PFunk1606688187

I think the danger of having a target waypoint mixed into your flight plan is overstated. The only reason this is a risk is if the pilot loses SA and is a victim of relying too much on his digital systems, ie. just doggedly following that steerpoint indicator when he should be drawing his knowledge from more places than just the HSI or TAD. Real pilots, especially mud movers, are hardly going to let this happen. There's a reason the wingman contract would have heads up/heads down measures. You'll have to explain this to me.

Its unfortunate that in order to put together this quip you had to infer something altogether incorrect about what I was saying. I don't even know why you're arguing with me. All I did was disagree with someone's assessment of the maximum usefulness of things called "waypoints". I didn't even really care about the mission maker angle. I believe the real world nomenclature treats Waypoint as if its the generic navigational point not necessarily applied to any particular use. So you can have Steerpoints, Anchor Points/Bullseye, Mark Points, and they're all Waypoints but all Waypoints aren't necessarily a Steerpoint or a Bullseye or a Mark Point. Therefore my initial resistance to benargee's statement was surrounding this general understanding of the term and the actual thing and how its meant to be used. Basically a waypoint is both for navigation and for target location and prosecution. At the end of the day its all just MGRS/LL coords run through an elevation database. Modern FACing would look pretty different if they didn't use waypoints I think. As for your idea of the specific "target point" I'm not entirely sure what that would be. Granted I haven't read the entire updated real life A-10C manual nor do I know if there would be such a thing but in general I don't know what a specific target point offers that you don't already get with either the current waypoint varieties integrated into the systems. If there is something I'm definitely curious.

His point very clearly was that waypoints aren't meant to be target points. A waypoint is a term used to define a recorded point that could be anything. Even the term steerpoint doesn't exclude its use as a SPI for weapons targeting. His point was excessive in its generalization of what a waypoint is supposed to be. As for your unique scenario, well even though we have no MDCs we still have systems designed to be used by people who use MDCs and have very specific ways of planning missions and executing them. Whether we use those systems in a realistic way doesn't change the fact that if you're gonna say something as foolish as "learn to use the systems" then you better actually understand how they're meant to be used and not just how the internet amateurs adapt to using them. Real pilots use waypoints in a way which doesn't seem to jive with his perspective and so what real pilots do does matter, especially if we're into "learn the systems nub". Whats more the closest thing you get to having MDCs is the moment the mission designer is plugging waypoints in so uh... he should probably try to make those waypoints as good as they can be. Real pilots never have to do CDU tricks with a preset steerpoint's elevation unless someone screwed up the MDC. A pilot can help himself by using his systems with all the flexibility they offer. His point about what a waypoint is supposed to be seems to contradict this idea. And as for raking him over. Well he did basically say the sim forum user equivalent to "Lrn2play nub" while saying things which really aren't true. What are you adapting and overcoming if not a mission designer failing to give you the correct waypoint for the specific instance?

Thats just stupid. A waypoint is nothing but a point in 3 dimensional space logged in your computer for the purpose of mission accomplishment. Its purpose is whatever you use it for. Considering the fact that in real life its required that you drop IAMs on steerpoints as a matter of CAS protocol, this supposed distinction you're making is ridiculous. One of the advantages of the SADL uplink is that you can use waypoints for this easily. Broadcast a spi and have your wingman put his cursor on it. There's a reason you have an OSB that'll create a brand new waypoint from that SPI. On a pre-planned strike mission against a known target I seriously doubt real pilots don't have one of their steerpoints as the spot they're dropping ordnance on set at the target elevation. Honestly, people's misconceptions around here about how you're supposed to use the systems and the plane are puzzling sometimes.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=96116 This.

Zero Zero stick curve ftw. Why in god's name would you use a deadzone? Is this your stick curve or your rudder curve? I don't believe in stick curves anymore, I used to but to hell with them. Linear is better and anything else is just weird. I do use a 40 curve on my rudder and I have developed a muscle memory that is almost perfect with respect to maintaining a coordinated turn. I just know how much rudder to kick in given my bank angle and how hard I'm pulling. You don't need to drop the stick curve but I'd get rid of the deadzone if you can help it.

I prefer to use my pinkie switch as the actual pinkie switch in the game. I put my modifier on the clutch button (disable clutch function in the HOTAS config menu in the task bar). Pro tip. Using "bands" with the little mouse nub on the throttle I mapped the speed brakes via the keyboard keys. Handy as thats right where the real one is and it gives you a proper use for that useless mouse thing.

Also note that when I first assigned my toe brakes the axis needed to be interverted. Without inverting it my toe brake axis would have my brakes set anytime I didn't depress them. Mine are Saitek rudder pedals so I'm not sure if its specific only to my pedals or its universal. If you want to actually fly ground attack effectively you're probably gonna want a trackir. Its not just about the buttons, its about the way you need to fly onto a target to hit it if you're doing anything other than Mavericks or CCRP level release. I wouldn't be able to do a basic dive bomb delivery for Mk82s without a Trackir: Fly offset and perpendicular to the target. Look at it and wait for visual cue in the cockpit to line up. Roll more than 90 degrees towards the target while keeping your eyes on it. Pull the top of the canopy bow through the target then roll wings level. That would be stupid difficult with a POV hat. If you budget doesn't allow for a Tackir look into the free alternatives that use basic webcams like FacetrackNoIR and Freetrack. Apparently they work quite well.

