Frostiken

Well, to a degree. I think what you really need are just dual sound outputs. My keyboard, the front jacks on my computer, the motherboard output, and the sound card output can all be picked as different output devices, and I can specifically pick, say, the front jacks as output for Teamspeak. I still only have two cards, and yes, you won't really be able to do it with just one sound device (if you just have the jacks on the back and that's it), but it's not quite as cut-and-dry as having to have a second sound card on top of the motherboard RealTek.

Don't know about that, I just saw on the list that we're going to be right between a MiG and a Tornado (don't know if it's German or English or what) with an F-35 on the end. If it is a mockup that'd be disappointing, but I guess it depends on how accurate it is. If it's something Lockheed put together it might be good enough to still be pretty sweet. At the same time, it'll make me ask why the F-35 is nothing but vaporware still :p Still though, getting away from the flightline for a few days to get piss drunk in Germany, who cares why I'm there. There's also going to be an A-10 weapons setup, I assume it'll be the whole spread-out thing.

Airshows are like NASCAR in a lot of ways...

Well I wouldn't say it *can't* be done... it's all part of the DirectSound API.

Well the F-16 demo team's coming out, but our E-models will be too broke to fly so they'll be stuck on the ramp, wallowing in their own fluids where they belong.

What, all you gotta do is catch a last-minute flight halfway around the world :D Space A! :D

:thumbup: It's fun to already do this with a headset and teamspeak... all the cockpit sounds being transferred would be nice.

I may actually see if there's someone who can scan them all for me... it took me ages just to do those few pages, clean them up, and put them on a .pdf. I'm not above solving my laziness with money :D Also this document explains the "new" dual-pipper for the gun, pg 7!

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=77547 Take a look at that PDF, particularly page 7. "On uneven terrain, the LASTE system can use a dual pipper to accommodate for variations in target elevation. Dual pippers are displayed within the CCIP reticule when a VAR TGT ELEV is entered in the OSP WEAPONS submenu. The amount of separation between the pippers is determined from the variable target elevation and elements of the CCIP solution." The bottom dot corresponds to a target at the lowest possible elevation, while the upper one corresponds to the highest. In general, it's safe to aim in the area between the dots. Hope that helps :)

Then you'd have realized that being a beta tester lends zero weight to your argument, since technical expertise and programming skills have never, ever been a requirement to be a beta tester or doing software QA. Playing unstable versions of a game to find bugs != programming experience. I did respond... To just about all of them. I don't think I can take another page of being told I'm a stupid sophomoric baby-killing sociopath because I have this power to draw a line between fiction and reality and actually understand what happens when you employ PGMs against infantry, so I'll take a rain check on this one.

Yet you didn't actually cite any of your own experience and in fact stated that you don't even know how much work implementing features the game already has is... so why am I to believe that you have all the answers? I never said ragdolls were 'easy' to implement, but I also never said I particularly cared, and additionally you're seemingly suggesting that, in a game engine that's renowned for its physics simulation quality, that none of these physics can be applied to a model that already has been rigged and has bones. You do realize that you can make ragdolls in 3DSMax, right? There's not some sort of alien technology you have to implement, you need a physics engine and models with the appropriate bones and joint limitations. Last time I checked, this engine had a supposedly robust physics engine, did it not?

So anyone who thinks the weapon delivery aspect should be improved clearly isn't taking the sim 'seriously', and in the spirit of the ridiculous circular non-arguments of this thread, we've come right back to suggesting that anyone who doesn't fly the A-10 while wearing a monocle and a tux is a dirty demented sociopathic ingrate. Why not just make the age rating for the game only for old pretentious old men over the age of 55, since anyone who doesn't weep alligator tears for the magic pixel-men clearly just wants to celebrate blood and guts and only plays the game while listening to Drowning Pool. I'm so done with this thread. If you want to insult me, man up and be direct about it.

An A-10 study simulator. Not a KC-135, or an Airbus A380 simulator, but a study simulator of an aircraft that is designed to engage infantry and armored targets and kill and destroy them. Not send them flowers, or cut their grass, or give their kids a ride to school - to maim, destroy, and bring untold destruction upon the puny heads of whoever is in front of it. Which is specifically why I said more realistic vehicle destruction would be welcome as well. In fact, everything that tears up the ground could be greatly improved - bomb impacts are pretty lackluster. If you can't handle the fact that it's a war machine, there's always FSX to satiate your pacifist tendencies. Let's not forget that ED had time to put in pilot walking animations and make him controllable, and then let you jump in a drivable UAZ. I'm sure you can find a reason to justify why that is more important too. I understand certain opposition to the inclusion, but I do not find any of the explanations offered to substantiate the reason whatsoever. I think I've done fair enough to explain why most of these arguments are totally invalid, only to see the poster jump to another convenient half-reason why. As such I no longer find this thread worth my already mostly useless time. I know that there will never be enhanced infantry deaths, I never expected otherwise, but I think one could pony up more to the thread than hyperbole and circular arguments...

