PFunk1606688187

Even if you don't have access to the specifics of the modeling of actual systems interacting to other systems you can still make your best guess. Countermeasures technology is extremely secret yet nobody would pretend like you can get away with not modeling it. DCS has a pretty rudimentary missile/countermeasure system modeled. Its far from realistic but its essential for the interplay of aircraft with a threat environment. Without it there's no point in having the sim. As DCS becomes a much more crowded environment with far more complementary and adversarial systems the lack of decent EW modeling will become ever more conspicuous. With a proper modern fighter in the F-18C to go alongside the proper modern mud mover of the A-10C the question of mutual support in larger scale operations becomes real. No longer can this "we only have FC3 aircraft to back you up" thing be the excuse. The F-18 will be able to do CAP, SEAD, the strategic end of AI while the A-10C will be doing the CAS and BAI and Aggressors with the F-18 again. We have most of the ingredients for a decent shot at virtual Red Flag on a massive scale multiplayer mission, except we have no EW. So far the logic of the countermeasures and the systems on the A-10C are pretty unremarkable compared to the real thing (which we know little about). I'd say that public knowledge of the general principles of even modern EW are sufficient to make a much better "best guess" than people might think. Considering the number of things in DCS that are far from absolutely realistically modeled (last I checked we don't have full access to western or Russian missile data) EW has no real reason to be so neglected. I would contend then its not a matter of opaque knowledge as much as priorities. Given the amateurish way most people play DCS (there's no real tactical primer like in BMS) I think its probably not missed by most people anyway.

The biggest loss in my mind with respect to ground attack is that without a dedicated mud mover you lose that focus. Multi-role means the pilots have to train on everything. Specialization has a huge benefit to the overall quality of the end result. Too much thought on the platform itself and what it can do distracts from the question of the pilot. The platform might have X capability but without training the pilot can only go so far with it. They won't be training CAS too hard in an F-35 methinks, not as hard as the A-10 pilot does. Losing the A-10 to fund the F-35 is like taking all the knowledge and experience of that fleet of pilots, every lesson learned since the 70s, and dumping it out a window. The A-10 is the reservoir of a lot of knowledge that simply can't exist in other fleets since they don't put CAS so high on their training priority list and that list is very important given the low numbers of hours they get to fly a month.

Well there is a very big difference between Roll/Aileron trim and Yaw/Rudder trim. You should double check that you're using the correct (Roll) trim to counter asymmetrical weight and drag at the wing tips. I should also point out that extreme asymmetrical loads could make the aircraft handle horribly. But you seem to indicate that it won't even fly level.

https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/ Its kind of embarrassing the level of sophistication in that thing compared to DCS. E warfare is so important I hope that down the line it gets addressed in the engine.

Wait, did you just compare these people to small children? XD

Back to knowing what in the hell is actually going on around you at any given moment? Definitely. ;)

By and large DCS needs a serious evolution of its pilot preflight options. Too much is dependent on what is put in the mission by the mission maker and too much isn't even accessible on that level. The sim that shall not be named has this squared away nicely. With so many new birds coming into DCS the weakness by comparison is starting to show.

Don't carry a targeting pod. That'll cure you real fast.

Like that B-2 that schwacked friendlies with a PGM? Lovely CAS platform that. Of course they use PGMs in CAS all the time. My thought is are they going to start using PGMs inappropriately in a situation that calls for down and dirty CAS simply because they no longer have the latter option? EDIT. I meant to type B-1.

Or divide 120 by 2 and add a zero. Same diff. I generally don't calculate descent rate though, usually instead focusing on the AoA indexer and the TVV. Put the TVV on your touchdown zone, make changes to power, configuration and trim to get yourself to approach speed using the Indexer while keeping that TVV at -3 degrees and on the touchdown zone. Good technique sees you have the indexer with the donut and the 'too fast' hash mark up until flare with your flare bringing you to a solitary donut on the indexer meaning on speed. However for low visibility approaches without an ILS calculating the number is nice.

LOL, might do that.

