PFunk1606688187

Considering how coding input events to the various ways they can be made to function is simple enough it should be plenty easy to do this. There's no limitations to how these can function. Every action fired by a keypress in the sim is independent. You could have a button that only raises the gear, another button that only lowers it, and you could have a button that cycles between up and down and centre all at the same time and players could bind whichever they felt like using. Developers can map their keys to whichever level of complexity they want AND have duplicates that serve different tastes. Before somewhat recent changes in the DCS files I used to have a binding for the A-10's canopy switch. The standard is a single bind toggle but I had mapped the up and down position of the switch as separates (you hold the down to close in the real one). I know its very possible, just a question of them doing it.

Of course the problem with using real charts is that they aren't reflecting whats in the game. Hopefully Nevada and later maps will be so much more accurate though that real maps will be useful.

In A-10s over Kosovo it went into some detail about the maps they carried and I believe the two sizes they'd carry were 1:250 000 and 1:50 000 scale maps. The smaller the number the greater the detail. The TC-1 is a 1:500 000 scale map and so there's so little detail its not gonna be good for much other than plotting navigational waypoints I think. In terms of making sectionals you can look up the ways that they make these kinds of charts and basically cut them up if you like, but thats a lot of work. What format are you considering making them into? Printed?

Why would anybody put an accelerometer there? Its not like they ran out of space nearer to the top of the front panel.

I think what Eddie was saying actually above is that you can overcome the tasking bug by remaking the received tasking waypoint, ie. after the receiver gets it not before the transmitter sends it, because the computer will then redetermine the coordinate's position based on the elevation database. Its a work around thats based on the fact that the TAD hook create new waypoint functionality is not bugged while the tasking is. The alternative is to not send tasking but broadcast a SPI instead. Either way it bypasses the bug.

Great link. Covers my personal tricks and many more. I also use the HSI heading knob to set the runway final and use it to easily fly the reciprocal during overhead breaks.

SPI broadcasting is not the same as using the tasking function.

You can also look at your compass in the HSI and use the hash marks to estimate the new heading based on current heading.

Yes, and I half knew thats what you meant, but I can't help myself when I see an opportunity to illustrate what I consider to be a useful point. And using singles in training is perfectly valid since you don't care about effect on target and you're mostly worried about practicing the methodology and validating your sight picture during the dive. I would only caution people not to consider sniping a tank with a single Mk 82 any kind of sensible plan.

He explained that 6 digit grids are standard for Bomb on Target attacks. 10 digit grids are only used for Bomb on Coordinate attacks. The difference is that the first type of delivery is a situation where the coordinate is merely there to guide you to visual acquisition of the target. Your release of the weapon therefore is exclusively based on your ability to spot the target and accurately engage it visually or through the use of visual sensors*. The latter type of delivery is based on you releasing your bomb on the specific coordinate and you do not need to have a visual sighting of the target or base your release on that. As far as everyone's contention that 10m is the only accurate standard acceptable that would only be true if you only ever did BoC attacks and never BoT attacks. *re. visual sensors I can't be absolutely certain so someone can correct me

My likely fallible recollection is that Mark Z is skipped by the CDU when its moving through the alphabet as you create mark points manually.

Precisely. One comma probably coulda avoided the confusion. :helpsmilie: From a practical perspective not really, not for combat and reliability sake. I know there are training standards for acceptable deviation of a bomb from a target based on the type of delivery and release altitude in real life in CCIP. I'm pretty sure the acceptable deviation would make a single bomb strike much less reliable a hit, especially when you consider the various types of delivery that will inevitably affect the accuracy too (shallow versus steep, high release versus low). So yes CCIP is very accurate on the whole but being perfect is a challenging proposition and the whole reason you have aides like this is to assist the pilot so that he doesn't have to be perfect to be marginally effective. You also have to consider the tactical realities that inform the pilot's decisions and dropping two bombs instead of one to greatly increase the likelihood of good effects on target means that pilot can make fewer attacks overall and the golden rule (in real life if not in DCS) is that the fewer attacks over the same target area you can make the better. Real human beings are good at pattern recognition and by the second or third attack the shock of surprise if it even existed is well worn off. This is anecdotally confirmed in one of the stories in A-10s over Kosovo. In short, losing an airframe is almost never considered worth the cost of putting some bombs on a target. Every bombing attack is a risk to the airframe. Doing fewer attacks therefore maximizes the benefit to the risk and dropping more bombs per attack helps reduce the number of reattacks a proficient pilot would need to make. CCIP was an evolution that allowed the pilot to minimize the number of bombs he needs to drop to maximize his risk equation based on various tactical considerations (same with LGBs). Its why you don't need tactical aircraft that carry dozens of dumb bombs anymore and can do some serious damage with only 4 or 6 if you're good at what you do. Wait that wasn't really shorter... damn it, thats the P*Funk hallmark. Anyway, as I said release pattern is based on desired effect so you could release 2 or 4 or 6 or 3 even. Plinking single targets with individual bombs however (as I understand it) is entirely the domain of the PGM, but they're no fun are they.

