Frostiken

Ask 'management' if they've ever downloaded any free guides from the community...

Man, a 10 minute demonstration with no taking it easy on the burner. Hell of a lot of fuel in that thing :D PS: Why the poop would you have a WSO for an aerial demonstration? There's not even any pods on it FFS :)

One on the centerline. Holds one human.

Checklists aren't the A-10 Bible that sim pilots make it out to be. The reason most A-10 pilots leave the canopy open is because the ECS system doesn't put any air in the cockpit when they're on the ground / engine are on low power. So to avoid from suffocating or melting in the cockpit they leave it open until just before they're ready to roll.

Oh god no. Keep that dakka dakka WW2 snorefest away from my DCS.

I've wondered this myself. I think it has something to do with boresight values.

You mean the light that illuminates the tail itself, right? What do you need, the actual light assembly?

It kind of is, since they could tell you anything and you'd have to believe it :p The thing is - I wonder how much, if any, classified material ED has access to. Given that their developers are Russian, probably none, but since they are making a product for the military, it is possible. It's funny that people consider older airframes 'less classified'. I suppose the amusing part of that is that it's a testament to secrets that you don't even know some of these secrets exist. You may know that the TEWS system's actual threat characteristics are classified, but did you know that on the F-15E: [s/NF] One of the ######REDACTED####### #####REDACTED##### #####REDACTED##### #####REDACTED##### moist throbbing!

Every plane has classified info. The A-10 just has fewer than most due to its lack of frills and advanced avionics (relative to say, an F-15E), but it still has an EW system which is fairly classified. For the most part, classification levels wouldn't hinder most aircraft much, as the meat of most of it is unclassified as well as basic operation. For example, the specific behavior of jamming radar and the odds of decoying IR SAMs are known to me, but these results are all in a Secret / NOFORN book so ED has to make their best guesses about it. The thing is, since almost nobody but me has access to this, you all wouldn't know any better, so who cares? Secrets are hard to miss when you don't even know they're missing :) Obviously problems would occur where secret information interferes with basic operation, such as the ALQ-128.

What I meant to say was: In my opinion it's selfish. And I'm sorry for saying 'dumbest'. I didn't mean to imply that my opinion on the matter was actually a fact, as I do not have the qualifications to state so. I didn't mean to imply that Pilotasso is 'dumb'. What I meant was 'Asking for ED to invest immense amounts of time and money just to re-make a game that already exists just because you want prettier graphics is [Pick non-offensive word].'

Those points are so baseless and absurd it's hardly worth arguing about it. The scenarios are different? What, did they remove the mission editor from the other games? God knows the scenarios won't reflect real life - otherwise it'd just be you flying your F-16 in circles while real aircraft get the job done for you. As I said: Asking DCS to squander their time and money making an overrated Hollywood-esque airframe with a disproportionate number of fanboys just because you want prettier graphics is one of the dumbest, most selfish things I've heard in this thread. Just what I want is this forum to be inundated with whine threads about why Falcon 4 / BMS differ from DCS and who's more right.

The poll is like asking 'what's your favorite kind of cake?' and offering choices of 'Glass' 'Chocolate' 'Poison' and 'Angel Flesh'. I am imagining DCS Falcon. I don't get it. What the hell do you people expect to happen? ED is going to make laser guns and crazy new features for the F-16 to have? 95% of it will have identical functionality between BMS, DCS, and Falcon 4. All DCS brings is a new terrain and better graphics at the expense of the dynamic campaign, sound, ATC, and other features. Everything that ED puts into DCS: F-16 is going to be unclassified information which means it's available to anyone else who has any interest in making an F-16 sim. It's just a matter of where you look. I still stand by my last opinion - asking for an F-16 sim is incredibly selfish. We can only have one new airframe, and you're wasting everyone's time asking for an overrated aircraft that has done remarkably little in the last twenty years that, more importantly, has two god damn sims out for it right now that are just as functional as a DCS module would be. Furthermore, the A-10C we have is a very old version of it, you probably aren't going to get a bleeding-edge F-16 either. Also, Viper fanboys bother me something terrible. I got tired of retreading old ground, so just see my avatar and sig :) I will take a moment to point out that all the evidence supporting an F/A-18 specifically points to the standard POS regular Hornet. Every aircraft has flaws. I don't understand this ridiculous idea that modern aircraft fly themselves and shooting down baddies and dropping bombs is little more than a matter of putting the thing on the thing and the computer does the rest.

