voyagingmind

I got DCS A-10 a few months back. But only seriously started to immerse myself into it since I installed iControl DCS for the iPad. Since one I don't have TrackIR, and two, I find it already demanding enough HOTAS and Keyboard shortcut wise, so I needed an intuitive way to work with the scatchpad, MFD keys, CDU, because I found having to switch the view/click mouse mode and deal with all sorts of virtual button hell which was an immersion killer. And iControl DCS lets me do most of this from the simplicity of a touchscreen. Anyway so much for the iControl plug. My point is I'm still kinda behind reading the 6000 page manual, and about 500 youtube tutorials I still need to see/watch again (man I love this sim, talk about depth and elegance). So I was wondering, since the A-10 seems to have some type of network features, or at very least the JTAC 9-line thats received, and then e.g. highlights a target in the TAD (red arrow), I was wondering if there was a way to receive networked information from the wingman/flight, ground troops, AWACS, JTACS, Drones you name it, in the TAD. I still need to do my homework on the TAD. But maybe this simply isn't implemented in the sim. But isn't this the way many aircraft, armored vehicles, and battle troops operate these days? Using a linked battle network (A military www), that creates an overview/mosaic of the battlefield, based on the individual target acquisitions made by individual units. Simply put, friendly aircraft and ground units are displayed as 'X''s on the TAD (this is very apparent when creating fast mission with max units), but no dope on the enemy, except from the JTAC 9-lines. I'd think at least it would be nice to see what targets your wingmen spot, and have them share it with you on the TAD. But is this also the procedure with real A-10c's? I know that F-18's (At least the super hornets) are networked together in this way and capable of sharing such tactical information. p.s. can't wait to see all the DCS and Lockon run on the new EDGE graphics engine. While I more than appreciate realism in DCS Avionics, I believe in terms of beauty, emotion, and immersion, graphics are equally important. Not to say DCS's are bad, during certain time and weather conditions it can be quite beautiful, or just to see cars driving below (yes I have to admit, I use them for target practice sometimes, when I get that certain iraqi highway of death tingle we all get at times), just before swooping down on a tank. But its sad to see "kiddie sims" like ace combat and HAWX 2 tote more realism in terms of graphics engine. And with Ace, actually for many years now. Anyway, thanks for enduring this rant (hopefully), I just love this game

So this sim is -veery- deep, and I might be missing something in it's complexity and depth. but: Why would you / do you think you could/would need to assign CCIP to an SPI/Target. It's a visual delivery system, like the GAU-8 gun site. It more or less hits the location the tiny dot is pointing to. Continuously calculated impact point: X marks the spot, or in this case the dot. Please correct me if I misunderstood

Are 32 bit PC desktop systems even produced anymore these days? When I bought my i7 2600 half a year ago, I didn't (Thankfully) come across any 32 bit systems. I use a lot of different software audio / video / Dev Platforms + plugins for work, and enjoy quite a few games, emulators, roms etc. And I mention this because I've not had any problems running most if not all x86 applications on win 7 x64. So in terms of price, speed, compatibility, really no reason not to have x64 (which I don't think we have another choice anyway). I just remember some of my musician friends that limited themselves only to hardware, because they kept on insisting that software wont be compatible, even in just a few years, let alone ten. While I enjoy the keyboards I have (Even some tasty analog ones) I'm so glad they were wrong. Audio programs are a world unto their own (much like dcs a-10 in terms of depth, complexity, and yummyness factor). Anyway I mega-digress, so yeah x64 DCS A-10c here

Thanks, I was thinking it could be that. Now I have to figure out if the GAU-8 at the slower fire rate is a separate wave/.ogg file, or if it's the audio-engine playing it at another pitch. Because its so sweet and deadly sounding, I need to make it the default GAU sounds :spam_laser:

I've noticed several times, while sustaining AAA/SAM damage, while still being able to fire the GAU-8 Avenger, at times (guessing all depending what system's have been damaged) that the cannon makes a distinctly lower pitched gun firing sound, which by the way, to by ears, sounds much more menacing (in a hell from above kind of way), let alone much cooler than the default sound. Just wondering if this is some kind of bug (i've noticed one audio related bug where the sound drops out at times the first 10-30 seconds after respawning (rshift + rcontrol + tab)? Or possibly some type of damage modeling. And one unrelated question quickly. From what I understand the Litening pod can see through clouds when the flir mode is used. But I'm guessing this has a rather limited ability in terms of cloud thickness. From what I could gather in one mission I just flew, it seemed to be able to penetrate about 100-200 feet (at least from the cockpits perspective I had zero-ground visibility), but as soon as I gained just a little altitude, no dope on the lightning. Any ideas? Thanks! p.s. To any mod reading this: I've had a few of my posts moved to different locations (which made more sense, so thanks guys, I'm new here and still learning the many sections/sub-sections of the forum). But I'm a bit confused with the A-10c section. On the one hand there's a sticky for DCS A-10c question, and on the other hand there are plenty of DCS A-10c question going on in the thread itself. To save you guys some overhead, by what criteria do you decide where which type of question should be posted where.

