "*" to try and see where they are and then try to locate them yourself. Just some ideas. Let us know if you make any discoveries.

Yeah, seriously. I am SO thankful that ED took on the hardcore arena. I love A-10C and am so thankful for all the detail put into it. I admit, I love doing the startup procedure! There is something entirely satisfying about learning to master a complex aircraft and all of its various facets. I also really like the model of continual updates. You will succeed by staying a part of the community and keeping up the regular updates and interacting with all of us. There are too many games that got created, a few patches later... poof... the end. I LOVE MIL AVIATION!!! I LOVE REALISM!!! THANK YOU! :megalol:

Well, at least I got my weekend back.... Who am I kidding! hahhaahhahaa! :lol:

Might also add that the Flight Manual offers conflicting advice on when to start lasing. There is one mention of 12 seconds and one of 8 seconds. Meh... Bottom line is that if you release the bomb fairly "lined up" as you would a "dumb bomb" then it'll get in the vicinity all by itself with the laser helping it in the last portion of its flight to get precise. I don't notice any detection logic built into the game with respect to the laser, so I usually just set it to 20 sec (supposing I'm dropping from mid-high 20K feet). Manual lasing comes in handy when you want to make your mark points on a target more accurate (many threads on CCIP / CCIP, markpoints, etc) and as mentioned previously, buddy lasing.

I'm running 1.1.0.7, so do I have to run BETA 4 to get this to work, per your comment that lua scripting is broken in my version? What do you do to get the log file to be created? Do you have join in the A-10C? or fly, or move the A-10? Or something? What's the enemy w/ the IGLA doing? Does dofile() work in the Run Script inside the ME? [edited] You can add to the "other" radio menu [Actually, as you noted previously, this menu has to be edited during mission creation in the ME and cannot be done dynamically via lua scripting, my mistake.] [/edited] and I found the .lua scripts that have the various menu options listed out in arrays, but... changes to those files would, as you say, only be client side so you would have to release a MOD for everyone to have the same options. This is true of the modification I did to the F8 Ground Crew, Rearm radio menu. I added a couple new options, "SEAD" and "MAXI", which have custom armaments. This is nice as it works no matter what server I'm playing on, but is lame because only people who have updated their .lua files have the same options. Again, Mod'ing takes care of that, I assume? I have no background in mod'ing. Good point! I had overlooked this. Mod, mod, mod... Purdy please w/ sugar on top! :pilotfly: I noticed I wasn't getting any error messages, but I just figured they were suppressed? Should be a config file that allows toggling this, IMO. Sweet deal! Thanks for your reply!!! It's tough getting started as a lot of this is "tribal knowledge". A guide would be quite nice. Lastly, how do you install 1.1.0.7 and BETA 4 side by side on same comp.? TY!!!!! :thumbup:

Sorry if this is redundant, but I have searched quite a bit and am coming up empty. Is there a sticky / thread out there that provides a primer or intro into mission scripting? Is an updated manual coming out soon that will include a scripting SDK, or at least more detail on scripting (I've heard rumors of such)? Is the scripting in A-10c similar, or derived from Black Shark or Flaming Cliffs? If so, do those games have scripting resources What I'm wondering is how people have figured out what files to edit, what the functions are, etc.? I can figure out Lua (the scripting language), but I don't understand what files are necessarily called by which things and when? For example, I want to make some edits that add a new radio command to the JTAC radio menu (easy) that allows you to get position updates on your target and updated sADL / TAD SPIs from JTAC (not obvious). My idea is to find the code that tells reconnaissance aircraft to send out bullseye coordinates of targets they see and to call that function whenever the new radio menu option is called by the user in the JTAC menu. However, I cannot find the blasted command / function that the reconnaissance aircraft / AWACS are calling to execute that radio call. I poked around in the radio .lua files and found the calls / commands, but I got lost when I came to the _G global table that is populated dynamically in the mission. I tried using the mission from Swift (I believe) that dumps to a log file, but I've been unable to get log files to work from logs.lua either. All in all, I'm lost and cannot find anywhere to get started. Help! [feel free to move this thread as appropriate, but I've been searching so long that I figured others have been too, so I wanted it in general distribution at least initially] [arteedecco ==> Turd_Fergusen] Cheers!

In multiplayer press ESC and click the briefing button.

Was wondering why I was getting plastered by the stinking SA-15! I was up at 26,000 feet (had an older version of the Threat Guide, FTL). Now I see they reach up to 35K AGL! YIKES. Combine that with the RWR errors and I've been getting blasted a LOT lately - very frustrating! Seems like only viable attack on an SA-15 where you don't know the exact location is to drop chaff / flare as soon as RWR lights up, 180 turn, and note the reciprocal bearing to the RWR symbol, set a markpoint at current location, run out to about 5+miles from markpoint, turn around to the bearing noted previously from referencing the RWR mud spike, set tgp to 7 miles + distance from markpoint and start searching. Can't wait to try this out armed w/ new info. Also, in a way, the broken RWR kind of adds realism as SAM operators can use crafty tricks to flip on fire and then acquire target as missiles are in the air (a la Scott O'Grady). Obviously if they flip on radar they won't gain insta-lock and the RWR symbol will move to inner ring once they've acquired so that part is not too real, but the "broken-ness" certainly ups the ante.

