Crescendo

Sorry to be pedantic, but the A-10C is not "meant to" engage targets at 10k feet, it's just a lot more effective in that scenario after the upgrade. You can bet the "C" model will still be flying down in the weeds if the situation dictates it.

No problem. :thumbup:

Hook the tasking you wish to clear with TMS Up Short, then press the OSB corresponding to the text "CNC" (i.e. "cancel"). The tasking triangle wil be cleared from the TAD.

I agree. I had similar complaints and suggestions: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=78403

Great post and a very helpful explanation of the technical reasons why the current system is lacking, how it could be improved, and why a new system with better effects may even improve performance. You're right I think, one of the reasons why DCS looks so plain right now is because the current system simply reuses the same explosions effects again and again in different scenarios -- and they're not all that good to begin with! Nice video by the way, maybe ED should contract out the particle effects to you. :thumbup:

Absolutely agree. Some may dismiss this as minor and unnecessary "eye candy" that "you'll hardly ever see", but high-quality and varied graphical effects definitely increase immersion. Of course the most important thing is to have the aircraft and avionics modelled accurately, but when I see the exact same and boring explosion, smoke, and fire effects again and again, the battlefield becomes a sterile and lifeless shooting gallery. We've had the same effects for more than 10 years now, so I think this complaint is not unreasonable. I want to see varied and unique explosions that actually look like the explosions you would expect in 2011, I want to see vehicles cooking off, I want to see free-form columns of smoke, I want to see dynamic lighting from particle effects such as tracers and rocket exhaust, I want to see new flare and missile effects. Some of these things may not be practical in the scope of the DCS engine and with the number of units involved (dynamic lighting from particle effects etc.), but I don't see any reason why the explosion effects couldn't be dramatically improved. It would be great if the explosions could look something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kG4Pd3RBYs&feature=related Of course in size and scope it's a totally different game and has a different effects engine, but I know my level of immersion would increase if the explosion and weapons effects looked half as good as that.

Excellent work, deephouse. Interesting concept, good pacing, and some neat ideas make this mission really fun to fly. The outstanding voice acting also really ups the immersion. This is definitely in my top three favourite missions. You deserve more posts in this thread. :thumbup:

No problem. :thumbup: Finding targets is a perennial and usually tedious process, but having a plan and some patience can make it easier and less random.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1281373&postcount=3

I think you're both right, offsetting for a roll-in is better. I tend to do that naturally, I realise, especially when I'm delivering dumb bombs from altitude in CCIP mode. The 90-degree roll-in is very similar to what I do with the circle/box/rectangle profile I was talking about, and is applicable at all altitudes now that I think about it. It offers good visibility of the target area, which is why I initially gravitated towards it when plinking tanks with guns. I even do the "pitch up" maneuver when required as mentioned by EtherealN to increase my dive angle, and/or to bleed airspeed so I don't snap my wings in the recovery. Maybe I'm a better pilot than I thought.

No problem, happy to offer whatever help I can. :thumbup:

Thanks for that, very interesting.

Thanks for the comments hog_driver111th. First let me say that I am by no means an expert on this topic, I'm just an interested layman who likes busting tanks in this sim with as little ammunition as possible. Eddie explained the advantages of the high angle attacks versus low angle attacks quite nicely (better visibility, more energy for egressing and defensive maneuvering, tighter cluster etc.), so I won't dwell too much on that. I do use low angle attacks, but mainly when flying nap-of-the-earth and killing soft targets. My personal 'bread and butter' is the high angle attack. I find that in most tactical situations the visibility and excess energy aquired in high angle dives proves absolutely invaluable when it comes to responding to and avoiding threats. The extra speed affords you the luxury of turning and jinking agressively without promptly stalling, the luxury of returning to a safe altitude quickly, and the luxury of running away quickly should you be required to do so (). If I'm threatened when using a low angle attack down in the weeds, I find that my options tend to run out faster unless I can terrain mask. As to why I specifically recommended the circle/box/rectangle profile (high angle attack), I have two reasons: the first is that it's simply my prefered 'go-to' method for reasons mentioned earlier (a personal bias ); and the second is that less ammunition will generally be required due to the tighter cluster (which will hopefully address the crux of Mohamengina's problem). Regarding the split-S profile, as I said earlier it's a bit of a misnomer on my part. Sorry about that. You don't actually fly directly over the target — you rather initiate the beginnings of a split-S by rolling inverted, then roll wings-level as soon as you see the target. Your final heading will be the same as your initial heading, i.e. you dive towards the target rather than flying directly over it. It's sort of like a quarter split-S. If you watch Viper's track in the thread I linked to you will see what I mean, but maybe this drawing should clear it up: Think of it as a standard dive without pushing forward on the stick and inducing negative G's. The period of inverted flight can be used to visually acquire the target, rather than being 'surprised' by a target below the nose. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than I knows what this maneuver is actually called, if anything. :helpsmilie:

Very cool. I'm glad someone is testing the true limits of this sim. :megalol:

Good idea. :smartass:

By the way, the terms "circle/box/rectangle profile" and "split-S profile" are my own — you won't see them called that anywhere else I should think. Furthermore, the "split-S" in "split-S profile" is also a bit of a misnomer because it's not really a full split-S. The maneuvers are ultimately the same, but you roll wings-level to initiate a dive as soon as you can see your target, not when your heading has changed by 180°.

Mohamengina, to put it bluntly, you have to use a lot of rounds because your technique is poor. :D This seems to be a perennial topic around here. All tanks as presently modelled can be actually killed with <60 rounds, but that's only if you do everything perfectly and put your aircraft at great risk of flying into the ground/target. Good luck nailing <60 round passes every single time. However, repeatably killing tanks in one pass with 80-120 rounds is easily achieved with practice. The key to killing tanks is to shoot where the armour is thinnest, to shoot at right angles to minimize deflections and richochets, to maintain a dive angle of 20-30 degrees (or greater) so the rounds cluster tightly, to maintain a stable guns platform so the rounds cluster tightly, and to only shoot at close range so the rounds have maximum kinetic energy and cluster tightly. So, Attack the thin armour from the top, rear,or side (never head-on). Attack with an angle-off of 0°, i.e. attack at right angles wherever possible. Attack with a minimum dive angle of 20-30° (30+ is better). Larger dive angles yield better results, but are less 'user-friendly' in certain situations Engage PAC-1 as early as possible and for as long as possible to maintain a stable guns platform Attack with a 1-1.5sec burst at 0.6nm or less, then egress in the vertical and horizontal at 0.3-0.4nm PAC-1 stabilisation before firing is preferable but NOT required; PAC-2 (firing your gun immediately) works just fine if you're short on time and your aim is true. Read the following thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=78122 In this thread I posted a guide demonstrating the technique I generally prefer, which is to fly circles/boxes/rectangles around a target and 'rolling-in' on it at my leisure. There are alternate methods such as the split-S dive (as demonstrated by 159th_Viper) and the "pop-up" attack. The split-S attack yields kills with fewer rounds expended because the dive angle is greater, but it is generally more cumbersome when re-attacking the same area over and over. The circle/box/rectangle method is very useful for quickly re-attacking the same area again and again, but you usually have to use more ammunition because the dive angle is less. Personally I use the split-S-type profile when attacking a one-off target, or when I'm already at high altitutes (10k ft+). On the other hand, if I want to quickly re-attack an area multiple times I'll use the circle/box/rectangle profile, so that I don't have to climb as much and spend a lot of time orienting on the target. That said, there's no 'right' method: You can also mix and match. For example, if I'm flying at angels 15 and I spot a group of unprotected tanks with my TGP, I may decide to use a split-S profile for my initial roll-in, and then transition to a circle/box/rectangle profile as I prosecute the remaining targets when I'm on the deck. This is as opposed to getting stuck in a split-S —climb—re-orient—split-S—climb—re-orient cycle that requires a little more time. Finally, if you only remember two things from this post, remember that higher dive angles are better for tight round clustering, and that you should only fire at close range to ensure maximum kinetic energy and penetration. Play around with the various techniques and let us know how you go.

