PFunk1606688187

Its hard to go wrong with 4*AGM-65 and 4*Mk-82. Bread and butter multipurpose. I try not to take CBUs unless I have a good reason to since they are draggy as hell on top of those TERs. As for IAMs... well whats the fun if you're certain not to miss?

There is definitely a purple quality to it. It is however close enough to easily pass for blue. I would compare it to being about as yellow as an amber light.

The PeterP eye position mod pretty much covers anything I can say to this. The shoulder code that was added is nice, but not exhaustive in addressing the deficiencies with respect to reality. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=96116

One thing to note is that DCS doesn't model eye position, it models head position with an eye smack dab in the middle of it. This either is affecting how you're perceiving your position or it affected how they chose to model the module.

A can of Pepsi is expensive compared to something you already own and have paid for. In the continuum of flight control peripherals the X52 is the cheapest option with the most functionality. What people are really saying when they say its inexpensive is they mean its the option with the greatest value for price when trying to spend as little as possible. Having something that is next to useless is cheaper but hardly good value for your time simming either. Also I own 3 X-52s and one set of Saitek Rudder pedals. The lot cost me less than $200 because I bought it all off craigslist. The cheapest I got an X52 for was $30. I just last week bought a Logitech Driving Force GT basically brand new off craigstlist for $50. That website is amazing.;) Here look. If I was in thsi guy's position this'd be a steal. (noting obviously I can't know what city he's in) http://abbotsford.craigslist.ca/sop/4685187378.html

Generally, most attacks should be on a track thats from an IP no further than about 10nm from the target, thats where you should start running in. If the target area is low threat level then you can just do a wheel and circle over established safe areas to do constant reattacks til the target is cleaned up. Flying too far away is just a waste of time and many people do just that because they are far too dependent on the TGP which has a very narrow field of view and as such is best used further away and so outside of the normal attack range, ie. wasting your time. How to attack is a whole book unto itself though. Lots of people spend their entire lives at Angels 15-20 but thats a rather dreary way to play the game, and it ignores obvious tactical options. Providing you have good intel and know that your track into the AO and to the target is relatively safe or you know where the threats are you can easily stay at something like 8000 feet which means its then much easier to use visual acquisition methods that allow you to fly much more fluidly instead of being mired in silly mark points and targeting pod antics. The inverse of the 20 000 CCRP bombing run or Maverick attack is the pop up attack. Fly at low level using terrain masking to protect you from threats, which may or may not allow you to penetrate deeper than if you flew higher, and pop up for the delivery. This applies equally to Mavericks but it would necessitate having a clue where your target is. In general understand that there is more than just one way to do this thing, and the obsession many people have with flying high and slow and staring into the fake FLIR of the TGP is hardly the only one, even if it is the most boring one. You can fly straight at a target of course and if you have an IP programmed in the mission then its likely the mission maker intended you to attack along that track which implies that it should be relatively safe to just go straight in. However, the line you take from the IP needn't be literally straight and for anything like bombing runs you can easily do an offset to either side biasing towards the side thats less likely to have a threat. Turning in with only a 90 or 120 degree turn required to head back to the safety of the IP area is better than having to face a 180 which will require bleeding off more speed on the all too vulnerable egress from the attack run. This thread of course underlines the greatest weakness in DCS out of the box in that there is a great shortage of information on how to properly utilize all these systems that are so well explained and outlined. Tactics is where being a combat pilot really begins and its the thing that DCS has the least support for, compared to other sims which actually have entire PDFs with hundreds of pages of tactical know how. TLDR: Don't use the TGP like its your only option; stay as close to the target as possible to save time; don't just fly really high like you're a strategic bomber Also posting a track of your flight in this mission in particularly would make it very easy to give specific analysis of how you're wasting time or failing to take advantage of good tactical opportunities.

Alternatively you can set the Slider to "Bands" such that the top and bottom end of the axis fires the keystroke for increase and decrease FOV. Basically you would push the slider to full forward to increase zoom level, move it back to the middle to stop it. You would also then bind a button to reset to default FOV to snap back to normal. This works well if you don't have problems putting the slider into the middle which is pretty easy if you only set bands to the top and bottom 10% of the input.

I did the same thing but to the chiclet keys on the base of my X-52, which is ideal since there are two that have an up and down arrow over them.

