PFunk1606688187

Basically, yes. This is because DCS doesn't simulate the behavior of the seeker head and Force Correlate appears to merely guide towards a fine point on the ground rather than actually trying to maintain the centre of the image as it gets closer to the target. With how the real missile works it simply can't accurately guide to a point on an image that its incapable of locking in Centroid mode. FC is only useful in the terminal phase which means very close. To be more useful than centroid at ~14nm is patently absurd. The issues with slewing the Mav could be related to an incorrect implementation of space stabilization meaning its possible we have worse control issues than real pilots but I'm not sure about that. FC itself is useful for hitting targets at plausible ranges which are too large to be locked by the centroid gate but are also large enough to be effectively damaged by the CEP of FC used at a greater range than it was designed for when guiding the missile in its terminal phase at a point target. Avoiding using FC like a sniper rifle is a good idea because if/when they ever get around to eliminating this rather large exploit those who haven't learned to use the missile as intended will find themselves confused and won't have adapted to the tactics necessary to use a weapon that only has an effective range of 1/2-1/3 of what they're used to. Still, I think the H needs to lock further out. The D is basically universally more effective and the H's lack of gusto means it only encourages people to abuse FC.

Relax friend. I wasn't having a go at you, and someone else answered it better than I could sooner.

I don't believe that people will disabuse themselves of their conceptions of the Maverick without a fight. I don't think my pep talk about tactics made any headway either. :laugh:

You mean of the real beast? Hell no. I wish. I'm merely a dilettante like the rest of us. I've just spent more time dabbling in its dark arts. And as for limitations, its not just sim limitations. The real world has limitations too, hence the need for tactics. If your weapons always out range your enemy's there's not much of a tactical problem for the single seat tactical aircraft to solve. Generally speaking longer range SAMs and networks of them ought to have a leg up on the single seat fighter, particularly one without SEAD support. DCS SAMs are stupid however so you get a leg up on them in that sense, assuming no crafty scripting.

Well, like I said, my understanding is that the real world is very dynamic. Your Mavericks won't lock at the same ranges all the time. Surely the CCD seeker should lock further than it does but there's no guarantee you should get the ranges you're looking for (honestly I can't be sure what the practical range of an H/K Mav is under ideal conditions). This means that unlike with other types of guidance such as radar or INS the reliability of practical effect from a certain range using contrast imaging guidance can't be certain so you need -> Tactics. Big bold letters. Now, there are ways to improve your use. Higher alt makes it easier to engage at range and stay out of a SAM WEZ but it also leaves you vulnerable to enemy air threats. Terrain masking lets you get inside of that SAM WEZ then pop up to destroy the target at the nearer range you can lock on. A good teamwork tactic is to use a decoy at the limits of the SAM range and time his decoy maneuver to distract the SAM while you pop up hopefully giving you time to engage then remask. This would involve counting time unmasked in seconds and by double digits you should on your way back behind cover regardless of whether you get the shot off. Realistically though the tactic an A-10 would use is coordinating with SEAD aircraft to have them take out any threats the A-10 can't deal with. Without this more likely than not the A-10 would then not engage targets inside a SAM WEZ that it can't deal with effectively. Thus is a nature of combined operations. This is the great issue with DCS' lack of a multi-role fighter.

