EbonySeraphim

It does. I wonder if there's a way I can mark this question as "answered."

Does Winwing Orion2 throttle base save settings/profiles on the device itself (like Virpil) or does it require SimAppPro to be running in the background? I'm really hoping that if I change settings like adding buttons for axis position ranges, that the device itself retains the information for easier DCS integration. If done through running software virtualization, then at some point a reinstall or PC update would cause DCS to see an entirely new device and require setting it to be set up again. Really what I'm asking if Winwing's input configurations are virtual joysticks done through software or is done in their hardware? Which of their devices can do this or not? If it's virtualized, it seems Joystick Gremlin or vJoy would be a better option than SimApp pro.

I'd take an educated guess (as a hobby games developer) that there's a reason why a lot of games still use D3D9 instead of the newer DX11 features. As an API, DX11 is nicer and more convenient, but probably performs worse. Also, most of the graphics techniques that game developers implement today are still possible in DX9. While a new terrain engine is most certainly going to be an improvement (we hope), don't expect that a graphics API shift alone is a freebie upgrade.

I think the answer is that the jammer mode is bound to the CMSP program selected. So if you have an anti-radar chaff dispensing pattern set, you'll have to have 2 or 3 versions of it coupled with each type of jammer program you might want to use with it. I'm saying this without reading the manual or double checking in game - but I flew the CM training mission recently (mission script halted before it was done though). EDIT: And combined with what EtherealN said, if you have a different jammer for each program that is otherwise identical, the CMSP will select the most appropriate one in automatic or semi-automatic mode.

I hope this is a "mid-term" DCS release I voted for the option that ED sticks with modern aircraft. I'm sure it's been said in this thread already, but I feel like ED would have to put too much effort into this module to make it work effectively as far as balancing gameplay with a variety of and comparable aged war machines in support or enemy roles, and even if the region was accurate/realistic, what about the buildings, roads and cars? At the end of the day, fanatics will see past all that and I'm sure there would still be fun to be had. But a Ka-50 and A-10C in the same airspace as a P51 seems like it should only happen in an air show...JOINT US/RU airshow at that. I really hope this is an intermediate aircraft that ED does not put too much effort into as far as environment, and other units. I would prefer they spend a considerably chunk of their time to redesign some aspects of their engine to take advantage of multiple cores and run better on current generation hardware. And with any software project, I'm sure there are other chunks of code that could be refactored to eliminate bugs, and enable implementation of new features faster. That way, the fixed-wing DCS release should end up as a very high quality product on top of a significantly better engine.

If you're talking BS1, the wingman AI is pretty terrible. I remember it has a very low chance of acknowledging an attack order, so I had to pretty much always use one of two strategies - datalink, or give your wingman a general "cover me" order. I haven't tried this, but you could also try telling them to do recon in an area first, then tell them to engage available targets by type. That way you force them to discover and attack. I fly BS2 now and the wingman AI is much much better.

That's a hard sell. I don't see the need for much more detail beyond what you get in the DCS games of the past few years. The only thing that would justify that large of a price tag in a single game would be if there were around 5-10 planes modeled to the level of A-10, and they had another region or two modeled. Also, a multithreaded engine - I'm a little peeved that my overclocked i7 is my bottleneck in BS2. Multicore has been standard for a while now, and developers have known it was coming long before it's been common place.

Most accurate thing I've ever seen a non-developer say. This in cominbation with: Result in why PhysX tends to only be used for stuff that never affects gameplay. In more comical terms: A GPU is like a fast jet(F-15) and your CPU is like a car(Toyota Camry). The F-15 is quite clearly faster, but there are plenty of situations where using it will end up costing you more time - like the overhead of start/stop procedures, taking off, landing, and the inability to park outside of the grocery store...legally.

I have an superclocked 1GB GTX460 (look at my sig), and I run the game at near max settings @ 1080p. I do not use the highest AA settings, and I don't max out tree distance and civ traffic. I can't say much for missions full of AI (I'm still playing Black Shark mostly), but my frame rate average is about 35 and I rarely see it drop below 20.