I only watched the first roll in. Pull more Gs, up to a steady tone (or 5ish Gs). If you lolly gag you'll make an easy target.

I like to describe that as 'pull the target through your roof'. Its also important in my experience to keep your eyes on the target while doing this so TrackIR is important. In theory your eyes should stay on the target area during the roll and pull since its a basic reality of piloting any type of vehicle that you will tend to steer towards what you're looking at, particularly during complex maneuvers that overload your conscious decision making. The other thing is for a specific dive angle you want to use canopy references, which you develop and understanding of over time. There is a formula I read which says if you want a given dive angle you should be rolling your aircraft to 85 degrees plus your desired dive angle in the direction of the target. So a 45 degree dive involves rolling inverted to 120 degrees then pulling into the target. To achieve this though you still need to be a given three dimensional distance from the target. This goes back to the basic concept of the bombing triangle. Your dive angle is the hypotenuse of a triangle with the track distance from the target and your altitude being the other two sides of the triangle that allow your hypotenuse, ie. your dive angle, to be what you want it to be. You can and some do create sleds for calculating these things, and it applies equally to any type of diving ordnance delivery, but generally I just eye ball it. Its worth however knowing the baseline altitudes and base distances from targets to achieve preferred dive angles, in general. You can achieve a given dive angle from any distance but you want to keep it in a given pocket to achieve optimal distance during the attack run. Too close and you won't be diving for long enough and will be inside firing range before you can track the target. Too far away and you'll be diving for a long time making yourself a non maneuvering target for longer than you need to. A perfect attack run sees you stabilize and track the target just as you reach your desired slant range for firing. Last but not least, NEVER use your speedbrakes while doing attack runs. The Hog is a pig when it comes to speed, so don't help it to get any slower.

If you're having trouble getting the pipper on target try using the Gun Cross as your aim point for initial roll in. If you use the pipper itself since its corrected but lags you will likely experience a 'windshield wiper' effect. You can't use the TVV either since it lags considerably while pulling Gs. Pull the gun cross to the target then as you unload the aircraft put the pipper on the target. For ranges and burst length, I fire on tanks at 0.8 slant miles til about 0.5/0.4. APCs its closer to 1.5nm and for anything soft you can probably kill it with a good long burst at 2.0. I usually go max zoom as soon as I've unloaded the aircraft and at the same time I'm refining my aim to put the pipper on the target. In real life the PAC apparently allows you to refine aim while its engaged but this doesn't appear to be modeled. As a result you must only select PAC once you have the pipper right on target. For tanks its best to fire from at least 45' dive if not steeper.

If they tried to make a credible driving simulator our of DCS it would at least create a bounty of improvements to the ground units no doubt. For all the attack aircraft in DCS, their primary targets are incredibly underdeveloped in comparison.

You wake up on Christmas day with a thumb drive in your stocking, the contents of which are a 3dsmax file with a wireframe airplane and a few lua files with unfinished code.

I don't think you fully appreciate the low workload afforded to one by the avionics in the A-10 compared to the Ka-50. There are things in the Blackshark that require multiple button presses that require only one button press in the A-10C. I would never call the Black Shark ergonomic or intuitive with respect to avionics. Most of its systems can't talk to each other and function like they run on tape cassettes from the 80s. Of course if you've never actually committed to learning the A-10C I can hardly expect you to really understand how the systems work. Complexity is not a detractor, not when that complexity creates functionality that the Black Shark wishes it had. Simply the A-10C is a 21st century combat aircraft benefiting from all the modern ergonomics and streamlined integrated systems. The Black Shark is not and does not. You might have a point if you were talking about the A-10A. Just try sending datalink information to your wingman in the Ka-50 then the A-10C. One is stupidly high on workload while the other is not.

The current state of aircraft spotting with the naked eye in DCS is by far the thing in most need of improvement, for more than just WW2 as well.

