PFunk1606688187

Unfortunately in the realm of highly classified military technology who you are and what you know is kind of important for establishing whether the things you say are of any value to the discussion. Credibility is important for fact based conversations. Credibility of where you source your knowledge. If its an ad hominem attack on your persona that's different, but if people can't take a little critical analysis of what they're saying by someone who is clearly trying to attack the logic of someone's argument rather than the person himself then they're just not cut out for a rational conversation. And this is why people like him question why people know anything. You just suggested all sorts of things but your wording alone says you have no evidence to present. You just made assumptions and so any rational person could look at that statement and say "so where is he getting this from", ask you, and if you don't have anything to back up your statement you can either find something, admit you know nothing about it first hand, or just revert to complaining that he's being too hard on you like you're doing now. This is pretty basic academic thinking we're talking about, its not personal at all.

I have noticed that loading missions in DCS has gotten way longer for me since 1.2.5. Not sure if its the official patch or one of the minor updates since that did it, but now I find my loading times are 2-3x longer. Interesting thing is though that if I were to load the same mission as a multiplayer mission it doesn't take nearly as long which really baffles me.

Where's the drama, man?

I don't go much for in depth fuel planning, mostly I just check the AOA gauge markings and my Fuel Flow gauge, but if I ever were to there are people who have produced updated Drag Index charts for the available ordnance in DCS for the A-10C. The simple rule I have is never more than 2 CBUs, never more than 2-3 rocket pods, and I never carry 2 CBUs with 3 rocket pods, that'd be awful. Those two things have obscene drag for their relative value. If you fly around with a couple mavs and a few slicks then land, load even 2 rocket pods you'll feel the difference in how it handles. For the most part performance hits based on drag index are something you can just feel out I think. You should know intuitively how every type of loadout affects your plane's handling characteristics. For in depth planning of fuel usage for a long mission thats when this stuff really matters, which I must admit I never bother with, but one day maybe.

^^^ LOL, best fighter ever. In that day even the best was a deeply flawed I guess.

I prefer the H for attacking SAM threats for the force correlate mode.

Thanks. :)

This is why single player gaming is hopeless and depressing (IMO). Use some bandwidth, and fly with friends. Most people with lots of time in this game don't track their progress by their in game scores, they do it by evaluating their performance flying. Performance means how well they executed their attacks, how well they avoided threats, how often they got a first run kill, etc. Real pilots practice the most basic things over and over and over because in real life when they do it for real they're supposed to do it perfect and spot on. We get it easy, we can screw it all up, blow the tank up, and still get a gold star. I prefer to not care about my gold stars because in the end its meaningless. I don't like points I got for being sloppy, even if the tank is dead. ;)

I really wish you would. TTP is at this point is the thing that interests me the most.

Well you're a warm and cheerful fellow. Where would we be without your derisive sarcasm to straighten out all the good intentions around here. :thumbup:

The new update mentions: -Adjusted "shoulder size" from cockpit view. Any idea if this affects this mod?

Have we actually ever seen any 4th gen+ fighters in combat against similar opponents with similar battlefield support ever?

I did actually suggest a dedicated bug tracker system in one of the previous wagday threads. Some people think this will just give more fodder to the negative nellies, which is a pessimistic view in my opinion. Managing community relations obviously can't pivot from that attitude, I hope. In any event I often find myself wanting to post and ask "is this a known bug, is there any knowledge of its status with respect to ED's attention?" but the culture around here doesn't really like you saying those things, so I just button my lip and try to search for it. Suffice to say, and to OP's point, thats often not very successful. I suspect there has to be some change coming to the bug system though, if there's going to be an open beta for all upcoming patches.

Also, its worth noting that you should know how to fly towards a touchdown zone without the TVV as this is often the first thing to go with any battle damage. Basic principle is you pick a spot on the ground to fly towards and you do your best to keep it stationary in your HUD area in front of you. As you get closer everything else will continue to shift as its relative size increases visually but the touchdown zone will remain in the same place, even as it continues to get bigger as you get closer.

Play with a Ka-50 or UH-1 player and have them load up on smoke. CAS in real life depends on communications with ground forces, otherwise its not CAS, its just a ground attack mission of some other flavour. For doing something more like battlefield interdiction in a kill box you're just gonna have zoom in, do lots of passes, figure out where stuff is, and mark it with smoke if you're gonna forget. Before targeting pods pilots always had to use binocs to find stuff, so zooming isn't much of a cheat. Just don't overfly targets and try to look below you. Its better to fly offset and look off your 3/9 line. If you're feeling adventurous or you're in a high threat environment fly super low and pop up to do recon with lots of terrain to obscure you on the way out.

Just the other day I was in a mission with some friend, took an Igla hit to my left wing, did plenty of damage, but only lost the wheel on the wing side where I took damage. So I haven't seen this issue myself.

