-Ice

siefex, you'll be surprised to learn that landing this baby is very easy. At least compared to all the combat stuff you're expected to do later! First off, to answer your question, the ATC tells you the heading and distance from where you will start your final approach. Therefore, he is directing you to a point in the air in front of the airfield, once you get there, turn into the airfield for your final. 5nm or so from the airfield, ATC will tell you to contact tower, and when you do, they will clear you to land. Now regarding landing --- the important thing is TO DO IT. Don't worry about the ATC for now, don't worry about wind direction or procedure. Concentrate on getting your bird down nice and easy. I recommend you set yourself up with a practice mission, clear day, 12 noon, no wind, singe A10 on takeoff from runway. Edit your loadout so you're not carrying anything and give yoursefl 50% fuel. Takeoff, fly 10nm out, turn around, come back straight in. I would recommend Bantumi for this since it has both ILS and PAPI lights. Again, don't worry about details just yet, just get your bird down.

Posting a screenie would help loads in identifying your problem.

BiPod, I guess the best way to describe my experiment was to test out the accuracy of the technique. Now if the next question is survivability, that would now depend on a number of factors, the first of which is the type of threat you are coming up against. In a modified training experiment, a couple of buddies and I used the same techniques and used CBU87s and 97s on the target. Targets consisted of 4 T-72s and a total of 8 BMP-2s nearby. Granted these are not "true" AAA threats, you will agree that loitering over them at 1000-2000 AGL is just asking for trouble. So, on to the observations: 1. Popup at 2nm was my standard, along with 10-15 nose up, steady climb, full throttle. If starting with 1000 AGL, and gaining about 400 feet, I get my bombs of just as the tanks start shooting. Now at ~1,500 AGL and slicing off target, the AAA fire has no chance. The important thing is to keep changing your plane of motion so that the AAA will always miss --- if you keep a level turn or not change angles for some time, a few rounds WILL hit. 2. Popup at 3nm was tried, and obviously the release altitude was much higher. I would say AAA fire starts more-or-less the same (forgive me if I don't notice a fraction of a second :D ), but with higher altitude, you have more time to get out. 3. Popup at 1.5nm was tried, and you're barely stable when the bombs come off. Altitude gain was about 150-200 feet and it was very important to slice as soon as you hear the clunk of weapons release. A few runs I came off clean, sometimes I get plinked with little-to-no damage. Still a clean run is far better than a close call. So, what does this all mean? Distance from target on pop up exectuion will determine altitude at release and proximity to AAA threat. Is it better to pop up early and be higher? Is it better to pop up late and minimize "above the deck" exposure? It will all depend... on a) the immediate threat from the target and b) the threat from the theatre itself. After all, the assumption is that you are doing this technique because you need to be NOE flying to avoid a bigger problem (radar SAMs), so minimal exposure is desirable. However, exposing your belly at 2,000 AGL to a waiting Shilka 1.5nm away isn't good either. Again, level-flight bombing is the better option for accuracy, high altitude level-flight bombing is the best in terms of accuracy and safety, but c'mon guys. This is DCS, not FSX ;) Sometimes we just need to get the adrenaline pumping and white-knuckle the joystick, y'know? Seanner, thanks for the math on that. Again, stable-climb release done for consistency sake of the experiment, but further tests show that a G-loaded release doesn't make much difference anyway, whether a MK82 or a CBU87. robmlufc, using LGMs or even IAMs puts the whole experiment out of whack. Accuracy alone will go up the roof --- a lofted MK82 or even a CBU87 releases under a 5mil tolerance. You can release a "smart bomb" under a 3/9, although with a low-altitude release, I wonder if it has enough time to correct if your release isn't too good. Point is, dumb bombs needs the greatest accuracy from the pilot in terms of targeting (having to offset the SPI) and flying, CBUs are more forgiving due to their "shotgun" nature, and "smart bombs" may be even more forgiving due to their self-guiding nature...

I used to use it a lot in F4AF, but not so much in this sim. I've got it re-mapped to an easily accessible button, so "it's there when I need it."

Coolts, I've tried both constant-G and stable-climb release, as I said before, the additional "range" it gives you is small. I'd be surprised if the technique gives you a 1nm range advantage over a level-flight release, more like 0.2-0.5nm, but in a live theatre, that just might save your life. Also, constant-G vs stable-climb release both give out the stated 0.2-0.5nm range advantage, give-or-take a few, so one isn't really "better" than the other... I noticed the error was slightly more with the constant-G release, but it's just a crater-length away so no big difference. Bipod, your reasoning behind constant-G vs. stable-climb is noted and I do agree with your points. However, I am guessing with the low speed (300+IAS) and/or the low G (2G), the difference I've seen with a constant-G vs. stable-climb has not been great, ie just a crater-length. A significant difference would be maybe 3-4 tank lengths. *** Please note that I am not good with distances so I estimate distance based on target. Crater-length in this case is the diameter of the crater made by a MK82 bomb, tank length would be the length of a T-72 tank. Wynn, I agree that more practice = better but so far, I've tossed about 50+ MK82s and my error is more-or-less constant. What this means is that with all my variables constant (altitude, speed, pitch up, etc), the error is the same meaning the technique is good and the results I am getting is the best I can get. Better flying will only tighten up my error grouping, but the error will still be there. quinn, I do agree that it trades accuracy for survivability, I was curious how much of a tradeoff that is. If I can pop tanks with MK82 from a level release and the only way to get a tank is with a CBU97 from a pop up release, at least I now know the limitations and can plan accordingly.