They recently altered the folder paths in the DCS folder. The DCS World\Mods\Aircrafts folder is now simply Aircraft. They dropped the 's'. Enough to break the simplicity of JSGME, until you make a small edit to the file pathways.* *assuming this is the problem you're experiencing

Basic navigation can all happen inside the HSI along with the CDU waypoints being properly loaded into the system. You look at the waypoint arrow on the HSI to estimate your bearing to the waypoint and then decide on a course to it. Flying that course is as easy as turning to intercept a radial from it. Basically you're flying until the waypoint arrow on the HSI points at your desired course, in this case 270 then fly on 270 towards the waypoint. If you wanted to be precise you'd set the Couse Deviation Indicator to the desired course using the Course knob and then the CDI will tell you to an arbitrary (and selectable in the CDU) degree how close you are to being on that course towards that waypoint. All this, which is basically the heart of the answer to OP's question, is excellently covered in that fourth link of Fish's tuts. 35 minutes on the CDI and the related concepts. Couldn't ask for much more.

My experience is that curves only make this problem worse not better. A linear travel allows for simpler muscle memory whereas a curve is sacrificing predictability over the full travel of the stick for the sake of finer control in the travel towards the centre of the stick. Basically with a curve you're going to experience acceleration of input as you travel from the flat to the steep part of the curve. This is baffling to your senses and has no logical basis for your brain to work out so it takes more time than it should to develop a muscle memory (in my opinion). Its also slower. Inputs are slower because your input takes longer to reach the further end of the input curve. Its like reducing the refresh rate of your aircraft's controls when you're trying to fly hard and fast combat maneuvers. I struggled with CCIP deliveries until I binned the curves and went linear. Everything is now easier and I'm faster too. You can roll faster, you can pull Gs more predictably at higher stick throw. As for the compass card why would you use that? If you're rolling in on a target you should either be well within visual range of at least some marker on the ground to guide yourself by or you should have a cue that appears on your HUD to tell you that you're on line to the target. At the roll and pull onto the target you should be using your trackir to maintain eye contact with the target or its area. Its an old but true adage of any sort of piloting (be it planes or cars) that we will maneuver the vehicle towards what we're looking at. If you look at the target throughout the entire roll in you will inevitably fly more accurately towards him.

I don't see any conclusive evidence that he's aiming with the bore cross. If you watch closely you'll see that a moment before he fires the cross is above the road while the pipper is on the bottom half of the road, if thats a road I'm seeing. Frankly the video is so low in resolution that you can't even see what he's actually shooting at so we can't say.

He's flying the aircraft by the gun cross. Its a real technique as far as I know to place the gun cross at the target on roll out then adjust the pipper to track the target once it stabilizes. Given the range he's rolling out at he can basically make zero adjustments. The gun cross is stable while the calculated elements of the HUD are on some lag usually. If you orient rollout by the pipper you can end up with the see sawing effect of chasing it so you align the cross, let the pipper stabilize, then move it onto it or let it climb into position. In this case the pipper snaps into the same spot as the cross so he doesn't even aim. Perhaps its just a bit of technical semantics but I think its worth noting the technique as I perceive it. It would be wrong to draw incorrect conclusions based on a situation where we perceive his behavior inferring a methodology he isn't actually using. There are people who know better than me but I think its just a case of Roll out on the Cross, Adjust Pipper to Track, Fire, but with the middle step not being required owing to the situation ie. slant range and dive angle leading to near zero firing solution off the gun cross.

I don't think he's aiming the gun by the cross, he's just using the Bore Cross as a mark for orienting the aircraft on roll out. He was well under 1nm slant range when he fired and at greater than 30 degrees of dive so bullet drop at that point is going to be negligible. Being a pro he can make it look that way though, where he rolls out perfectly set up to fire basically the moment he means to fire. I've seen the pipper climb up to the bore cross in DCS. You probably won't notice unless you're paying attention though since its occluded by default. Turn off gunsight occlusion and see where the cross ends up on a high angle strafe. Watch this. You can clearly see the gun cross disappear behind the occlusion area of the pipper. No idea about the master caution though.

Pretty sure that in real life as a matter of procedure if they're using mark points for an attack they make them into waypoints and name them appropriately.