Thanks Squirrel, fuzzysham, and Cali. I actually didn't know that pilots typically wear ear plugs, but it makes sense when you think about it. A pilot needs to clearly hear the audio output of the aircraft and any radio communications. Thanks also for the two personal anecdotes about actually sitting in a fighter cockpit. It seems to me from this small sample of experiences that the level of engine sound in the DCS A-10C cockpit is not the level of sound that a real pilot would hear. This is because the noise is attenuated by earplugs (helmet and headphones not so much). I agree with this, cichlidfan. However, my bias is that I tend to approach this sort of 'problem' from the perspective of a virtual pilot. I do understand that the current noise level in-game may in fact be an accurate represenation of sound waves bouncing around in a real cockpit, but if no real pilot ever hears that level of sound due to earplug attenuation, I tend to think we ought to hear cockpit noises as that real pilot would hear it. After all, the plane is not flying itself: We do. Similarly, we wouldn't hear Bitching Betty and the various caution tones if we didn't have a set of virtual heaphones on our virtual pilot, so from that point of view the sound is already simulated from a pilot's perspective, it's just that ED forgot the earplugs (:D). To be logically consistent, I suppose we ought to either have loud engine noises and no headphone audio (because DCS does not simulate the pilot), or we ought to have attenuated engine noise and headphone audio (because DCS does simulate the pilot)—not both. But your point is well taken, of course. Thanks for the great idea, Rider1. I'll certainly be trying this out.

Technically I'm talking about the engine sound as heard by the pilot when the canopy is closed, especially during flight. I should have been clearer.

Hi all, I was watching some in-cockpit video footage of A-10s recently and I noticed that the volume of the engine noise was rather muted in comparison to what I hear in the sim. My current feeling when playing A-10C is that the engine noise is too loud, but I honestly have zero experience and evidence to support that opinion (youtube videos are extremely poor evidence and are not worthy of being linked to). I do realise that the method of recording sounds when taking video footage can greatly influence cockpit noise in the resulting video. For example, if the sound is recorded from the same source as the pilot's headphones, you might not hear any engine noise at all, which falsely creates the impression that the pilot hears very little of the engines. Furthermore, perhaps the unique position of the A-10's engines sitting 'exposed' directly behind the pilot makes the volume louder than it would be in another aircraft such as an F-16. I then had the thought that maybe the volume of the engines in the cockpit actually is that loud and is correctly implemented in-game, but the pilot percieves the sound as being attenuated due to the helmet and headphones they are wearing. Obviously this is not a question I can hope to answer, so I was wondering if anyone has any direct experience with actually sitting in a fighter aircraft (or even a comparable civillian aircraft) with the engines running at idle and higher thrust. I know there are a few crew chiefs around on the forums, so perhaps they have performed some engine tests while sitting in the cockpit. Thanks for reading. :prop:

Reinstalling DCS A-10C worked, by the way. Moral of the story is to not use EMC, at least until a new version is released. Even then I would probably still manually edit the files -- it's easy enough to do and won't break anything.

Thanks, PeterP. By the looks of it Easy Monitor Configurator is the culprit. I am experiencing an identical issue. I tried uninstalling EMC, but unfortunately my LMFCD is still screwing up. Following the advice of the thread you linked to, it looks like I'll have to uninstall DCS and start 'fresh'. Thanks again.

Hi all, I'm trying to set up a second monitor for my Cougar MFD frames, but I'm experiencing a confounding issue. Whenever I try and make a profile for the LMFCD (for example), the LMFCD only ever appears in the top left corner of my main screen. It also appears to be 'squashed' to a ~100x100 size no matter what dimensions I input. The following screenshot illustrates what is happening: I had no second monitor connected when this screenshot was take, and the resolution in the DCS GUI was set to 1280x1024 (my native resolution). I am trying to diagnose this problem before proceeding any further with additional monitors lest I waste more of my time. Below is my MonitorSetup lua code. If it matters, this code was generated automatically by Easy Monitor Configurator. _ = function(p) return p; end; name = _('Crescendo'); Description = 'Crescendo' Viewports = { Center = { x = 0; y = 0; width = 1280; height = 1024; viewDx = 0; viewDy = 0; aspect = 1.25; } } LEFT_MFCD = { x = 500; y = 400; width = 370; height = 370; } UIMainView = Viewports.CenterAs you can see, the LMFCD should be roughly in the middle of the main screen (not in the top left), and should be 370x370 in size (not ~100x100). Until I can solve this problem adding a second monitor will be an exercise in futility. Any suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks Frostiken, this is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for. :thumbup: Having read your post it seems to me that the F-15E has a good case for being the next DCS module — a case that is at least based on real-world military upgrades and potential needs, not just fanboyism. Your comment about the F-18C's legacy status in the US military is also interesting. A non-US country requiring a simulation of the F-18 is certainly plausible, but at present the only confirmed ED customer in the fixed-wing arena is the US, so I would still lend more creedence to the F-15E argument. I would love to read some justifications of the F-16 and any other aircraft if anyone else has some expertise to share.