This picture is a girlfriend's worst nightmare.

I don't understand why you would ever use a maneuver that would bleed insane amounts of energy if the battle so far lead to you being that slow in the first place. Seems like its a "this works or I'm dead" kind of gambit. I also wonder how you could end up in a slow turning fight, that slow, and have a head on pass where the opponent will overfly you but not himself fire a weapon at you? Surely if he's high and coming in head on at low speed you're already firing missiles before he flies overhead right? It just seems like people are defending a strategy that'll involve a 1 in a billion chance in combat where breaking the rules actually saves your life. I've heard about WW2 pilots using snap rolls to escape certain death, and I've seen an IL-2 replay of a P-47 in a stall fight do a snap roll to go from being in the kill box to trailing and pull off a kill. Still, thats a guns scenario. Missiles aren't anything like that. Granted I'm not an expert on A2A combat, but this doesn't track as a logical strategy.

Well my notes on that landing are as follows. You were doing a zero vis landing with apparently no precision instrument assists other than a GPS waypoint. This is fine under most conditions except zero vis (assuming real life limitations). Even with ILS under those conditions you wouldn't be allowed to land in that airplane. That said, very nice job of guessing it. You started your roll in to final at something like 7000 feet and around 15 nm if I recall correctly. At this distance you should be at 4500 feet to ensure you easily capture the 3 degree glideslope, and even then the roll in ought to be earlier for that alt since its good form to capture GS from below. You put yourself in the situation of having to descend very rapidly while also needing to kill all your speed in the final 10 miles. Its not ideal because you're fighting to hit a stabilized approach and your time to do it is running out. Ideally you want to hit that glideslope already brought down to a manageable speed and maybe already at MVR flaps and gear down. A standard downwind->Base->final pattern would make this simpler, and even if you don't want to do it that way, you flew a right angle course for a while before rolling in on final so this is a de facto base leg anyway. Its best then to try and bring yourself into at least partial landing configuration before entering final and completing it in the first 1/2 to 3/4 of the final leg. This obviously slows down the whole approach but real landings are supposed to be slow ponderous affairs to keep things safe. The military has an alternative for faster landings, the overhead break, which will take you from 1500 feet at 300 knots and put you on the ground in about 60 seconds. For the touchdown itself obviously your flare was hampered by the zero vis, but this isn't a normal situation, so that doesn't matter here. The rollout definitely could be improved. I noticed you applied max brakes which sadly I don't think is the right thing to do. The Anti-Skid in this sim has never worked properly for the A-10, at least far as I understand, and applying max brakes with it turned on creates a situation where the brakes are shut off by it automatically over and over. If you use the RCtrl-Enter control monitor while you're braking you can see this. It just goes apeshite and does a bad job of braking, also making use of differential braking all but useless for maintaining centreline. Best method for using brakes in the rollout is to apply about 50% brakes with an analog input if you can find one on your stick or rudder pedals. If you don't have one you might try binding it to something that can act like one like a rotary or something or try tapping. 50% usually is near the max you can go without triggering anti skid and if it does its usually intermittent. I didn't see you using any rudder to keep centreline either, but you said the end is possibly screwed up in this version. In either case rudder and/or differential braking can easily let you keep centreline. The real A-10s typically rollout to the full runway length when doing a flight landing and its mandatory to do so when returning with ordnance, so its permissible to let the speed bleed off on its own. The anti skid issue is still annoying, but using 50% brakes will stop you very quickly once you're below 50-60 knots ground speed, and if you have to stop sooner well you probably landed well long.

Every control that is on the HOTAS itself is categorized in the control section under "HOTAS". If you can figure out what the various panels are called in the cockpit you can probably figure out the corresponding controls sub-category that you can sort them by.

Thats really the point that people miss I think, in any form of "realism" gaming frankly. Tactics aren't created in a vacuum, they're reactive to the threat and the environment. I think this bit from A-10s over Kosovo says it perfectly:

If I recall correctly cold war A-10 tactics had them flying 100-300 feet above the dirt because they assumed that the biggest threat would be Soviet jets flying overhead. Since Desert Storm the primary threat is what lurks below in IR SAM and AAA range. Perhaps trying to fly the A-10 like this is a COIN environment is naturally failing as it should for some people?

I mostly practice on my own in modest sandbox missions that just have stuff to shoot, stuff to blow up, recently scripts to tell me how on target my bombs are. When I play with friends we find missions, we play stuff we make for each other. I don't have much use for single player outside of practice. Its rather disappointing.

The way I see it, if a WW2 fighter with a relatively shorter development cycle than a high fidelity modern jet packs their coffers so that they can afford to make that high fidelity modern jet, whats the issue? Revenue from WW2 doesn't mean that it must be spent making more WW2. Diversity is smart, and obviously effective.

Try http://www.lockonfiles.com/ as well.