On that note, if anyone's at Spangdahlem AB in Germany over this weekend, there's going to be an F-35 there for the air show.

Oh my god, drop is already, this argument is useless, pointless, baseless, and boring. Case in point: the last patch made a switch functional that not only most pointedly has ZERO effect in-game whatsoever, but has been stated there's no plans to ever make it functional in-game. Clearly someone disagrees with your idea on what is the best use of resources. I will argue that the only important thing left to work on is Nevada and, I guess, the KA-50 patch. You could say that half the features in the last few patches, since exactly 100% of them were *not* Nevada, could have been spent on 'more important' things. If we're going to waste our time making a switch toggle and turn a light on that does nothing beyond that, what *can't* we waste our time on? This reminds me of my thread to put in switch / handle safeties and people even found a reason to argue against that.

Not doing something because a minority refuse to upgrade their aging systems is absurd. That's what consoles are for - holding back progress and innovation for people who can't afford to buy something better, or are too confused by upgrading, etc. etc. etc. Basically I look upon the 'my 7 year old PC couldn't handle it' arguments with *GREAT* disdain. There's a video right up there of softies getting hit with what I assume is a GBU. One guy is clearly torn in half and several others are salsa-fied. I've seen plenty of our videos from Afghanistan of pod video and yeah, you see all kinds of devastation. What makes it particularly visible is you're looking at them in FLIR, so all the squishy bits show up much brighter. One of our strategies in Afghanistan is to drop a GBU-38 into the dirt, so the Talibs, who are hiding, come out since fragmentation and blast pressure is minimized. We follow up with an air-burst GBU-31 that turns everyone's lungs inside-out for about 300 yards. The physics behind battlefield injuries isn't as cut-and-dry as you suggest. Immersion isn't about doing things because you can, it's things happening because you expect them to happen. When immersion is broken it's because something didn't behave naturally. Nearby explosions of 500-lb+ GBUs is expected to throw people around and tear them to bits. Sure, some people are going to think that everyone should explode into pieces, but the fact is that extremely close and direct gun hits on infantry as well as close bomb detonations are going to do more than have the infantry slowly lean over to the ground, which they do now, which looks like total crap. There's a lot of room for compromise here, and I don't expect super-realistic handling here, but as I said, simple ragdolls would be a great improvement to the fact that hitting someone in the face with an AGM-65 appears to make them simply faint.

Bar Start

No for both. It's on the Warthog so you can use it as a single throttle for something like the F-16 which has only one engine.

While it's a good idea to make sure your switches agree with flight control positions, when the hydraulic systems are powering up, it's typical for the ailerons and other control surfaces to go squirrely and move around on their own as the system begins feeding the actuators. Ailerons tend to drop under their own weight when the system is off and at startup are usually drooping down. Everyone who has any business on the flightline knows to stay well away from moving aircraft surfaces while hydraulic power is applied. The CMS should be left in standby until you're fenced in. Should be enabled in chocks if simply to confirm the system is operating for BIT and CMD inventory. Wouldn't be a good idea to go into a warzone when half your flare buckets are reading zero because of dispenser switch failure.

That implies that the video being recorded is high-res in real life...

Ensure your Maverick profile weapon delivery system is the same as your weapon mode. By default, they're CCIP, so if you're in CCRP they won't fire.

I was thinking the same thing - the current A-10 wings are dangerously at the edge of failure and recently had to start production back up.

Additional information I have is on EGI, a lot more on LASTE, HARS, SAS, fuel quantity (not that you would care very much about this), and a monstrous section on radios, and some TEWS information. Most of it probably doesn't pertain to the sim but if you've got a major nerd-on for A-10 information, I have it. Unfortunately I'm incredibly lazy and scanning a billion pages of this crap in is a huge timesink :P EDIT: Doh, double post.

A head tracking solution is also pretty mandatory. TrackIR is the only commercial product available, but if you have some technical skills and free time, you can pursue a FreeTrack solution.

I was provided a large amount of material and after checking, none of this is classified, FOUO, or marked for NFD. As such, this is basically 'good to know' information. I have pages and pages of this crap. I'll also point out that some of this information is deprecated, and it mostly pertains to the A-10A, as evidenced by some references to obsolete HOTAS commands. I'll see if I can get my hands on A-10C information, but much of this remains valid between both models. I also don't know just how accurate the sim is in regards to some of this. This is essentially what the Air Force considers 'training' for avionics techs, even though quite obviously a lot of it doesn't apply to our job. The theory, however, is that by being able to understand exactly how the entire system works, it'll make it easier to troubleshoot. These are ripped from our CDCs. Again, no classification level of any kind is present on this information. Provided for you, the A-10 enthusiast. Hopefully someone can find some good info here. ED: Consider this another official source for A-10 information if you discover a way to enhance a feature. For example, it's suggested that EAC can fall offline in excessive PAC conditions. I also have far, far more information on the F-15C and E, so when you make the next module (:)), I can provide a lot of unclassified information if need be. DCS A-10 Gun Information - Expanded.pdf