D/G's tend to have better range and clearly are the only ones that work at night. H/K's as I understand it are actually considerably newer missiles and in correct conditions ought to at least match or outrange Ds but this doesn't seem to be reflected in their performance in sim. Gs and Ks are basically the same seekers but larger in 300lb heavyweight warheads that are intended to penetrate larger targets like structures rather than vehicles (warhead qualities almost certainly not fully modeled in DCS). There's little reason to use a G on a tank when you can use a D instead, same with K versus H. At best you get better secondaries but you lose the option of the LAU-88. If you didn't know the D/G is an Imaging Infra-Red seeker and the H/K is an Electro-Optical seeker. FYI use of Force Correlate is currently an exploit of the under-modeling of the Mavericks. The very nature of how Force Correlate tracking mode functions in real life would make it effectively impossible to use as a super leet sniper mode. Basically if the missile can't lock in Centroid tracking mode it will not hit a point target in FC. Realistically though lock on ranges for Mavericks in real life are considerably variable based on light and environment conditions. My understanding is that RL lock on ranges under 5nm are realistic to an extent while max theoretical launch ranges found in DCS and achieved with Force Correlate are not reflective of real life practical range. The practical issue with the Maverick simulation appears to be that it does not in fact lock onto the contrast image observed by the seeker head but instead only locks onto actual living objects in the game world. You can observe this by seeing how you cannot lock onto a destroyed vehicle despite it possibly demonstrating a superior contrast once burning or how if two aircraft fire simultaneously on the same vehicle that the late Maverick will veer off target wildly as it loses track the moment the unit is destroyed by the first hit. This means that regardless of the quality of the image your lock on range seems to be limited by some invisible voodoo magic making judgment of lock on ranges less about observation and more about rote knowledge of the abstraction of the seeker head simulation. So clearly there are considerable deficiencies in the Maverick model (nothing to ruin your fun thankfully), not the least of which is the apparent absence of any real limited lock and launch parameters (referred to as the keyhole) along with all the above. In general its undermodeling seems to cut both ways in the advantageous/disadvantageous continuum. With respect to issues with lock on range I'd suggest you adapt as a real pilot would and utilize tactics in place of conveniently excessive range to target as a means to defeat threats to you. Terrain masking works well.

Interesting analysis. Thanks for the input.

ATC sucks at the moment. A rational person would ignore it. You don't need the ATC to learn to land and it'll only confuse you. In real life ATC under visual conditions would likely give you vectors to a point where you could both see the runway and then fly by your own decision making to a landing. Under instrument conditions it would give you vectors to intercept the ILS. Current ATC does nothing resembling real ATC.

Stable platform schmable platform. :P Besides, if you have the Path A/P on during this how is it not stable? I is confuzzled.

To be honest its hard to know what to expect because the ED simulation of the systems often breaks down under the stress of obscure and peculiar error states. Its pretty hard to model all these systems that well.

Or you could realize that using a Maverick to guide an IAM onto a target is rather silly when the Maverick exists specifically to do the same thing, and with a lot better stand off capability (at least in DCS that is). If you're rocking JDAMs there's not much likelihood of you not having a TGP. I however would never suggest anyone idle the throttles of an A-10 when in a combat zone except when doing a very high angle/high altitude dive. Its much better in my opinion to learn to rifle mavericks off quickly in a short span than leave your jet in the energy poor scenario that comes from chopping throttles. This is much like using speed brakes for gun runs when real pilots can easily and often practice Two Target Strafes at well over 300 KIAS. A-10s don't trade speed for Alt very well and its already a slow and thrust poor platform. There are liberties to be taken in the sim world but this one is only viable when there is no threat to speak of which to be honest isn't very plausible (or fun for that matter). If you need to slow your jet down to accomplish a task a real pilot could at full speed then you simply have another skill you need to refine. This isn't to say that using Mavs for target search isn't a good skill to acquire, but I would place comfort using the Mav seeker head well as much higher on the list of to dos.

Hard to guess at TAD SPI issues. Did you try reloading the TAD in the Load page? Did you try resetting SPI to Steer? Being no expert on the logic of the systems its hard to understand the issue since you're starting from a position of making an error that messes with the typical logic I'm accustomed to (ie. the everything is working fine logic). Re. George's question, you can safely ignore them. I have never touched them and understand them to be unrelated to what you as a pilot need to worry about with respect to putting iron on Ruskie.

Hey don't sweat it. Where do you think I got my signature from?

Left and Right engines feed discrete hydraulic systems also called Left and Right. Different core systems within the jet that rely on hydraulics feed from either the left or right system. Normal brakes are fed by the Left system and so when starting the left engine the moment you have Left Hydraulic system pressure you have brakes and so you have a means to prevent your jet from running away from you if for some reason the engine powers up uncommanded or what have you. If you start the right engine first you have no brakes so its prudent to arm the emergency brakes instead which relies on an accumulated reserve of hydraulic power sufficient for a few full presses and releases of the toe brakes. ^ All the above from pure recollection. I reserve the right to be proven incredibly wrong. :music_whistling:\ EDIT. Turns out the Right Hydraulic system supplies the Emergency Brake which is why you can use it when doing a Right Engine start before the Left. For more information check the Hydraulic Emergencies section of the doc.