It's been suggested in the past, and I understand where you're coming from, but it just doesn't really happen in reality.

This is now the official 'Show your hog' thread. It's official because I say so. My hog: My pig: PS: Whoever flies that A-10 is worse at AR than I am :D

Except maintenance doesn't leave the switches flipped randomly. As soon as the jet lands, since the pilots leave switches wherever they damn-well want, one of the ground crew (maybe the crew chief, maybe not) puts all the switches in a certain position called 'safe for maintenance'. Fundamentally, everything is usually set to safe, off, or hold. If QA catches a cockpit with the switches flipped all willy-nilly the squadron can get a fail for a UCR (unsatisfactory condition report). It doesn't really matter when you're running it up since QA usually has no idea what we do in the cockpit anyway, unless it's something like the seat isn't pinned. Another clever way they catch you is sometimes people leave the lights on, and a jet sitting on the ramp with all the lights blinking wildly for minutes on end is a big banner saying 'I didn't do power-on safe for maintenance'. Regardless, at the end of maintenance we usually turn everything off (since we only really turn on whatever we needed to turn on to fix the problem), and prior to flight the crew chief needs to unsafe the cockpit and will usually check to make sure the switches are in the right position (safed again). Besides, there's very few switches you would find flipped randomly since most of them are never used on the ground. Of those switches, most of them would be innocent (radios not turned off - displays still on). The only important ones like engine fuel flow would never be touched anyway.

Unless you routinely use TrackIR to position the mouse on switches instead of moving the mouse itself, there wouldn't be any problems. +1, I hate having to chase switches with my mouse.

!

Actually what bothers me the most about DCS's graphics is the blocky terrain. The second would be the limited building variety. /me ponders the engine running DX11 with tesselation...

I'm 99% sure the reason IFF isn't modeled is because of AI limitations. Mode 4's functionality is hardly a secret anymore, and Mode 1 through 3/C aren't classified at all. The only real secret about IFF systems are the Mode 4 keys themselves. The reason for the problem is that your AI has to make some serious decisions without breaking the game when you introduce IFF. You could end up with situations where the AI starts shooting down his own planes, you have to add hooks for visual confirmation, etc. That said, they could get away with just some simple switches to flip on the A-10 and the KA-50, but assuming our next aircraft has a radar (which it probably will), they're going to have to figure out some solution for IFF, at which point they'll have to go back and make these things functional in the previous aircraft as well.

You can still exceed PAC-1 authority to move around with enough stick input.

Right, because most civilians don't base their opinion and knowledge of military hardware off of what they see in movies. That's why nobody makes a thousand user-based missions and youtube videos about every game that allows you to fly a Blackhawk that all simulate the Battle of Mogadishu.

I think the problem is that you left the stick mapped to functions in-game. With the profile I gave you, the only stick button that should be mapped directly to the program is the NWS button. Remove JOY_BTN1, BTN2, BTN3... everything except BTN4 (the pinky button). The default mappings for these commands that we want is: P on keyboard = PAC-1. SPC on keyboard = PAC-2. JOY_BTN4 in-game = NWS/Laser fire switch. Regarding these functions, nothing else should be bound to them. The script does the following. %DEFINE Primary_Trigger JS1.B1 %DEFINE Secondary_Trigger CMS.B12 %DEFINE Pinky_Button JS1.B4 JS1.B1 = trigger on fighterstick, is the primary trigger. JS1.B4 = pinky button on the fighterstick, is the NWS button. CMS.B12 is defined in the command table as "SPC". Secondary_Trigger = ( Primary_Trigger AND Pinky_Button); So when you press the primary, it sends 'P's and you go into PAC-1. When you press the pinky button, it sends JOY_BTN4 (and technically fires the laser and all that, but it doesn't matter), at which point the program starts sending 'P's and 'SPC's which smoothly activates PAC-2.

I'm surprised this thread went on this long without someone pining for those irritating "Little Birds" that nobody cared about until after Black Hawk Down came out.

What he meant to say is that it's a known bug and will be fixed in the next update.

If you'd bothered to check out the link I gave you, could have saved a few hours. But what do I know, I only used a CH Fighterstick / ProThrottle and devised the best solution for PAC-1 / PAC-2.