PFunk1606688187

Whats max load by your interpretation? Is it always the same load?

In the 476th we have these two brothers who joined us not long ago. One got the other into DCS and they both fly the A-10C with us. However, one brother simply wasn't keen on the A-10 at all, but his brother bought it for him anyway. It wasn't until he flew the P-51 though that he was interested enough to really think about the A-10 since he was a big WW2 simmer originally. If there was no P-51 in DCS for all I know we'd only have one of two brothers with us. Wider appeal does have a value to the product as a whole. Whats more I'm sure that vSquadrons will be using trainer craft for just that, particularly once we get shared cockpit functionality.

Wow, I missed that. Yea, wtf. You should be north of 300KTS on your attacks because god knows you're not going to gain any speed climbing out as an A-10 pulling 4Gs. I am going to go out on a limb and assume its your typical nugget idea that the slower you go the easier it is to shoot. Congrats, you got 3/4 of your rounds on target, and lost the Air Force a jet worth millions in spare parts. *cough* *joke* *cough*

No doubt cheaper if you look for it through a used reseller.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=117350&page=3 This just reminded me of this thread and this thread I'm linking is directly relevant to what I mean when I talk about the limitations of the provided documentation. Beside the obvious broad detail provided about something extremely important to attack aircraft (dive bombing) thats absent from the DCS documentation, the poster in post #30 at the bottom of the page says something I didn't even realize thats central to my complaint: So we see that DCS is even trying to instruct us on how to do things without explaining how to actually do them, that is to say fly the actual airplane. So on this level the documentation is extremely insufficient because everyone who learns to fly in an air force learns how to fly a dive bomb when they get introduced to an aircraft that contains a system for doing so. To have one without the other is basically inconceivable, except in a computer game. Even the essentials of an overview of bombing, handling the aircraft in combat maneuvers, and the like is missing. If sim pilots don't even know you don't push negative Gs without running to the forums then thats a gap. Flying the airplane is 1000% more important than using systems and yet the manual fundamentally fails to instruct on this topic. Lets get back to earlier, when I had forgotten the full measure of the manual, and I was being told that the manual does an excellent job of reading like a military manual that explains systems. Yes, it does, but it also in the later part begins to look like something that goes beyond this scope. Page 486 is called Flight School which is no section of a military systems overview I've read and it seeks to: This section fails to indicate that the sortie in question is likely nothing more complicated than a ferry mission given the total lack of any combat in the chapter. Then we get to page 507 and the tantalizing title of Combat Employment. Yes, now the good stuff and I can see in my head the nugget simmer rubbing his hands together in anticipation... oh... no nevermind. This section doesn't explain combat employment of weapons, it explains the adjustment of systems during the combat phase and general ideas such as, breaking off at the minimum range in a gun attack, meanwhile giving absolutely no indication of what such a range would be or the tactical factors that inform such a range. It does what the poster above said, it assumes a thing is happening and yet that thing is not explained at all and yet that thing is the very action (such as a roll in to a dive) that pilots will practice week in and week out to accomplish.This chapter should begin with an overview of how weapons are employed, discussion of the bombing triangle and factors in flying the aircraft during all of these types of attack. This section is totally lacking any discussion of airmanship even though thats the heart and soul of all forms of aerial combat. This section of the manual reads like it could have been written by a RAND planner from the late 50s jacked up on systems with no knowledge of air combat. Maybe thats a bit ungenerous. Its not horrible, it gives a few minor pointers, explaining CCIP is more accurate than CCRP, advising on the actual range to shoot rockets at. Overall though it does nothing to explain flying itself and so the nugget is left with only one explanation of how to enter a dive in the whole manual and its from our ferry mission: Meanwhile the section on CCIP bombing, a largely visual experience, starts like this: Yes lets discuss the HUD symbology. :huh:

Since I never really use point targeting I would never have noticed that. Are you sure about this? I can't think of a reason why it would either.