Infantry can go anywhere, tanks cannot. Seems pretty self explanatory.

CH Pedals are insanely narrow for rudder pedals.

I will never comprehend the predilection for depriving this airframe, already suffering a miserable shortfall of thrust and speed and an abominable lag in run up of engine output, of what little it can muster in those moments immediately preceding precisely when you will need every knot you can squeeze out of it.

What device is this? I know that in my X52's programming software I can set key macros on any joy key that can be set to repeat a set number of times. Should be easy enough with appropriate software to do a Ctrl-E 5 times whenever you press the toggle.

Total external blackout. Are you talking about BMPs or ZSUs?

In my experience this makes no difference. I've done gun runs in the dead of night on clusters of BMP-2s and I would see the synchronized muzzle flashes before I ever fired. They hit me but good as well.

I remember reading an AAR at the back of the FM for Stryker Drivers that described how against all training LAV commanders in Iraq found themselves needing to turn out physically to direct their vehicles in combat as their turned in optics were insufficient for battlefield SA. Might have been restricted to urban situations, can't recall exactly.

Sometimes I feel like these threads just degenerate into an excuse for people to quote people and post the one piece of obscure knowledge that the previous poster neglected to put in his own reply.

I only said it was technically possible, not the norm. Technically commercial aircraft can land in 0 visibility but nowhere on the planet has been legally cleared to autoland aircraft under such conditions.

The A-10C is rather anachronistic compared to most military aircraft these days. I may be mistaken but I even think aircraft like the F-18 can autoland on a carrier deck.

Well I know that you can start the Left Engine without turning on the boost pumps owing to the DC boost pump which feeds the APU from the Left Fuel System which could explain issues with the Right Engine during startup, but as to the Right Engine failing in flight I don't know. You say its straight and level so its almost definitely not a negative G issue. A couple inexperienced friends of mine in the A-10 I've been playing with lately have seen engine failures under normal flight conditions. I chocked it up to their inexperience leading to doing something incorrectly but in the back of my mind I wondered if it might be a bug. What makes me question the bug reasoning is that I've put a lot of hours into the A-10C in the last few months and it was both straight and level as well as very vigorous combat and I've not seen any engine failures from anything but combat damage. I'd suggest a bird strike even but you say it happens repeatedly to the same engine which is... not consistent with the probabilities associated with bird strikes. I'm curious but stumped.

:yes:

Depends on his HOF setting doesn't it? No idea how high he really is above target elevation considering he's clearly flying along the slope of the valley which is sloping down it seems. Again, it being CCRP means he has no need to actually be in a dive. If he's just under 2000 AGL he should easily be able to pickle above 3-4000 AGL to the target if he flies the right profile to the target, ie. a climbing loft release or at least a VLD.

Nothing wrong with CCRP in this setting so long as you're on release parameters for the weapon of choice. With the 97 it all really comes down to the HOF. If its appropriately set you can work it at low alt in a valley just fine. The other thing is CCRP allows for a nice climbing release and the CBU allows for some leeway on the PBIL (in theory perhaps pending another patch) so all in all in a tight spot like this one so long as you're not staring anything worse than AAA in the face CCRP CBU-97 in a climbing release is a pretty favourable situation. The other thing is CCRP allows a no drama climbout so that you can keep some alt in case of a missile launch and you won't be losing anytime coming out of a dive to get into a jink. The only other sensible option is C/R CCIP which when facing a stationary target is pointless if you're already on it with your SPI. The only drama at all is making sure you get lined up on that PBIL as soon as the nearside valley wall widens, which is fine because if you hug the left side you leave more space to SEM to the right. Guns are nice and all but against a clustered stationary target with weak defenses a CBU is a pilot's best friend. Always the goal should be maximum effect on target with minimum required re-attack. Fewer passes = fewer chances to get hit. Now if only we could get those 97s humming like they're meant to and this screencap would be the prelude to a slam dunk.

I fear BMP ground fire more than AAA fire. I watched someone fly through 4 or 5 simultaneous AAA streams and not get hit. I've flown in against the same number of BMPs spread out over a small area and been hit maybe 3 times out of 5 while jinking at over 300 knots. I might add those BMPs were lighting me up in the dead of night. Its pretty amusing.

Pull the two engine fire handles mid flight and have a nice day.

I can't believe how many people go to Gamespot. I have no respect for that site anymore, though what I did have initially was borne of my own ignorance. Owing to how much of the so called "games journalism" is compromized by their overly familiar relationships with game publishers I rarely bother to frequent anything other than Rock Paper Shotgun. What I do read outside of that site comes usually from the links in their "Sunday Papers" article that gets published (yikes) every sunday. Just about everything I like to play gets covered at RPS at some time or another, and the Flare Path column specializes in niche sims and mentions DCS from time to time. Also its probably the only place on the Internet where the comment section is worth reading and participating in.