I don't think LASTE wind page is at all important for hitting ground targets with iron bombs and I've never buggered with that page and had a pretty good hit rate while doing it regularly, thats with wind components active on the server. A few points though: -CCIP is as a rule more accurate than CCRP with unguided munitions -Steeper dive angles are inherently more accurate than shallow dive angles with unguided munitions -Single bombs are almost never used, with ripples of at least 2 in singles release being the minimum for hitting a single target -Against group targets the type of release pattern depends on the desired effect -Player error is likely accountable for almost all misses with standard Mk 82s in CCIP mode assuming no system errors or extreme wind* -CCIP will make a bad pass work but accurate hits are still reliant on flying a mathematically correct pattern with as little deviation as possible In short the systems make up for error to allow for higher accuracy and more reliable use of ordnance, they do not make up for totally woeful form and lack of technique. CCIP bombing is probably the one thing that most players will never get right because its the one thing that really only works well when you have a skill that goes well beyond understanding switchology and interface design. You can learn to drop a JDAM in a few minutes but just getting a small part of a CCIP bombing delivery barely well enough to start dropping bombs reliably can take days or weeks and the skill decays much more aggressively than remembering how to work the HOTAS. For reference: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=117350 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=99688 http://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=211 *Mk 82AIR is however totally borked and will not hit accurately as it would in real life

Training mode?

That's your interpretation. The implicit meaning in the context of the thread is that there's nothing wrong with them for the purposes of learning to fly a sim aircraft and any person who cannot adequately control their aircraft with perfectly serviceable Saitek pedals is not in a position to ponder an upgrade. I honestly don't think its hard enough to be worthy of the comparison if we're talking about the A-10. For the more rudder happy prop planes I'd be inclined to agree more. The yaw damping in the A-10 however makes even sub par pedals relatively easy to use.

A-10s over Kosovo will make you wish for a proper binocular feature in the sim. :P

Gear elitists will insist all sorts of stuff, but it doesn't change the fact that the OP is not up to the task of extracting the necessary performance out of his existing rudder pedals to justify something that costs $300 or more. You can land an A-10C in a crosswind just fine with Saitek pedals. Thats a fact. If OP has problems they are either related to a fault in his gear or in his technique. I don't think I'd be recommending he wait to learn to land his airplane until he can navigate the waitlist for any of the superior options you listed. Sim racers have all the same gear factors relevant to them. Most drive with spring based brake pedals that relate in no way to how real cars operate. If some guy shows up saying he can't brake at the end of the Kemmel straight without flat spotting his tires or losing it on corner entry I don't tell him that he's being held back because he hasn't gone and bought some Fanatec Clusport pedals. I repeat (and amend), there's nothing wrong with Saitek pedals other than build quality. There's merely a whole lot better with the more expensive options. But we can keep this subjective pontificating rodeo going further if you desire.

http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0090_haave_haun_a10s_over_kosovo.pdf Its free, its excellent.

There's nothing wrong with Saitek pedals. I fly with an X52 for cripes sake. Make do with what you got. The pilot is the real difference and the settings are the next most important factor. The only time the gear is the real issue, assuming it meets minimum requirements for usefulness, is when it doesn't behave correctly. Otherwise its all about setting it up and learning to use it.

Thats one of the major downsides to curves and why its advisable to keep a curve as small as possible. I think I might use a curve of 5 or so on my rudder but not more. In crosswind and engine out conditions I need maximum resolution at a part of the axis range that I rarely use otherwise. Yaw will induce a rolling effect and in fact all banked turns require some yaw input blended in to coordinate the turn. You can in fact turn only with a rudder input because it will bank your aircraft and if I recall correctly there were control issues with early F-14s that saw them using mostly rudder and little roll to initiate certain types of banking turns but I can't comment in detail on that. In any event yaw will cause a roll and countering it is part of using all three surfaces to coordinate flight. The reason the Falcon doesn't do this I assume is because its a FBW aircraft with computers doing most of hte work to coordinate flying. An F-16 pilot then rarely needs his pedals for anything but crosswind landings and other specific maneuvers that require a human finesse. All above commentary subject to review by more informed individuals however. For instructions on single engine flight refer to this document which is based on the real one for the A-10: http://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=29 It contains this commentary: It is definitely one of the most challenging things for controlling an aircraft so it naturally requires a lot of specific training in real life and more in sim when we have our natural limitations to contend with.

I'd like to see a demonstration of the improvements if any for visibility of other aircraft, especially with respect to aircraft lighting at night.

Doesn't mean you can't develop other ways to compensate for the lack of input. This is no different than how people with disabilities learn to cope with operating real cars and airplanes.

$40. A-10C on sale. Friend gifted me the BS2. My HOTAS and Rudder pedals I bought for IL-2. TrackIR as well. Now if you want me to rationalize how much I've spent on simming gear that I use... 3 X52s and 1 new in box Saitek Pro Flight Rudder pedals on Craigslist for total (across multiple deals)... $175. TrackIR 5 new a crazy $250 (what was I thinking?). Thats it. I am a modest simmer. My computer is 8 years old so no deficit there. Grand total: Input devices: $425 DCS Software: $40 Total: $465 Damn thats still a lot compared to my friends who have 80 new games from the steam sale for under $100. XD

TAD hook can give you relative bearing to a waypoint from your aircraft, or from that waypoint to your aircraft. Set target waypoint as steerpoint and use the HSI compass to fly to the correct inbound heading. CDI shouldn't be necessary since you get an attack heading window rather than a specific attack heading. You could even create an IP offset waypoint from the target waypoint and use that to establish your inbound heading. Lots of options, but don't neglect basic visual references and cultivate a good sense of spatial awareness so that you don't need to stare at the tools to be certain, instead using the tools to cross check.