Wasn't what you said. What is with this place though? If it ain't on the feature list or its been listed as "low priority" then suddenly everyone feels the need to put stuff down. Just let the mods put this into the wishlist section, let everyone gush about a great idea, then it'll die like the rest of them.

And it would probably have to be a radically overhauled engine to support such a thing but... hey its a beautiful idea.

Its not really much of an argument really given the franken nature of the current suite we have. Its not modeled because they chose not to model it. There's no reason not to since there are many things in the suites covered that are again not modeled for reasons other than "the military said don't". HMDs are very useful for SA, in fact thats the point. You could give an HMD to a Cessna pilot in congested airspace and he'd have a use for it if he could tap into the right data.

I see little imagination in you then. ;)

Scripting helps, new graphics engine will reflect an (as yet to be determined in scope) improvement in visuals, and no comment on missiles. :D

Well, you need the MFCDs to use the DSMS and the Maverick, but if you leave them glued to those you're basically doing the same thing. To use the DSMS like the A-10As I think you would have to use manual profile selection, that is to say you select each station individually then customize the profile rather than use a pre-loaded one you entered before takeoff. Of course spend a few weeks flying like that and you'll quickly come to realize how much of a benefit the systems in the A-10C are purely in terms of helping with keeping the head up. This comes in stark contrast to the effect that say a TGP has on most simmers. Of course most simmers have no concept of realistic training which is what allows real wingmen to carry a targeting pod and still not be a useless tit.

If APCs and IFVs using optical aiming are really this excellent at engaging low flying attack aircraft why would you bother with radar guided AAA units? Its obvious that units are far too accurate. Ground unit behavior is obviously under modeled. If a T-72 gets blown up, do you really think that the commanders in every other tank in that platoon are going to turn out to man the MG? Hell no. Some realism can be made up in using the suppression script that will actually allow you to suppress units by engaging them. Other solutions are found in flying smart. Use terrain masking before popping up to fire on a target, fly evasive patterns in when you have no masking, and use high G escape maneuvers with jinks on the way out. Even so trained AAA batteries in this game are far less accurate when using optically guided dedicated AAA platforms whereas IFVs seem to have godly aim using non-dedicated platforms which is simply not plausible. Its a clear limitation of the modeling of ground units. Nevertheless people who insist you must stay at Angel 15 or Angels 8 to avoid getting hit are forgetting that the A-10 was designed to fly in this environment. Manpads and complex IADs are a real bummer for the A-10, but pintle mounted machine guns were accounted for in its design so fly low, fly fast, fly smart and you can do just fine. Real pilots practice evasive maneuvers against ground fire the same way they practice defeating missiles. If your only solution to a threat to your aircraft is to fly outside of the engagement envelope then a realistic mission will see you basically flat footed between 100AGL and Angels 30. Again, suppression script. It makes 2 ship tactics actually useful. There are probably a few others out there too that help with making AI responses more realistic.

Look at your G meter. You'll see four hash marks, two each for positive and negative Gs. Don't go above the nearer of the two and you should never have problems. Given how I see many people load their planes out (probably well above max take off weight) it wouldn't surprise me to see them lose a wing at less than the marked 7Gs.

There's a big difference between logistics denying everyone the opportunity to carry a pod and that being a rule that you expressed being irrelevant to a logistic situation. There is also no eventuality for jamming in DCS and so issues a real pilot would face are not part of our scenarios either. Jamming radios, datalinks, GPS, all degrade capabilities of systems you quoted as being a stand in to using the pod. I find your augmented argument more unconvincing than your last frankly. If you look at pictures of A-10s in ferry configuration when they're deploying somewhere you'll see them carrying a TGP or ECM pod. The same logistical argument applies to the ECM pod but I doubt you'll find a picture of an A-10 going into combat without one in a non-permissive environment even if the TOLD for that flight sees the wingman go without a TGP. So lets be fair and assume fewer TGPs than aircraft deployed. You never fly every single aircraft with usually at least one CANN and several stand by jets if you have to abort a jet on the ramp in preflight for a fragged mission not to mention the ones that are out of the cycle for required maintenance. I don't see why you're going to have trouble running a TGP load on every mission if you so choose it. But don't get me wrong, you should be able to function as a wingman without a TGP. I personally love being -2 to a lead who does all the heads down business working only coordinates and visual talk ons with my eyes otherwise out of the pit. Nevertheless its not a rule and shouldn't be since the pod offers flexibility that would otherwise not exist if the wingman is without one. Whats else is the wingie gonna carry there anyway? 7 Rockets? :lol:

There is no rule that the wingman should not carry a pod. Tactics are not so prescriptive. It may suit the tactics that the wingman be able to use the pod to generate his own coordinates from a target picture much the same way a lead would talk his wingman onto a target visually. A wingman needn't even use his pod image for target coordinates and could simply use it to aid in a visual attack. Its another SA tool, another piece in the puzzle. Datalinks can be jammed the same as radios. Verbally handing off coordinates is slow. Describing a Pod image is fast, especially when the wingman can see the image clearly from a distance that would require more time when using binoculars. Its not all that simple in my opinion.

You can do anything with the C that the A can except you can't use the Pave Penny and sadly nobody has binoculars in either version. So don't use the TAD and fly without PGMs. Done deal. A-10s over Kosovo said that they mostly flew with Mavs, Mk82s and CBU-87s, so no problem there. People should realize that its not the airplane as much as how you fly it. Still, they integrated the TGP into the A before the C showed up and as far as I know C pilots still rock Binos on occasion since TGP and binoculars are not mutually exclusive in their utility. You can learn a lot about being a better attack pilot from how they flew A-10As over Kosovo, but those skills are not lost just because you have a TGP and SADL. By the same token you can find a few anecdotes in that book that demonstrate how A-10s needed F-14s with their pods to help them in low light situations and in that conflict at night they had to fully surrender their FAC role to the F-16s and F-14s. Overall I think most DCS A-10C players could learn a few things about flying if they left the TGP at home now and then and figured out old school talk on skills.

It is tricky, but thats the game. A-10s made a career out of finding targets with binos and a map before TGPs and GPS, and not just at 5000AGL but much higher. The Tomcat's ability to turn coordinates into a bombing solution depends entirely on what it does have. But I don' t know what the full capability of the aircraft in question would have been.

A-10 FACs had occasion to work with Tomcat FACs in Kosovo on those occasions when the LANTIRN could give them PID that their Binos couldn't, such as when things started getting dark. A fun turn about to that would be for A-10Cs to lase for LN F-14s who can't lase for themselves. @ijozic Bomb on Coordinate attacks specifically do not require that knowledge ahead of time if someone else is the one concerned with making the bomb track.

I see a bunch of people whining about apparently being unsatisfied if their 1970s fighter plane can't self designate PGMs. Oh man. Apparently requiring teamwork isn't an acceptable feature.

Just let people ride in the backseat free with no ability to do anything but look around in awe. It'd be like DCS letting people give incentive flights.

Strange list. It conflates sims with the actual proper genre of Wargames which is... well bizarre to say the least. Whats the distinction you ask? Namely that sims are focused on single unit or small element simulation or while wargaming is generally about the operational level of war with the odd dip into tactical tiers of combat but usually no lower than say company sized fielded forces. But hey, top whatever lists are almost always just click bait so its nice to see DCS recognized. Required damning of their choice of SH4 over SH3, particularly since they claim SH4 edges 3 out by the skin of mostly superfluous features.

Yes, tactical decision making is voodoo. No sense trying to put numbers on it. :thumbup:

This is such a vulgarized interpretation of the conversation. This is so stupid as to be insulting to the concept of conversation. You don't calculate anything from a chart in the middle of a fight. Who said that? Nobody. This is taking me straight back to those arguments with clowns on sim racing boards who insist racing is pure feel and that numbers have no meaning.

Ah, see thats the opposite of what I thought. Optical generally means vision which to me sounds like eyeballs. TGP is the opposite - sensor targeted. However yes viewing the effects on target with the TGP would probably make things worse.