Zomba

I wasn't having a crack at you. I snorted with glee at your post and thought 'What sort of deranged bastard sits down and thinks of such a reply?'

I forgot it was completely unreasonable to expect straight forward customer service.

ED, do you even look at your tickets or email inbox? One of the guys in my squadron hasn't been able to use DCS A-10c for about two months. Since the last patch we managed to move on from his original problem, but now there is an error with the activation server not letting him authenticate. A support ticket and two emails later and you are yet to reply. Guys, normally we tend to be pretty lenient on things like this as we live in an imperfect world, but I think it is fair to say that your performance on this issue is terrible. At least take the time to link his serial back to his account as this, for some reason, disappeared from his account. Another thing I think I need to relate to you is that popular support in our squadron for you has taken a dramatic downturn. I want to see you guys do well, I think the quality of the sim is impressive, but you are letting seemingly idiotic issues ruin an otherwise excellent product. I think you can understand I am not just referring to this particular issue with a customer, but a broader problem with various decisions recently. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=60857 Leaving information like this is clearly incorrect as you have implemented the controversial policy of Master Server login for all multiplayer. I would suggest strongly that the linked information be amended to reflect reality. Pull your finger out and do your job, you are not a charity, but a for profit enterprise, so people expect the sort of service they paid for. Kind Regards, Zomba.

Have a look in Nates sig. I had an annoying unrelated issue with my machine and decided to do a reformat and reinstall. Windows update is not a magic bullet for everything and developed some infrequent crashes with A-10 after the fresh install. Actually Windows update only has whatever they have in their library and if you check the version numbers it is often not the latest. I worked through Nates sig with the C++ and DX as a matter of course, manually reinstalled the USB drivers (Ipod Touch was having fits with itunes when plugging in), and no issues since. Whether or not that was the problem, who knows. But I'm always cynical with updating and never assume it was done properly untill proven otherwise. Have you generated a crashlog at sent it in?

Just to clarify, if you have both wings lost and are just left with what is remaining inboard of both the gear sponsons, is this enough to maintain adequate lift if you managed a high enough IAS IRL?

I use the i7 960 with water cooling and have it running at 4.2ghz with the multiplier and qpi only and standard volts. Runs A-10c really well.

A new release in Australia is typically $80-$100usd. $60usd is a bargain.

And I shall defend your right to disagree with me until my last dying breath. Happy flying.

Observation?

Even though I clearly stated this wasn't a criticism, just an observation it seems perhaps you had a little bit of trouble understanding that. As Nate often states, it will be released when it is ready. I like that saying, it's ironic. I used to use it a lot. The time table is of no real interest to me at all. They release it when they want to, it's their project, not mine. They chose to release it in it's current state and circumstances. But it is their decision and therefore they enjoy the benefits and costs of it. If the customers are not happy with this then they should say so. Where did I say it didn't work well on my system?

I think people often get confused with the fidelity of the sim, which implies a high standard of quality, and the nature of it's beta and release cycle. The sim itself is not the problem, nor is it general development process. In fact I find that side of it pretty impressive. The problem is that it was released prematurely without the necessary checks and level of testing required to ensure qualification for release. Now before I get drawn and quartered and the hounds of hell are released I'll point out this isn't a personal attack or an opinion borne from frustration. Just an observation of reality that I've had to often go through myself. I've worked for years, as I suspect a number here have too, in the Design and Engineering field. Here it is Beta, for us it is called prototyping. You go through a number of prototype phases; testing fixes, developing functionality, identifying negatively affected areas whether due to those fixes or issues that were previously masked. Prototype after prototype (Beta after Beta) refining the design. You then enter the Production Prototype phase (Release Candidate). This is where you demonstrate the quality and functionality of a production example. This is where the actual design is qualified for production. This is where the buck stops. If there is a f*ckup here, then you better catch it and fix it before it goes into serial production. If the problem is big enough here, it ceases being a Production Prototype (RC) and becomes just another normal prototype (Beta) step. Typically in my experience if I let a major issue go through to the wicket keeper and allow a significant issue to exist in the serial production (Final Release), I would lose my job. It was in my contract. As head engineer (Producer) It was my responsibility to ensure Quality Control was functional and up to standard. If this proved untenable, either due to the owners decision, or more often because of pressure from financial sources like Venture Capital (Bastards) then I have them agree to and sign a letter of liabilty recognising the inherent risks of skipping phases and/or quality control testing and preventing them looking at me to recover costs. This is not a criticism at ED, nor am I trolling the thread. I'm just pointing out that design development can be an extremely rewarding and also devastatingly heart breaking process. Many people in this sort of field love what they do and put a lot of personal stock into the project. It can be very sad to see things outside your control interfere with it. Sometimes decisions are made that appear irrational from the outside, but without all of the relevant facts to appreciate there is not much else to infer from it. But as this is a free market, if you don't like what has happend here then voice your concerns to ED loud and clear. If the signal to noise is high enough then I'm sure the sentiment will be passed onto the responsible parties. Some here may find the thought of this reprehensable, but in fact to remain silent when you have an opinion to express, then your silence is reprehensible. If you care about what ED is trying to achieve here then they must be willing to accept thoughtful criticism as well as praise. Disagreement is fine, rudeness is not.

