PFunk1606688187

The way DCS players load it, sure! ;)

I love that old school Euro paintjob.

If this is enough to make you not want to fly the A-10 then you should quit while you're ahead. There are enough things undermodeled, poorly modeled, incorrectly modeled in the module to send an OCD realism nerd into a seizure. Most don't directly impact the use of the aircraft as intended, merely make you augment how you do it differently to real life. Something like this could rate high enough on the scale to make them actually fix it (A-10 bug fixes over the last 2 years have been few and far between with the last being I think a year ago or more). As for testing this, well we need to go beyond speculation. Someone needs to actually try to use the LASTE wind correction in an extant and accurately measured wind with rockets and test its effects to see if the rocket behaves in a manner consistent with the prediction. Without that you're not likely to get a response from ED.

The HUD isn't even a primary instrument as far as I know, unlike in the F-16. The A-10 is still intended to be flown in real life using the main cockpit instruments that conspicuously occupy the heart of the centre console. Using the standby HUD mode is indeed an excellent way to instruct yourself in how to fly the airplane as a real pilot would before they ever get near something that has the green stuff.

I don't believe thats a limiting factor.

You don't need to prove that. I believe you. That's an impressive document you've posted though. Looks like the core for a proper weapons data calculator.

Last thing I really could care about is a coloured TGP. Gimme hydraulic failures that actually happen and the ensuing need to actually use MRFCS, Mk82AIRs with realistic ballistic properties, JDAM symbology and functionality that exceeds 5% of the real thing's capability, Mk82 airburst fuzing with fragmentation effect, SADL and TAD functionality that represents its actual capabilities, an external flight planning and attack planning utility that simulates the Mission Data Cartridge of the real jet, and oh... I dunno... chocks. :D

When you start to gauge your distance to the car in front of you by using a canopy reference.

Why don't you take a screenshot of what your issue is.

Is it possible you've somehow messed up your default head position within the cockpit?

Hell I'd pay $10 for a Suite upgrade for the A-10C. Maybe they could roll it out with the HMD after Hornet. :P

Until we get even a bare bones EW model (as well as a proper modeling of what constitutes the drivers of SEAD/DEAD doctrine) there's no hope of DCS actually modeling real aerial warfare outside of the rock and roll hollywood stuff people focus on.

Everytime you create a mark point the CDU jumps to a page that lets you immediately create a mission point from it so its clear that the intention of the design was to immediately allow you to catalog the markpoint in a more useful way. Other ways to improve clutter is to not over complicate the marking process. Instead of marking every vehicle mark targets by area instead saving specific marks for PGMs and loner targets. There's no reason you can't slew your mavericks to a hot dot somewhere within a few hundred meters of the waypoint or use the TGP to create a SPI on a specific target within range of that single point. Using visual references during delivery can save the complications of overemphasizing system usage. If there are 2 or 3 viable targets within a discrete area there's no reason you can't simply spy it visually on a CCIP attack using the waypoint as the general reference until you get a specific tally. Once you have a smoke plume you can reference from that instead. Real pilots of course spend countless hours internalizing their trained methodologies that are part and parcel of how the systems are designed to be used. Real life also involves a lot more concern that you're hitting the right target so real pilots generally don't drop JDAMs on points they haven't named and entered manually. We bypass these safe guards but we also often bypass their strict methods that prevent the kind of clutter that often confounds us.

As per usual we're beating each other up over a peculiarity of the sim. Détente pl0x.

I'm not being ironic. If the command steering bars don't work then it beats me. So much hostility here.

Interesting, since Vaziani is the one that we use most regularly.

Those are calibrated for the sim with the A-10C. They're used to make ILS approaches using the ILS charts. I dunno what you expect from raw data because those use the correct raw data to generate them. Every field has the correct runway heading that aligns with the localiser. Isn't that what you wanted? They get used weekly for ILS approaches with no issues in the 476th.

http://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=218 Feel free to negative rep me for not linking this fast enough. :music_whistling:

I'm okay if they unify the bindings of all default schemes. If they change it to be that when I bind gear to something other than G on my A-10 that it changes my Ka-50 to the same thing then I'll throw my computer out the window.

From the manual. EDIT. Also, reviewing a different manual I shouldn't have also indicates no mention of whether it is or isn't acting as it should in game. It only instructs to set the HSI to the published localizer course.

Because its more fun.

I saw this bit... So I know nothing about the missiles but someone who does can comment on that effect hopefully.

1. c 2. yes 3. a 4. yes

In principle its all just different types of emissions in different spectrums. What a given sensor can see is calibrated for a given spectrum. While there is lots of overlap there's no guarantee that a camera designed to see thermal signatures from tanks is going to see a laser pointer.

Well I don't see why you would since IR is in the infrared spectrum and the TGP only has Thermal and Visible light modes.