Smokin Hole

I currently fly B737/-5,-7,-8,-9,-900ER. Previously DC10, A320, EMB-135/145. Someone mentioned that military pilots don't like to admit they fly sims. But I think it is true that few really do fly sims. 30% of First Officers I fly with are ex- (occasionally current) fighter guys and practically none fly sims. It makes sense that they don't. There is sort of a been-there-done-that attitude. Plus, the first hint of silliness or unrealism (which even DCS has plenty of) is an immediate turn-off. I did recently fly with a guy who still flys F/A-18s in the Navy Reserves. His first exposure to "jets" was Flanker 2.0. He seemed to think that the Flanker experience really helped him initially in pilot training. I tried to turn him on to Rise of Flight and Black Shark but he was pretty married to his xbox. Rise of Flight, I think, is perhaps the strongest draw to "real" pilots because the flying is so completely different than anything in current experience BUT nearly all current BFM techniques still apply.

If I ramp start, I do not have the problem the OP describes. If I runway start, I always do. This is true of both rockets and iron bombs. This airplane was designed to bomb perfectly well without a TGP and without a designated SPI. There are times on the battlefield when pilots just don't have the time to bother with that stuff. They just want to drop on what they see and leave. I am going way out on a limb here to proclaim that, in the real jet, this problem most likely does not occur. SPI is for CCRP. CCIP is for see-and-drop- (or) -launch. The jet knows the elevation of all terrain in its database so why would it "care" what elevation the current SPI happens to be? Same is true of the cannon. I've flown around and had the cannon pipper obviously aiming at a point hundreds of feet below the actual target. For the defenders of the current arrangement, this may be a case of loving the sim so much that sim logic trumps reality.

I've had several of those. They are far more complex and prone to failure (or more likely, one FCC disagrees with the other and the two decide to call it a failure). As you know the ADC is much simpler and far more necessary for a safe operation. They just don't fail.

In 20 years and 10000 + hours of flying modern jets with Air Data Computers just like those in the A-10, I have never had one fail. In the severest of icing I have never had a modern pitot system become blocked. I have only had the pitot system overheat once and that was in LAS in July when the FO mistakenly turned it on during the Recieving flow and not during the After Start flow (and it was easily reset once it cooled). In other words, in one month of flying this sim, I've experienced this failure enough for 20 lifetimes. Please fix it.

Good post. Dull isn't bad. Dull means predictable and stable. The A-10 was designed to be both because it needed to be the most accurate gun platform possible. But if your goal isn't to kill people and break things but just to fly then there are lot's of planes and helicopters out there I'd much rather strap on.

I fly big jets for a living. In addition to that I've flown dozens of small types, including a few aerobatic. I still think that the Su25 is the most authentic feeling flight model of any jet simulator. DCSW is not far behind. Actually, its not that the A-10 feels less authentic than the Su25, just less fun. It reminds me of a Cessna Citation (also a straight-wing jet): Extremely easy to fly and extremely dull.

"Well done soldier!" Just finished Devil's Cross today. JTAC always worked for me. His coordinates were on, his red diamond was on. His BDA seemed off to me based on the results screen. (JTAC would always sell me short on kills.) The problem with the mission is: The weather--made my FPS pretty low. Viziani Airbase--also made my FPS slow (but better since the patch). And the wingmen who usually decided to stay in the hangar. Score on this mission seemed mostly based on successful check-in and check-out with JTAC. Oh yes and about datalink. First, it has nothing to do with JTAC. 2nd it seems to work if you accept the mission (and just 2 AGMs and no TGP) WITHOUT using the mission planner screen. Everytime I modified the loadout with that screen my EPLRS would reset to ID0 and Group0. Usually I could never find the Group ID my wingy was using. However, the 2 times I skipped the mission planner screen I had the other members of my flight on the TAD (remaining in the hangar of course).

That's harsh. And not very fair to the ED team who have already shown a willingness to merge products where possible. It's not that you are wrong. It's "POSSIBLE" that the next module is DCS:Jeep. But the lack of a unassailable commitment by ED for compatability doesn't give us the right to fill in the blank with a negative.