I have no idea what is done IRL, but when I make a mission I normally follow a few rules of thumb. All my missions are for MP. Everything is in the one flight plan with nav waypoints at altitude and mission waypoints at ground level. This makes it really obvious to the pilots that when they encounter ground waypoints as they progress through the flight that they are now in the AO (Area of Operations) and have to fly tactically. I don't know if AO is the right term, but is what we use to describe the (Normally large) area where it is a hostile zone. A little off topic, but most of our missions have one unarmed A-10 as a FAC. None of the waypoints for the A-10s point at targets. Instead the FAC has to locate and ID them and then link them over to the others and do the normal FAC work to engage. The handy thing about this is that it is heavy on team work which makes it fun, but also the attack aircraft can stay in the weeds to avoid detection and typically never get to see the target at all until just before weapons release. Also it makes them immune to Gymbol Roll as they are prosecuting an accurate mark and not a TGP SPI.

Being pedantic, I know, but the BLU-108 munition is active, not passive. Each skeet uses a passive IR camera and an active laser to detect the distinctive profile of a target.

Nice vids, chaps. Makes me want to knock together another vid.

I use an X-52 and had it profiled externally with Saiteks profile editor. I've more or less had the same profile ever since Beta1 with no issue. Going from Beta4 to Final a couple of bindings were not working in the sim. Auto pilot, dispensor and ECM. The key binding menu in options was recognising them being manipulated, just not in sim. All I did was rebind the exact same binds in the Saitek profiler (Not changing anything, just reentereing) and it worked again. No big deal to fix if it crops up with you.

Honestly I am amazed at the bitching and trolling going on in this thread. This is the bleeding edge in flight simulation that sticks obsessively to the whole concept of study sim, and yet since it doesn't have multicore or DX11 support (Yet) it's a massive failure? That is incredible logic right there, let me tell you. ED only has so much resources at it's disposal. If they rolled out DX11 and multicore support with release then what parts of the sim would have to be neglected? Or more important, which parts would you prefer to be compromised to achieve this? If it doesn't meet your lofty goals then why just sit here trolling?

Optimisation is really good. Still getting the hovering mavericks if you get a wing blown off. Sounds are very well done. Can see the airbrakes deploy in MP :) which is good to help avoiding ploughing into him. Menus are very laggy in places. In editer if you change some of the comm numbers you can get a lua error (old problem). Flight model is tweaked and better. Engines are a bit more perky, you notice it when taxing. Get the occasional LOD issue with clouds.

Considering in Australia a game can cost anywhere from $80 - $100 then $60 is a steal.

Ha, I have it as part of my startup procedure, but it is all from memory so being human it's a wonder I don't leave it off more often.

I would never do such a thing as leave the pitot heat off. NEVER!:music_whistling::laugh:

It kind of seems there tends to be extremes in basic loadout. Some prefer loading it to the max with a whole range of weapons, where others prefer a much leaner load. I prefer making it as light as possible. Generally gun, 2x mav for short range anti air if they are about, pod, ecm and the bare minimum in bombs. If doing FAC online then it is just a gun, fuel tank, pod, ecm and marking/illum rockets if needed. The illum dispenser is handy sometimes.

In relation to the buzzer going off in level flight at air speeds you wouldn't expect it at, try looking out of your canopy at the wing root area when this happens. There is an automatically deployed slat there on the leading edge that functions to help with aerodynamics under various conditions. Sometimes it gets stuck in the fully deployed position. When this happens the buzzer will sound more often than not due to the abnormal conditions this causes. I'm not sure if this is a bug or not., but in my case at least it happens very rarely. When it does happen that buzzer does your head in until you can find the volume control. I've only ever encountered it in multiplayer flights, but I predominately fly mainly online so this may not mean much.

http://www.enemyforces.net/missiles/tor.htm

Semi-auto is best for counter measures as it will pick the right ECM mode and Chaff/Flare program for you, but you will have to initiate it seperately for ECM or Chaff/Flares. The advantage is that you can moderate your Chaff/Flare usage so you don't run out too soon. ECM and Dispensed CM are not magic bullets that make you impervious to SAMs. At best the ECM can be used to prevent a SAM system from getting a decent lock on you unless you are much closer than normal, so it allows you to close with them to engage. You can use Chaff/Flares like this as well, as a pre-emptive measure. These things can help with making life a bit harder for the SAMs tracking radar being able to effectivelly guide it's missile onto you once launched. The more modern the SAM system is, the more resistent to ECM and Chaff/Flares it generally tends to be. To the point that it may only give you a slightly better advantage than going without it. The SA-15 Tor is a very capable system and is designed to engage low level aircraft and helicopters rapidly to protect armoured units on the move. If it detects you within it's kill range it should be able to launch in under 7 seconds. Even though it has a relatively short range, it makes up for it with it's very rapid engagement time (Aided by a lot of system automation) and it's modern radar and electronics system. The effect of all of this to you is that the Tor seems to pop up out of nowhere and all of a sudden you are being launched on. By that stage, unless you are on the very fringe of his maximum range and can turn 180 to get outside his missile envelope, things are not looking good for you. A good way to counter SA-15s if you think they may be about is not to charge in at high speed, but instead fly at high speed perpendicular to it's suspected area and slowly inch your way towards it. E.G. if you think it is to the East then fly North and South (or NNE and SSW) and fly a little bit more to the East every pass. With patience you should get to that rather small zone where his search radar will spike you on the RWR, but are still too far away for him to launch. To kill him you can either fly about 22'000 feet above his elevation and bomb, which is not always possible. Engage him at about 15mi engagement range using Force-Correlate that is availiable on some of the Electro-Optical maverick varients or, if possible, sneak in under his radar using the terrain to mask you and popping up when you are within normal Maverick range (About <7.5mi) and quickly engaging him and then dropping back down under the radar. This last one is very risky, but a lot of fun and very rewarding.

Chill, Winston!