Yskonyn

LOL Lobo, nice way to describe the 'fuel dumping system' on the A-10C. :D We don't have a fuel dumping system on the 737 either. In our training we often end up with too much fuel + payload in an emergency resulting in a weight that is higher than Maximum Landing Weight. So what do we do in this case? If you do not have a time critical situation you burn off fuel, for example in a holding. If you do have a time critical situation you try to burn off as much fuel as you can, but you start preparing for an emergency landing and accept that it will be overweight. Of course there is nothing about that landing you will know for sure, but you do know that on top of the MLW there is a safety margin. So, if you land 1000kgs overweight, the aircraft will not break in half, nor will the landing gear break. But what about 5000kgs overweight? You can't know for sure. So we prepare for an emergency landing. Cabin gets ready. Everyone in the back head on their knees and cabin crew ready to evaucate when we have come to a standstill. It's up to us then to land the aircraft as smoothly as possible to prevent as much damage as you can. In a time critical situation its either that or die. In the end we rather have one broken plane and 186 passengers plus crew in one piece and living on to tell about it, than a broken plane and all dead cause you didn't want to do an overweight landing. ;) Same goes for military aircraft without a dumping system in a time critical situation, I presume.

^ Me too! ;) That's why I always unplug before switching the power on or off. I guess that would have to be filed as one notch down on the 'happy scale', shouldn't it?

A sounding YES! ;) Eventhough some are whining about the play in the throttle, the sensing of the thing is spot on. Very accurate.

How would you try it out? There is no way to see if a hit to your plane was registered on a fuel tank. For all we know its not even modelled and you fly until the end of time with those tanks without anything happening. You would keep on wondering wether it was being hit or not and a) its not modelled so the explosion stays out or b) it was not hit at all. Its not something that's easy 'to try out'. ;)

Well to be fair, I always thought my X52 was pretty solid. That was until I made my maiden flight with the HOTAS Warthog, though. The stick is rock solid, but in all fairness there is some play on the throttles, which makes them feel less sturdy in relation the the rest of the build of the HOTAS. And that I never had any play on the X52 throttle. Button flimsyness is not something I encounter on the WH, though. Not on the stick nor the throttle. All buttons are rock solid. But if you mean by flimsyness that, for example, the cap of the flap switch can be turned and is not fixed, then it might come across as flimsy, but its only the cap that has some play, not the switch itself. Its the same on real airplanes, trust me. You should see how much play there is on many switches in any given cockpit. Still they have to be certified for aviation, so flimsyness is not really the fitting term here.

Guys we're missing the point here ;) : The question was wether it was modelled or not. I understand the sillyness of doing something you're not supposed to do, but if everyone in the world only did what they are supposed to do they were no accidents at all, ever. I am curious, seperate from the whole discussion about wether it would be wise to do so, if the sim actually models the difference in fuel tanks.

Well it would be 'nice to have' I suppose, but not really neccessary. Added objects for the mission editor are a good idea though, just not added to the world by default. Then I can never fly a decent lowvis approach anymore due to performance! :P

Indeed, if they were only procedure trainers the whole issue about vision is moot. :)

I noticed that you can call up the firmware info for the Throttle and the Stick in the TARGET software. I would be curious to find out which FW numbers are generally causing the problems.

Great stuff, Frederf. Thank you! (rep inbound)

Well its always something mission editors can add I suppose, but I would oppose to having those at every airport automatically. Many people have to watch their settings to prevent performance issues as it is already. Only adding more stuff to the world which aren't too relevant (at least in my opinion) doesn't sound like a good idea. I am all for options though, so them being added in a mission by the mission editor is a good idea. At least you can limit the amount of stuff being put in that way.