I did. Oddly enough I could get a few FPS back by turning the taxi light off (go figure). They dropped the LOD draw distance specifically for that airport with the patch so there must be something specific with it--perhaps the large number of sheltered hangars. Anyway it wasn't nearly as bad for me since the patch. And more importantly, the FPS rates were decent both in the battle zone and during RTB, both of which made the campaign unplayable previously.

I get the red triangle with group id 4. However, it only displays for a few seconds. So instead I do something similar to the post above. Works fine.

Well thank you E.D. 1.106 fixed the Devils Cross campaign. Disregard above.

I've played three missions in the Devil's Cross campaign all of which have performed badly on my mid-range rig. They also had cloud cover which I'm sure strained my system a bit. I was disapointed enough to give up on the campaigns and gave the mission generator a try instead. I found the few missions I've played so far to be every bit as interesting as the campaign but without the horrid framerate. Could it be that the campaigns are just a tad bloated with active units that the player will never encounter (or is one of the included campaigns considered less of a burden on older systems)? I haven't actually openned the missions to sneek under the hood but the performance difference is enough to leave me to believe that the strain comes from the number and complexity of unit activity, not textures and clouds. If that's the case may I recommend simpler campaign along the lines of Georgia Oil War?

I overreached a bit on my reply to boberro. Of course he's not stupid. Sorry. I have flown on the 51st as both Ka50 and Su25t and a few times I enjoyed the coordination another poster described. Hopefully that's what we will see. This (our online community) is a fairly democratic world so my guess would be that servers will begin to migrate to either co-op or free-for-all and players can choose their poison. To backtrack a bit I don't really want to exclude FC2 players from the obvious DCS improvements if such a thing is possible. Every now and then even I want to fly an F-15. S!

Boberro, To compare FC2 and real life is frankly stupid. Unless a country is desperate, it's not going to commit CAS aircraft until it has something close to air superiority over the area of operation. That will never happen in and online world where everyone reflys after death. BTW, for clarity to those who didn't get it, the "merger" I referred to is the compatibilty patch that allowed DCS:BS to play online with FC2.

"Unlikely" has changed to "being considered". I am going to be a bit of a hypocrite in this post because I am going to express a fear for something I've begged for in the past (and am still anxiously anticipating with DCS:BS). When FC2 "merged" I was thrilled...untill I became fodder for six spammed AMRAAMs ("Smokin Hole killed by building" in ED-speak). A week after the merger I was on Teamspeak and listened as a player from Iraq brag of how he bagged 20 Ka50s the day before. That kind of thing was pretty thrilling to him. So I soon learned to fly at 130kph. But after a couple of hours of that, I learned to give up DCS:BS multiplayer. My point is that the DCS standard is one of considerable coordination and planning and probably better suited to cooperative online play. Online, FC2 (and my beloved Su25) just isn't compatible with the far deeper world that ED is perfecting with DCS:WH/BS. Just my $.02.

I wasn't being modest, this really is a pointless post. The Ka50 side of the forum isn't seeing much traffic of late due to the arrival of it's new brother. But this new sibling, although admittedly cool and attractive, still serves to remind me of what a brilliant release Black Shark was. I now know the difference between TMS forward short and China Hat aft...and I am over it. It's a novelty to tinker with while I wait for the day that the Black Shark is allowed to play in the WH world. Because DCS:BS is STILL the greatest advance in modern air combat simulation and now more than ever it deserves it's honored spot as the flagship of the series.

As long as we are posting techniques, mine is: 1- Before taxi/hover - FD ON 2- oh, there is no two The only time FD comes off (AP ON) is during hands-off flight (autohover, route holding, turn-on-target).

Henchman, On page One you had a bit of my sympathy. Not that you needed or asked for it but a part of me shared some of your observations about the cubic unpopulated world that is the DCS Caucasus. But you brushed away any sense of shared concern by making a complete A$$ of yourself. I've put probably 1-2000 hours into the flanker/LockOn/DCS family since the early nineties. When you say, "Getting bored with it..." mention another piece of entertainment software that gets that amount of return play from so many users. It's time to drop it and walk away. GG and others have explained to you (and to me) why the rich world you desire just isn't possible. That's the answer. Period. In 10 years things may be different. I happen to believe they won't be but that's me. I'm happy nonetheless. You are not so move on. This thread is a waste of your time which could be better spent in the rich, lifelike worlds of more popular titles.