You are not going to get realistic control inputs on a plastic joystick with well under 1/4 of the throw of the real stick for starters. That you have a decidedly crummy stick is only going to make it worse. That isn't to say you can't learn to fly well with it, just that its going to contribute to the equation of how unrealistic flying these airplanes on a desktop PC is. Curves are generally very unrealistic as well. A linear input is the most "realistic" but it bothers people because it involves so much finesse, which has a lot to do with that stick throw issue. I am curious, when you say its not realistic, what are you comparing it to? If you are basically flying the aircraft improperly due to inexperience it may simply be that the aircraft is behaving perfectly correct and that you're just not used to controlling it. Aircraft require different inputs at a different energy states and phases of flight, loads, etc. When they teach people things like coordinated turns using rudder the term "blending inputs" comes up. Blending three inputs to create a single elegant motion through the air is not a skill that just shows up because you have the right stick settings. For my money, if your stick isn't totally shot and spiking and there's no deadzone the size of a football field I'd try no curves for several weeks. Everyone says they can't do it, I said I couldn't do it, now I think that doing anything else is absurd, that is if you want "realistic" behavior from your control inputs. Edit. And for whats its worth the A-10C handles beautifully. It hates to stall and will usually spit you back out into a stable condition the moment you relent on the human input that lead to that stall. Just don't load it up to max takeoff weight and expect it not to mush around.

I would say it looks like your position within the cockpit is different and so the HUD looks different obviously. You can tell that the first picture shows you a very different view of your front panel and since the HUD is collimated your position within the cockpit will affect how it looks with respect to the edges of the HUD glass. The mod you've just removed actually contains a list of the key commands necessary to manipulate your view within DCS and save it as your default view so you should go back to that thread and find them in the first post. You basically just have to move yourself around to find the right eye position. Obvious with the mod being one which affects eye position its going to alter what your see when your eye position is changed, in this case back to default. I'm not sure if this is because the removal of the mod changed the default view position or just that your view looks different because its no longer altering your eye position, in either case best bet is to play with it til it feels right to you then save it.

I also know why I don't use that feature, because its silly in most situations. TGP is an SA killer and most times I'm using the gun I am acquiring the target from the canopy not the MFCD, even if I used the TGP to locate it. Even in a night situation I'd sooner drop illum and go in guns with my eyeballs than try to correlate and aim with the TGP. Even if you can slave the TGP I doubt they intended for it to be used to aim in real life anyway. Seems like a great way to turn yourself into a lawn dart.

Okay, so I learned something today. There's a reason I made that signature.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No.

Never open speed brakes in combat. The A-10 is a pig and doesn't have enough speed as it is when its going full blast. Dropping speed brakes during an attack run is probably one of the most unrealistic ways to fly the aircraft. Going slower just so that you can get a few extra seconds to line things up and all that is basically a bad habit designed to make up for your own lack of skill/experience. Instead of popping speed brakes just practice at full speed. Eventually you'll learn to not suck. I don't think Paul will not be answering questions anymore. It appears he's been banned.

Sometimes its the game too, or whatever glitchiness replicates the real life issues that might happen. For one IR mavs are IR, meaning light creates heat which creates problems potentially. I don't think this is modeled of course. Instead what you get is the seeker just not honing in or the missile guidance just hitting something wrong or whatever. I've seen instances where a missile will just not lock up no matter what, usually cause something in the map is buggering with it. Other times a single target will not die regardless of the lock, the attack run, multiple attempts. Thats probably again a map issue, even with the lock somehow the missile isn't giving us a kill. If OP's problem is anything and I mean anything other than firing with a soft lock then its probably something glitchy in the game which does a fair enough job of giving us issues that could be considered an approximation of real life unreliability on at least a statistical level of comparison. What exactly can you do to screw up a fire and forget terminal guided weapon? Only other thing I can think of is max range plus vehicle's scattering after the first shot leads to a perfect situation for misses. Maybe if I get any desire to try and speculate wildly beyond this point I might actually watch his track and actually have something empirical to compare my thoughts to. Until then, read the signature.

Mavericks in real life aren't 100% kill weapons and we should be happy if the in game weapon replicates this. If anything Mavericks have been too good and much of the complications for the various seeker head types are not modeled (sunset/sunrise for instance). Its important to realize when diagnosing your own shortcomings in managing systems and executing deliveries whether you're simply failing to acknowledge an acceptable failure rate for the weapons themselves.

Correct slant range for engaging tanks is 0.8-0.5 nm. Firing on them from further away with the gun is a waste of bullets. I don't know how not to get close to a tank and still hope to kill it. Nevertheless the idea that they would even shoot at an A-10 is kind of laughable. In real life they'd just run away with a big plume of exhaust behind them or pop smoke to try and obscure your ability to engage them accurately. The idea that anybody should be turning out to man a turret mounted gun while being actively engaged by air to ground ordnance is kind of beyond belief. The accuracy they manage while you're passing them at high traverse angle per second is also incredible. Obviously as you say its being modified, but what is and isn't a threat should be clear. Tanks shouldn't be any sort of threat to maneuvering aircraft or aircraft in general honestly. People think the A-10 is slow but even an A-10 at 325 knots under 1 mile away from you is going to be moving across your front very very quickly.