Thanks for taking the time to post, you made some very interesting and informative points. I don't fully agree with your last point however. The A-10c upgrade implements many items which the a-10a was never originally designed for, and that enhance its ability greatly. I do believe adding a synthetic aperture radar to better detect threats and targets, and just have a better overview of the battlefield would certainly add a lot to its role. The following is just an opinion and educated guess: But as for size and cost, considering the miniaturization of technology in general, I'm pretty sure if the Air Force wanted to, it could commission a pod, or an upgrade to the current radar, that -wouldn't- have to be as big/heavy and as costly as the an/apg 80/81 models. I mean this is another topic all together, but it seems to me there isn't much interest for military contractors to modernize, reduce the size and cost of -much- their hardware, when they can get away charging for larger, component /maintenance heavy, resource demanding equipment. Some of which looks like it was designed in the 50's, containing circuit boards my grandmother would refuse to use. I can already imagine 1000 counter arguments to this, and certainly not all wrong. But it would be naive to believe Weapons Manufacturers/Military contractors have a countries best interests at hearts, and not their own bottom lines. When we're talking a billion dollar contracts, there's a lot of back room talk to sweeten the deals, and get as much of the tax payers money as possible. Anyway, just my opinion, and a bit off topic since this post isn't going to change market economics. But this can be seen at almost every level of the markets and world economies (cyclic consumption, planned obsolescence e.g. technically it would be easy to build light bulb that lasts 20 years by using certain gases, or car that can last for 40 years just by using non-corrosive materials, but manufacturers have absolutely no interest in this when they can sell you 5 cars in the same amount of time (or 1000 light-bulbs). Thanks for your reply

I'm basing this question on some of my flight sim 'experience' with falcon/freefalcon (AN/APG 80) (block 52) and a few f-35 (AN/APG 81) videos I've seen featuring Synthetic-Aperture Radar. I (think to) understand that most real A-10 missions involve heavy coordination, ground troop input, JTAC, 9-lines' etc in terms of locating the enemy, reducing risk of friendly fire, and that the pilot relies a lot on their navigation systems to point them towards to target, and then their litening, gps coords, and mk1 eyeballs to pinpoint it. So I could see to some degree how a synthetic aperture radar might not be needed. But still, given the nature of the a-10 in taking out ground threats, since I've been playing DCS A-10c, I've been wondering if it wasn't for the Waypoints, and some random smoke canisters how would a-10's pilots spot targets? Obviously real life has a higher resolution than our monitors (e.g. being able to see a convoy from 3 km's, where as it's only a few pixels in HD resolution, thats why we have zoom), and I'm guessing most attacks are coordinated as mentioned above. But wouldn't it have been a good idea to include such a radar, that to my understanding makes it easy (easier) to make out previously unidentified targets of opportunity? Maybe they leave that up to the high flying fast-movers, AWACS, ground troops, and the a-10 is good in engaging ground targets, but given it's slower speeds, lower climb rates, etc isn't an ideal spotter. The radar warning system is great for spotting targets actively scanning or locking on to you with radar or laser. But wouldn't have including a synthetic aperture radar been a tactical advantage in spotting, engaging, or avoiding the enemy. What are your opinions? Oh yeah, and not to split hairs, but it'd be great to see the a.i. somehow react to a smoke canister going off by their feet and not just standing (sitting) there like a sitting duck for us to mow down with our gau-8's : )

I touched on them expanding into other markets in the post prior to the one you quoted. Don't get me wrong, I truly wish it to be a successful venture for them. And there seems to be somewhat decent appeal for ww2 sims/aircraft given the success of other titles. Still I think it's important to take the opinions, whatever they may be, of ED's existing, and in my opinion, rather loyal, customer base seriously. So be they voices of support or discontent, all opinions are/should be equally important.

Perhaps the point is simply letting the developer know in advance, that many of their customers simply aren't interested in this title, and won't be purchasing it. I don't remember nearly anywhere near as many people saying they'd be disappointed in other titles, so it's important for the dev to know these things, don't you think?

Does this seriously mean I have to update version's 1.1.0.6, 1.1.0,7, 1.1.0.8, 1.1.0,9, 1.1.1.1 ? I know I haven't been siming in a while, but jeez, especially given the size of each update, it would of been nice to have each update patch from 1.1.0.0 on up, so we'd just have to download and -install- the latest file. Thanks DCS.

P-51 Bad choice. These guys make the best consumer available sims on the face of the earth, so I respect their choice to model whatever they wish. Personally however, given the focus of their sims so far. and titles like IL-2 Cliffs, Rise of Flight, Wing of Prey, I think there are enough Pre-jet era sims on the market. No they're not anywhere near as realistic, so I can see DCS's point of wanting in on that market. However, since it doesn't seem like they're going to make an actual WW2 environment, they're probably not going to boast the modern gfx engines some of these titles boost. They're really focusing on the die hard military sim enthusiasts that want detailed models, down to the cockpit coffee cup holder. And here the question becomes, how many of us really would prefer the simulation of a ww2 era airplane over that of a more modern one. In terms of sales alone, I believe at this point in time DCS would be better off served to focus on their graphic engine, as they really nailed the realistic simulation market, and on a more modern air fighter that fits in more to their current series, since they themselves have stated this won't really be a ww2 sim, but DCS + a p51 roaming in there... for what reasons, I0m not sure. But I'm not too thrilled about the prospect, will be sitting this one out, and leave the 'golden age' enthusiasts enjoy their thing. Just my opinion, and I'm sure DCS can do without my purchase, but I'm thinking I'm not the only one, and just wanted to communicate a potential customer's opinion on this matter. After seeing a video of ACU Sims P-51 model: I question the choice even more. I'll have to agree with Adolf on this one: http://www.YOUTUBE.com/watch?v=iAoZP6EuaDk