Turn off your Mavs for a couple of seconds.... and you can turn them back on right away.

I keep my angle steady to limit the variables that can act on the munition. If we're missing targets on a steady climb, I seriously doubt a G-loaded release will improve things.

After watching Wags' Bomb Toss video, I went out and spent an afternoon trying out some bomb tossing. I would like to share my observations in order to see if I'm doing it correctly or not, and if my observations are valid or not. First of all, the experiment parameters - target is a T-72 tank on the X airfield north of Bantumi. This is an experiment so I did not want to have to search for targets and the abandoned airfield is excellent for this. I chose a tank because I did not want softer targets blowing up from a near-hit. I've tossed MK82s, MK84s, CBU97s, and CBU87s. This technique will probably work better with guided munitions but I am experimenting with this attack technique so I wanted dumb bombs to see where the bombs actually hit. All my attack runs are made about 1000 AGL (or MSL, since I come in from the water), full throttle (about 300+ IAS), and pop up about 2nm from target. I've tried varying my climbs from 5, 10, 15, and 20 degrees. Please note the "nose up" and such is taken from the flight path marker and not the actual + symbol that denotes the gun cross. Also, pop up is done by pulling up until the FPM gets to the desired angle, and held there. This means that the bombs are released for a steady climb as much as possible, to limit factors that might induce error. For comparison, on Wags' video, he attacked a group of soft targets (trucks) using a CBU87. Ingress was about 1500 AGL, 315+ IAS, pop up at 1.4nm. At bomb release, he was about 1700 AGL and pulling Gs throughout, approx 2Gs and 17 degrees up at bomb release, 1nm from target. So, with that out of the way, on to my observations: 1. I have never gotten a hit with my MKs with a pop up release. If I pop up, stabilize to level flight, then release, chances of a hit increases, but for a "proper" toss, no. 2. Error increases as nose-up increases. 5 degrees is too shallow an angle for a "pop up," more like a peek up. 10-15 degrees give more or less the same amount of error, and 20 degrees nose up is even worse. 3. Chances for a hit is increased by both rippling bombs and off-setting the SPI by the amount of error noted for the planned attack angle. 2 MK82s on the standard ripple single settings, 10-15 degrees nose up, and point-locked SPI about 6-10 tank lengths before the target results in better chances of a hit. However, this relies a lot on guess-work and the off-set can be misleading based on angle and distance from target. 4. CBUs are the best weapon for this type of attack, as the bomblet scatter compensates for the errors. However, the CBU opens up close to the SPI so the scatter is greater behind the target (ie, the target will not be the center of the bomblet dispersal). Therefore, an off-set SPI to a few meters in front of the target may be desired to properly center the target when the bomblet disperses. 5. Standoff range is not greatly increased when using this technique compared to a standard, level-flight release. I estimate anywhere to 0.2-0.5nm difference compared to the standard release, but with live targets, sometimes that can make a difference as the pilot can slice away earlier. For example, on an ingress at 1000 AGL, 320 IAS, 10 degree climb 2nm from target, I can gain about 300-400 before the bomb goes off the rack at about 1.1nm. Therefore, bomb release is at 1300-1400 AGL. Doing a level-flight release at 1300 AGL, the bombs may come off at 1nm-0.9nm. Conclusions: This attack technique is only good if low-level ingress/egress to the target is a must. It trades accuracy for survivability, both from SAMs and from return fire from the target. While I can plant a MK82 on a tank's turret with a level-flight release, I'm happy if the same MK82 will get the tank with it's shockwave with a bomb toss. As far as standoff goes, the benefit it gives is minimal, but on a high-theat environment, that extra fraction might just mean missing the first stream of AAA. CBUs are the weapon-of-choice due to their dispersal pattern, although carpet-bombing MK82s can also be done (and would look cool too!). I've done this experiment to see if I can bomb with "bullet" accuracy using a bomb toss technique. Apparently, the "shotgun" effect of a CBU is the only thing that will make this technique worthwhile. If the target area is so "hot" that you need to ingress at low level, you will not want to make multiple attack runs just to hit with standard LDGP bombs, better to toss a CBU in there and ge the hell out.

layr, this sim has more-or-less the accuracy of Falcon 4 AF as far as switches and such are concerned, but it is more demanding on the hardware because of the newer graphics... just think of Falcon 4 AF as a late-90s game given a makeover while DCS A-10 is a late 2000s game that was more or less built from the ground up (well, not everything, but you get the point). Also, the A10 is a bit more difficult to handle compared to the "friendlier" F-16.