Interesting you should say that. I haven't inadvertently done this, but I intentionally mapped the slider on my TM Warthog to view zoom. I have noticed -- and I think this has always happened with DCS:A-10 as well -- that as soon as a mission is done loading, if I touch nothing the view zooms out slowly to the widest angle even though the slider on my throttle is right in the middle. As soon as I move the slider, the sim catches on to the absolute position of it and adjusts accordingly. It's just odd behavior, that's all.

I have already (happily) purchased this patch and will continue to invest in future modules. I posted somewhere around page 52 generally supporting the need to charge for this. I know it's a tough sell. The best (weak) suggestion I can think of is find a way to hide the cost of an upgrade patch of previous module in the development of the next module.

Everyone who's complaining about this release is complaining that they have the *option* to purchase an updated copy of a game they already own. If you ask me, this is good thing and an option I wish I had for a lot of older game I used to play games that went out of support and don't even run anymore. Oh, but you have to pay for it? Sports games come out every year and are more or less the same kind of improvement/change, and you pay the full price for those - every time. Now here's the ED dilemma - The whole concept of a single engine running all of those modules over time is probably the most significant feature a lot of the hardcore simmers care about and greatly adds to the longetivity of the franchise. Close second to that: every new module release is going to be looked at by gaming media outlets (and new fans alike) as a new full game and will be received as such. That means they also have to update the graphics and up the level of simulation detail to match what fans believe (or know) is reasonable at the time, and add features that fans of the last game were asking for. Usually these two improvements along with a new set of single-player missions(or campaign) go into the next title in a series of games and the next title only. For ED, the next title from BlackShark was Warthog. We got that, along with the expected improvements, and many were pleased. As far as keeping BlackShark up to par, all of the content around BlackShark, like the existing campaign scripts need to be updated to use the new engine and tools. This probably involves a retest of everything as well. From an ED perspective, that's purely BlackShark work being done and it's not a trivial amount of work either. The money needs to come from somewhere. Certainly, you wouldn't feel justified if ED buried the cost to upgrade in the Warthog purchase? So we have it in a patch that costs money. Take it or leave it. I haven't read all of the posts in the past 50 pages, but I was very excited yesterday reading this news. Just this morning I realized that when the A-10 patch comes online: This is the first time two highly detailed and accurately modeled aircraft are playable in the same multiplayer environment. ...at least I can't think of another simulator that has done it.

So then I just exit the mission on my own once I'm satisfied with the % complete? That's incredibly unsatisfying...but as long as I know.

I hope this question is appropriate to ask in this topic. I just started this campaign and have found it somewhat difficult because I don't know exactly when I've completed the mission. I read the brief thoroughly, and I notice when the mission score approaches 100, except unlike the first campaign "Deployment" there's no sound effect or indication that you have completed the mission. Do I just need to exit the mission when I feel like I've done enough?

More like "they need sleep and have families too."

I didn't notice much of an FPS increase in BlackShark, but I did notice a significant increase in A-10. I don't actually run an FPS monitor so I'm just eyeballing it.

I guess I haven't noticed because I usually hover at considerably higher altitudes if I'm actually using the Shkval, especially for an extended period of time.

It's also possible if you were 'slowly' descending while in hover mode, your rate of descent increased and you entered a vortex ring state. I know it's easy enough to tell if this happened normally, but if you're concentrating too hard on the Skhval screen, especially at long ranges, its easy to lose track of what the Ka-50 is up to. I noticed that catastrophic warnings or important indicators are present on any screen the pilot may be looking at in the A-10 and F-16. I wish the Skhval had an ADI and radar altimeter.

As an owner of a TM Warthog, I can tell you that moving the throttle to the cut-off position is actually considered a button being pressed/held down in the Windows game controller configuration. So moving it from the cut-off to idle position is like releasing that button. There are actually two buttons "cut-off" buttons; one for each engine. Moving the throttle up from idle to 100% is simply an axis. I hope that was clear.