I don't think anybody is saying that you should be invulnerable but I have been hit by a single BMP before, during a classic Mk-82 dive bomb delivery. It can hit plenty. This issue crosses into the world of tanks as well and those guys don't have any of the fancy equipment you mentioned. Respecting the threat therefore becomes a game of laughable paranoia about armour intended primarily for engaging other ground units. Right now the threat table to an A-10C in DCS is a complicated mess that contradicts logic and can only be made to heel by experience from playing and raging and finally accepting that its broken til one day it gets fixed. The real message is Respect the threat, but don't think its realistic.

That all might make a lick of sense if it weren't for the fact that old school T-72s or T-55s are hitting me with their iron sight machine guns just about as accurately in similar situations. I don't care how crap my tactics are, the closer you fly to a tank the faster I will track through his field of view meaning the gunner has to track faster, lead more, and will have to do all this with his very old school sighting system that hasn't changed much since WW1. Straight line or not this is a tough shot, nevermind the fact that while being engaged by A/G munitions I doubt anybody in that tank is turning out, nevermind the fact that I'll get hit sometimes while pulling Gs in an escape maneuver, nevermind the fact that this'll happen just about the same if its pitch black at night. If its an incorrect behavior that needs looking at why go to all the trouble of convincing us that these are plausible behaviors from non-AA specialized armour? The problem I have is when respecting the threat means we're respecting an APC and a Tank as credible anti-air threats more than the dedicated anti-air vehicles that are meant to be escorting these allegedly vulnerable battlefield targets. Here's the thought process in DCS right now: "Zues? No problem. Shilka? No problem. AAA of any kind ringing the target area? No problem. BMPs in a cluster? Crap, better bring my A game." I'd sooner drop a stick of Mk-82s on a pair of Shilkas and expect to go home without a scratch before trying to engage a single BMP with the same munitions. Lets not play games with the details, the current behavior isn't plausible regardless of any equipment list on any particular IFV. All that stuff in a BMP shouldn't have anything on a radar guided multi-gun dedicated AAA system should it? But it does. And for what its worth my tactics are generally better than crap.

Because solid state drives avoid wearing themselves out by deliberately fragmenting data to avoid recalling from the same areas of the drive over and over. The recall is so fast that the issues of fragmentation are nonexistent compared to a mechanical drive.

How much ram do you have? If its under at least 6 that could be why and no amount of degragmentation will change that.

The problem with DCS is that its fundamentally unequipped to satisfy the needs of civilian simmers. FSX out of the box even before addons of any kind offers you the opportunity to fly into pretty much any airport on the planet from anywhere else on the planet non stop. Updating the map is so easy that you can just download freeware airport files to make it so you can fly into a popular airport on VATSIM. DCS however has a relatively small map and whats more its "broken" from the perspective of realistic civilian flight. The map is as I understand it rendered on a flat plane so it doesn't match up properly to real life. You just can't fly on Vatsim if your game doesn't show you what it shows the controllers or other pilots. How can the controllers vector you to a runway if its on a different heading to what theirs is or give you magnetic headings to establish separation from other traffic if that sends you somewhere other than where he intends you to go? DCS is a sim that has always been designed to work inside its own bubble. FSX by the grace of its design is more flexible, as is Xplane. For DCS to become as flexible as the other options used by people on VATSIM would require more work than anyone can possibly consider reasonable, at least in the short to medium term.

What do you mean 'punch in'?

I find the Airbus flightdeck to be depressing, uninspiring, and dull dull dull. My god is it dull. I like Boeings better, though I like de Havilland Dash 8s even more. I'm a simmer, I like being busy, and flying an Airbus makes me feel like every time I switch something from automatic to manual I'm doing something wrong.

My advice for learning controls is to print out or have some hard copy of everything in the A-10C manual on pages 88-89 and 91-92. I have a sheet with those control indices on it from when I first taught myself the aircraft and of all the things I wrote down its the only one I still keep handy and reference. Its the most important reference sheet you can have when learning and re-learning after a time away from the sim. Making your own control scheme for your X52 that allows you to use every control on those pages will make learning it also much easier. By programming it yourself you also learn it better than when learning someone else's scheme because then you have to reference the A-10C chart to know what control to use then have to try to remember where some other guy put that control in the profile. Instead you should just make it yourself then you will be your own reference to where the TMS hat has been programmed or what you've used for the CMS or the Coolie hat and so on.