And no, this game will not run in an acceptable way in your computer. Not unless you turn everything off and maybe play on Arcade mode.

Lol GG. That's what we do now. "Hmm... rightmost edge of the town near WP 4." Just looking for a better way, is all.

Ah, this was the way! Thanks! For future reference, is this in the manual or anything?

Warrior, thanks for the clarification on HUD TDC vs TGP TDC. I always thought the square one was the waypoint :D Either way, turning aircraft to target seems to be the quickest way. PlainSight, note that this does not mean having to engage the AAA, I do agree that safety is always the priority and like I've said so many times, the first thing you do when you spot AAA is to call it out and have whoever it is shooting at do a break turn. However, having spotted it once, I want to know how to at least keep track of the general area where the AAA came from so as to have a reference point from which to search from --- so no longer will we have to say "where's that AAA again? Lead, go back down and bait him for us". Getting a buddy fired at once is enough. I'll have to check out the slew speed in HUD vs TGP though... hmmm.... StrongHarm, you put an interesting method there. Will take some learning but should be a bit better especially if you don't have time to point the nose to the target, ie if he's shooting at YOU or IR SAMs are in the area.

I've done this once before but now that I'm looking for the instructions again, I can't seem to find it. I've got gremlins in my aircraft, my computer, and my manual :helpsmilie: I was wondering if anyone can tell me (again) how to reload DSMS? Specifically, I am looking for a way to "reload weapons," either because you've changed your loadout prior to a mission or because you've returned and rearmed and decided to give yourself a different set of weapons. Having to reload each pylon via the INV screen seems to be too much work. At the moment, I just reset the CICU and wait for it to boot up then press Load All...

Thanks for the TDC. Won't there be a TDC box in the HUD anyway even if you're using the TGP?

What's a TDC again?

Yes, except data sharing doesn't work right now, does it? Also, note that Lead is close to the target and is busy evading AAA, so he may not have time to even look at the target, much less mark it on his TAD/TGP. Seanner, Viper, yeah, that's exactly what we're doing at the moment, slewing pland and pod. So, no other way, eh? It's just that sometimes, we are motoring along and TGP is slaved to Steerpoint and we are looking for targets, so we have to China Aft Short to return TGP to boresight.

This question has been thrown around a bit with the group I fly with, I wonder if there is a way to do this... Say you are flying along, 2-ship, trail, about 1.5nm. Wingie has Lead on visual (tiny dot). Suddenly, AAA comes out, Wingie tells Lead to break. Now --- how can Wingie get TGP cursor on the area as fast as possible? What we have at the moment is to China Aft Short to set TGP to boresight, Coolie Hat Up Short to set HUD as SOI, then drag the diamond over the target. At the moment, this procedure doesn't seem to be too quick, is there a better/faster/more efficient way?

I'll take you on, darren. Hit me with a PM. I'm not "expert" or anything but I'll teach you enough to be able to fly around and blow stuff up. And no, I think the tutorials can be a bit confusing at first. I know I was :D

I got a UK keyboard and I've edited my key settings so that R CTRL + NUM 0 sets up snap views, but the \ key does this too (a one-key press instead of two). Then I set the Z key to whatever view I use the most. In other words, I "added" the \ key to the snap view command and I "added" the Z key to whatever numpad number I want. In my case, I wanted a quick way to zoom in, say for a guns run. I just press \ and Z in quick succession and I'm zoomed in. Zooming back to normal view is just another \ press. I find it easier to do this since it's easier to take the hand off the throttle than it is to take it off the stick when flying :D Hope that helps!

Very nice sir! Rep inbound!

Are you effin' serious Snoop? That's awesome! HOw are you running this bad boy? 3 monitors?

Very interesting, but like ou said, worthless tactic :D

IIRC, the A-10's targeting computer is very basic, at least when you compare it to the F-16 computer which can do lots more computations. Still, no matter how advanced the computer, releasing a bomb while pulling G's or in any situation wherein the aircraft isn't "stable," there is a greater chance of a miss when compared to releasing from a stable platform. Note that stable does not mean wings level. You can be in a stable climb or dive... the important thing is to keep your angle constant and keep your speed as steady as possible. Save the yank'n'bank for after the bombs go off. And no, the CBU isn't more "accurate," it just has a wider blast radius, if that makes any sense, due to the bomblet dispersal.

TrackIR is worth it. I've not used FreeTrack in a while and used it with just a webcam and I can say TrackIR is smoother and better in all respects. You may WANT to tweak TrackIR profiles to suit your needs and preferences, but you don't NEED to. If you just want to plug-in and play, that's good too. You will want to tweak it eventually, but again this is due to your preferences and not due to hardware shortcomings. I don't smoke so I can't tell you how TrackIR would react to the cigarette though.