Well it's not supposed to happen. That's something different. There's nothing preventing me from flying with external tanks to a hot zone. I won't bump into an invisible wall in the sky or insta-stall. ;) So the question remains valid, doesn't it? ;)

The USAF isn't using the same entertainment version of DCS were are using, but as far a visuals go, that might not matter. Graphics are probably roughly the same on both systems, but the hardware is very different. I train in so-called Level-D sims for my job quite often. 'Level-D' is a term used to indicate the workings and quality of 'feel' inside the sim is very lifelike to the real platform being modelled. In my case a Boeing 737 jetliner. The graphics are, say, Microsoft Flightsim quality, but the cockpit is built 1:1 and functioning exactly so, eventhough it still has to run on (several) computers behind the scene. My point is, that eventhough the 'picture' you will see in the USAF sim will no doubt be very much like what we see on our monitor as far as graphics go; the hardware is probably totally different. A-10C cockpit 1:1 reconstructed with a vision unit of 180 degrees FOV (or maybe even more) a moving platform which might give the impression of G forces. Is not like your entertainment desktop at all. :D Hence, the vision unit used is much better than our monitor, if only for the size and scope (all around you). Finally on topic: I don't think zooming is cheating, BUT as pointed out above it has to remain within limits. Only allowing us to adapt for the reduced visibility capability, but preventing things like superzoom. It's how you use it, not if you use it.

Here's an excerpt from the manual: p44. "As with the fuselage tanks, the tanks are self-sealing and filled with a flexible foam to prevent a fuel tank explosion. Note that the external tanks do not have such precautions and are never flown with in combat." Is this modelled in game? e.g. When flying in a combat area with external tanks and taking hits to those tanks, will you risk a fuel tank explosion?

I am planning to start building on a BS profile for my Hog later today as well. Good point about it going to have 'commonality' with the A-10C's profile to reduce workload and brainfarts as much as possible. There is only so much you can do, though, with the Soviet ergonomics being vastly different than the American one. ;)

SAR = Search and Rescue. I suppose you could program the mission like you being the CAS for an inbound SAR flight, keeping the area secure of any enemy ground forces until the SAR has recovered the target. Effectively a CAS missions of course, but in a different 'flavor'. Browse the net and look for reports about A-10 missions. That way you''ll get an understanding of how the platform is used in real missions. Of course, just for fun you could venture into the fictitious roles and just dream up scenarios. A lot of action movies involving military aircraft are also full of errors, but are still fun to watch. If you don't mind having a less- or even unrealistic mission you can go awol in the mission editor!

Hi Mithandra, You can solve this by pressing the 'Pause/Break' key twice when you have just gone into the cockpit upon start of a mission. :joystick: I got my Warthog plugged in today for the first time and I agree on all accounts with you. It's a nice piece of sturdy hardware from initial impressions.

Maybe in this is an obsolete addition, but be sure to doublecheck the assignments of the various controllers you have plugged in inside the simulator. Every controller has its own column. If you have conflicting axis set the end result might be no response inside the cockpit because one controller keeps cancelling out the input on the other controller cause they are providing feedback to the same function in game. Clear all axis assignments you do not need.

Serial #: 02605 (#02129 for the stick according to firmware) Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

So do we now have confirmed all the issues you might encounter can be resolved and I can plugin my shiny new HOTAS without fear when I get back from my roadtrip (in 5 days *ouch*, while just now the Warthog got delivered to my home...)?

Just a quick note: It has arrived today!! Yay for me! Just in time for my birthday! Though I cannot do anything with it for the next 5 days because I am going on a roadtrip with a friend this afternoon. *ouch* Still, its nice to know it will be waiting in its box when I return! Will register the serial then too. *Happy happy joy joy*

Well, I kinda agree. If you look at the amount of serials logged in the 'Serials thread' in relation to the amount of unique usernames in this thread only a fraction of the users are having problems so it seems.

Then how do you know it works? You couldn't wait and plugged it in, didn't you, LeadDoctor? That was a risky affair don't you think? Maybe you already fried the firmware and now its broken in the box... Nah just pulling you leg there. ;) Mine is now on its way finally, but after reading this I am a little hesitant to plug it in at all until some clarification from TM has arrived on the issue...

Still waiting for mine. I got a follow-up email from SimW that it will be dispatched as soon as its available (5-10 days) and that was more than 10 days ago, so I guess it was just a generic message... Don't get me wrong, SimW has replied to all my inquiries so far, they only can't give any details I would like... I guess its just wait and see. Hopefully it'll still be in time for my birthday (beginning of december).

No email yet from simware here... my order status has changed to 'waiting' though, so it looks like they're busy preparing... Fingers crossed I won't be one of the people getting a back-order email....