What you talking about? The Hog turns a mighty tight radius.

Except they don't, at least on the ground when I start them with the DC boost pump and the crossfeed. If I shut the crossfeed after successfully starting the Right engine it dies within seconds. Without boost pumps in the air however and it still runs without the crossfeed. That's the one thing I've yet to fully reconcile.

The way I see it, if someone has had success demonstrating some of the -1's warnings of the effects of failed boost pumps on the aircraft engines then I assume it is in fact modeled to some degree. What Piston is perceiving as the right boost pumps remaining functional despite shutting them off could easily instead be an idealized probability of the engine suction being sufficient to stave off fuel starvation. What I mean by this is that the "up to 10 000 feet and most likely up to 20 000 feet as well" statement in the -1 about fuel suction could simply be that when they modeled the fuel system they just made it so that up to 20 000 feet everything works hunky dory based on fuel suction by the engines. Only above this where one person demonstrated negative G fuel starvation well under the assumed minimum 10 seconds is the modeling of the fuel system representing the warnings of the -1. Basically my theory is that the way they modeled the aircraft was to generalize everything into a single perfect ideal airframe that fulfilled the best case of every functionality and eventuality (errors and bugs notwithstanding). This means that the Mavericks always get perfectly boresighted when mounted unlike in real life. The Maverick is exactly boresighted at 70mils and not around 70mils as in real life. The engines always suction up to X altitude without boost pumps. The fuel collectors give you exactly 10 seconds of fuel flow at max power under negative G. So perhaps then its that since the DCS A-10C always gives you sufficient fuel suctioning up to around 20 000 feet, only above that will we see the described issues present themselves. Furthermore the scope of how people have been testing things is insufficient to demonstrate anything for certain because of arbitrarily biased parameters. One cannot test the full effect of the simulation by flying only at one altitude. Comprehensive testing is required to even understand the design intend of the sim and only then can we surmise whether its a flaw in ED's representation or design of representation of the fuel system, whether its a bug or merely our failure to understand the design and its limited representation of the dynamic variability of real life. I'm still left wondering about why the right engine fails after closing the crossfeed after a ground startup. Is the engine not able to fuel suction on the ground?

Re. ILS, I've never found the CDI motion of the HSI to be too fast to turn onto final with a normal 30' bank turn (assuming something like no more than 90' offset). Perhaps you have the HSI set to the wrong course? I think that'll change its behavior considerably.

I would assume this is a bug as old as the module's early development that nobody ever bothered to test in that particular way.

Because its still a boost pump as per the diagram. The crossfeed doesn't care whats pressurizing the system, all its doing is opening a valve that permits the pressure from the left system to enter the right system wherever it comes from.

I shoulda just attached this from the get go. Staring at diagrams makes me feel like a little kid again. :D Incidentally I just tested it and you can start the right engine with the crossfeed open and all boost pumps off. If you shut the crossfeed immediately after the engine start cycle light extinguishes you'll get a right fuel pressure warning and the right engine will shut down. How much of that is realistic is beyond me.

Then its likely not modeled to have any degree of volatility and assumes perfect suction feeding.

Emergency procedures from the -1: I don't see any reason why the engines should fail if you have no boost pumps as long as you're not doing harsh maneuvering and stay within correct altitude constraints, but I haven't tested the sim's representation of this. You only need the boost pumps to start the engines and even then you can start all engines with the DC boost pump that is energized when the APU is turned on which feeds the left fuel system. It can be made to feed the right system by opening the crossfeed valve.

This entire pre-1.5/2.0 release streaming/video PR has been unusually suggestive of future plans compared to the past.

I personally don't see the point of DCS on steam. None of the advantages it offers to other games are relevant and it comes with measurable disadvantages.