FYI, the link to the A5 threat guide is broken in the first post. If you're up for it, would be nice to edit and change link to the PDF. Excellent thread and nice work! Thanks so much for this guide!!!! The PDF is amazing with the pictures too! Can never remember which one looks like what through the TGP. ID is important! :) Cheers!

Expanding a bit, one common reason to get the "note" indication in the HUD is because your Maverick's have been running (EO ON) in excess of 30 minutes (check your EO time in the bottom right-hand corner of the MAV page on the MFCD). You will also get text messages (MSG). For more information on messages and how to view them, check out the flight manual (.PDF), which is in the folder \Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\???\Docs\DCS-A-10C_Flight_Manual_EN.pdf Look at (approximately, possibly different depending upon your version of the manual) p.353, the "Message (MSG) Page" section.

Thought there was at least a time during the first Gulf War (1991) when some A-10s did carry HARM. I haven't read this book (yet), but I believe it's mentioned in here: http://www.amazon.com/Warthog-Flying-10-Potomac-Warriors/dp/1574888862/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304105763&sr=1-1-spell

LOL! No worries though! I get corrected a lot here as there are people of all backgrounds. I say, keep puttin your theories out there and if people correct you, well heck! We all learn something! Cheers again! PS Take a look through the different threads, there are lots of threads / posts on the right drift. Unfortunately, no real solution, though I notice it's gone w/ no external stores; gun only. /me wondering if perhaps the default wind that most missions use is from the right...?

Yep, those also start the engines. Start the left engine first though using RAlt + Home THEN the right engine RCtrl + Home. Maybe you're not letting the APU power up and stabilize? Trying to start the right engine first? Got your fuel pumps on (all four)? Are turning off your APU after starting the first engine (should be on for start of BOTH engines)? Also, check the wiki for Reference Docs for cold start procedure, follow exactly AND under the Guides section is the excellent Start-up guide, check em out! http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/DCS:_A10C_Training_Supplements Also, search this forum, there are quite a few threads on this topic, usually a new thread once a week :) But it is a complex game for sure and that is certainly frustrating, so keep poking around and holler if you need more help!

I would add, AVOID. I know you're talking about the "what if" you get launched on scenario, but remember that 1.) MANPADs (IGLA) have a useful limit of 10k feet AGL, which you can get above to avoid being launched on 2.) If you can use terrain masking and low flight (<200R feet, or lower) you can defeat an acquisition by passing through the firing envelope of the MANPAD before they can successfully acquire and launch. Try flying Dodge or Tusk flight in Op First Strike using the default flight plan. Try it once at ~150 feet on the Radar Alt. then try again up above 500R feet on the Radar Alt.

[not trying to put you down!] Jet engines don't produce noteworthy turning tendencies (as long as both are running at similar power output! :), unlike when I'm flying in the SIM and one engine is shot to pieces usually). Turns out the reason single-engine prop planes (and multi-engine prop planes where the props BOTH rotate in the same direction) do have turning tendencies do to the rotating mass of the propellers (Newton's 3rd Law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction). Look at the FAA's Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Ch.4, p. 4-26. (download here: http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/). This explains it pretty well and concisely. With jet engines there's a little bit more going on and "popping the hood" helps to see why jet engines don't cause turning tendencies. Take a look at the drawings in Chapter 15 of the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook located here to see some drawings of jet engines: http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/ You can see there are many stages of compressor vanes and stator vanes and many stages of turbine vanes. Plus, in the A-10, which uses turbofans, there is a bypass of air that flows around the core of the engine, avoiding the combustion chamber completely. I suppose you could make an arguement that the fan in a turbofan produces some left turning tendencies, but you'll have a tough time of it. :) Even so, if the fans BOTH spin to the right, Newton's 3rd law says we should have a left-turning tendency. I think the answer to why the SIM pulls to the right is due to a turbulence modelling bug (known), crosswind effect (though most people seem to be repeatedly complaining of a right-hand drift, rarely left), and the most likely IMO asymetrical loadout. The reason I stipulate that the asymmetrical loadout is the primary cause of most of the right-hand drift complaints is due to the fact that a majority of the standard loadouts always put the ECM pod on one wing and the TGP / AIM-9's on the other, which are all way out on the furthest hardpoints from the center of the aircraft (i.e. larger moment arm, greater effect on asymmetrical drag). Plus, hey! the game may have a bug or be over-biasing the asymmetry. Cheers!

Excellent thread. I started a thread on MANPAD tactics: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=72813 It may give you some ideas, but not too many people have added to it yet.