I'm not good enough with the A-10 to appreciate the mission generator but it looks like a very promising feature. Online Coops set up with the generator have big potential. No risk of boredom here.

GG and others, There is a very interesting SimHQ interview with several developers on the future of the genre. Needless to say, it's a tough business that will only get tougher. Maybe reports of imminent death are premature but the loss of a once successful genre isn't unprecedented. Remember Harpoon?

Rise of Flight isn't Crysis but it looks fabulous. So does IL2 4.10. DCS:A10 looks fine. Combat sims are obviously on a budget. They are 10 times more complex to develope yet their full-time dev teams consist of maybe 3-5 people. That's compared to dozens for the shooters. You just can't have the same expectations for the two products. The markets are as different as the capitalization. Still I honestly see where Henchman is coming from. And I have never Played any of the titles he's mentioned. I have never even seen them. My reference to Crysis is just a guess. I don't know what it is. But I'd love to fly my su25 or Ka50 in a battlefield like BF2 and do what I do best. This will NEVER happen. The days of the flight sim are therefore nearing their end. Those of us who love them are like the elves of the Middle Earth about to sail east (or was it west). After DCS:A10 and SoW it will likely be over for us and we'll be Goblins and Platoon leaders just like everyone else with a PS3.

OP, Actually I really do recommend trying Apache: Air Assault. As a game it's quite fun, beautiful, and satisfying. As a sim, well, the mere use of that word with the game is misplaced. It does show that there is a balance between gameplay and realism. You may lie on a point along that real/fun curve that no game currently addresses. Not that you are fishing for recommendations but I recommend walking away from Black Shark a bit. My guess is that it isn't finished. Already DCS:WH looks much better, has a much more powerful editor, and smarter AI seems just around the corner. And although a "merger" of the two products has never been promised, I would be awfully surprised if the improvements are not ported over. But to step back a bit, while I agree that the landscape looks stale especially when compared to shooters, the object textures look great in BS.

I find that it's easy to get too bugged with this. I use a G940, love it, and find it to be a major step forward--as much as my TrackIr. I have the FFB forces set fairly light (60% I believe). And yes there is a bit of force slop. When I trim for enroute flight I push slightly more than my desired stick position so that the trim will hold the stick where I really wanted it (in pitch, laterally no cheating is required). It holds with Enroute Autopilot very nicely. Autohover holds well also even as I touch the stick fiddling with sensors and weapons. The key I think with this stick is to NEVER use curves and use a minimum (or no) deadzone.

This thread touches on what every pilot quickly learns: the human brain is very adept at leaning and remembering complex repetative tasks so long as there is a "flow" in how those tasks are accomplished. I can still remember the flows I used in the DC-10 in 1994, and the A320 which I stopped flying in 1998. The only way for flows to be safe and effective is for them to be supported by a full understanding of what each task actually does. Both DCS products teach us flows for accomplishing basic flight and combat tasks. What players don't know and have little capability to learn are the underlying reasons for each step and the inter-relationship between different systems and sub-systems. (Although we're getting farther along as WH progresses a few steps past BS). So long as we keep our knowledge level at the minimal level it takes to succeed in both sims, we can probably learn and stay "proficient" at a dozen platforms at a DCS level of fidelity. But try to learn at the capacity of a real A-10C or Ka50 pilot and you would max out at two, IMO. Having said all that, all the sims share detailed knowledge in what I imagine must be one of the most important things for the combat pilot to remember (and hardest to keep straight): the capabilities and limitations of friendly and enemy weapons, sensors, and countermeasures. That knowledge is carried with you to each product.

I can't recall when specifically but I am pretty sure I've gotten red enemy positions via datalink. Once in a mission I created with an OH-58 serving as JTAC.