What was confusing though is that the rotor blades seemed to pick up an uncanny amount of speed after two of them already broke off. As soon as the rotor brake was released, the blades were rotating slowly. After several seconds two of them collided with each other, cutting them in half. Right after that happened, they started accelerating even faster rotationally, almost as if one of the engines was turned on. I have some college level physics in my background (though not high, the little I have, I understand well), and I couldn't quite wrap my head around why, without engine power, the blades were able to accelerate to the point of picking up the whole chopper. Anyone have any ideas about this or should we just say "the sim isn't 100% perfect, and those are unflyable conditions anyways?" Though I couldn't, or don't know how to, look at the wind speed settings Shkval was showing 85-88kph while the chopper was steady on the ground, which I'm guessing was entirely due to the wind speed.

If it weren't for the replies, I would have believed that. I'm still going to try it the next time I have an opportunity.

Roger that! After failing to get Janes F/A-18 and Janes USAF to install and run in Window 7 64-bit or run effectively in a VM with Windows 2000 or XP earlier this year, I discovered DCS: A-10 back in April. Before dropping $60 on it, I did some homework and found out that Eagle Dynamics had been around for a while and made LockOn. So I grabbed LockOn: Platinum and a Thrustmaster T.Flight HOTAS X from MicroCenter. That's when the bug hit -- Later that week I ordered TrackIR5, purchased DCS:A-10 on Steam, and exchanged my T.Flight for a TM Warthog. One week after that, I dropped another $270 on Saitek Pro Combat Pedals and MFD Cougar. I have no regrets -- but then again, I have a good job and disposable income. The only thing preventing me from getting triple monitor right now is space, convenience, and the fact that it would cause me to get a GTX 590 - and I built my rig less than a year ago.

I think your problem exists in all of the sims ED has made -- when you're done, you're done. You can quit out as soon as the JTAC says "RTB" or you know you have completed the mission otherwise. There's no clear confirmation by auto-booting you after landing, or while you're still in the air or anything. I still need to get over it and just pat myself on the back after a long mission.

I've gotten much better at identifying my targets and knowing where to look since I got LockOn just a little bit ago, but now I've run into another wall -- and it's AAA. The 3rd and 4th missions have targets with flight paths and/or targets near two SA-11 "Snow Drift's" just over a range of mountains. They prevent me from making a high altitude approach and engagement to avoid the many AAA threats that exist down low, and taking them out isn't turning out to be too successful. I tried for several hours to hunt them down and managed to consistently take one out many times over (and learned the hard way that you should take out the entire battery because the launchers might still be used with another target acquisition radar). But the second one always proves to be a problem and doesn't appear to be taken out as easily as the first one with the same approach even though it's the same type. I've linked the replay to demonstrate what I'm talking about. Fast forward to when I move beyond waypoint 3 and go for the SAMs. I make a very low altitude approach and take out the first SAM with ease, fully aware the other is there. Then I try to stay above the forest and go for the second and it launches many times at my wingman and myself. We evaded more than a few of the missiles but still managed the bite the dust in the end. After watching the replay just now, I'm wondering if I was being tracked by a radar at the air strip I got shot down over. Maybe that's the one that acquired me. Either way, though, I tried approaching from another direction (mountain side with the cities) in another similar attempt but that battery still acquired me well before I could target it. My question is - is there a weakness to these things that I can successfully exploit and take them out? If so, as soon as I'm done with them, I could stay above 10,000 feet and go for the mission targets free of AAA guns. I haven't put much effort into sweeping all of the AAA guns and short-range IR SAMs then going for a low altitude target approach, but I think that is a much more luck oriented approach as its much harder to know whats there until you see the bullets in the air and look back to where they came from if they haven't already hit. Even T-72s and T-80s can damage the A-10 if I fly ultra low. Track file -- http://www.csh.rit.edu/~oguns/files/SeriousSAMEvasion.zip Strategically, I'm running low on options. Right now I think my best approach is to approach from the other mountains (southern), and if the snow drifts on the other side launch at me, take cover behind them. This is limiting as I need to get much quicker at target acquisition with the Maverick and I can only use it if the targets are relatively out in the open. (not behind trees where one mission target T-80 was hidden)

Mine are all on default here. For LockOn:FC2 I had to modify the TDC Slew control axes to a saturation of 35 on both X and Y or else the thing moves way too fast. I inverted on the Y axis. This feels much closer to how fast it moves in DCS: A-10 on the default settings.