eFirehawk

I'm a 3D Surface Modeler, been working with Autodesk Maya for almost 10 years and now with Alias Surface. I work at a car design studio, we design entire cars and interior/exterior parts mostly for BMW.

Nevada + F/A-18C = no carrier ops :P Anyone thought about this? I'm quite confused, since we'll still need the black sea region for carrier ops when the F/A-18C comes out, will DCS World have 2 different engines inside of it? EDGE + current? That's gonna be a pain for the developers to maintain. :noexpression:

And me thinking I was being reasonable expecting it to be released on March 2014... but middle of the year? :cry:

Guys, important topic here! When you eat some kind of salad that has small pieces of bacon in it, does it become a little "bacon hunting game" for you too? Like, only picking the pieces of bacon and not eating the actual salad? It sure happens to me... I don't know why, but pieces of bacon make me lose interest in the salad and just search and pick all of them like a maniac. :P

I'm just wondering about something, I understand that Wags mentioned the F-15C AFM several times, posted a video of the F-15C landing with the new AFM, posted that load of info that got deleted and not long ago he posted that they are still working on it, with the feedback of a real F-15 pilot. All good, hopefully the AFM will be out within the next 2 to 3 months. :) However... why are there people talking about the SU-27 AFM? As I understand Wags mentioned it a few times, saying that there would be one but there's been nothing about the actual development, no news or anything that would lead me to believe that they're anywhere near an advanced stage of development on that AFM... or did I miss something? :)

Honestly I completely agree that DCSW has many stability issues, looks old and has many inadequacies for today's standards, but you guys gotta remember that they are a very small company, and making detailed flight dynamics and all of the extensive ( not very pretty, but extensive ) content in DCS working together flawlessly is a very difficult and long work, especially when you have a small team. And another thing is, flight simulations is a niche market, even FSX was given up, so I don't think it's very easy to make tons of money to have a bigger team and afford assets that other companies can, selling arcade 'fun' stuff for larger markets. The last products that they released were the helicopers from BST, which I'm not sure if they generated as much profit as the A-10C for example, which was released a long while ago. Ya know, the helicopters went on sale shortly after they were released. And I really do believe that they are working as hard as they can because they NEED money to keep the company running. having that in mind, I really like what ED pulled out. What my view of the future of DCS is: a very good future which will bring us things what NO ONE ELSE will, but with very slow progress and everything technically-wise will always feel outdated. As for third parties, we do already have very good teams making good progress and showing their commitment to their work, such as Beczl and VEAO, and this is great! I have a very good feeling about their work, with delays or not, communication is good. We do have others that I, quite frankly don't have hopes at all unfortunately, such as CTD, very poor communication and I can count the number of decent updates on one hand, and Razbam, showing four or five planes in development for DCS, eye candy included but not showing progress in any except one, and the one that gets updated once in a very long while still remains very unclear due to, again, very poor communication, no news given, even with a bunch of people asking after a while since old updates from long ago. Mil-Sim and IRIS already figured out the situation and went away, and my feeling is that the same will happen to them. Hopefully I am wrong though. I'm just saying what I feel. Apart from that I believe that once a few high-quality modules from the third parties who are committed are released and DCS becomes a little more popular, drawing more people into it we might see more and more from third parties, especially the ones that released modules and made some profit. ( slow development of course, hey, this is part of it, that stuff just can't be done fast ) What I'm doing is enjoying what I can, such as the A-10C. I really see the quality of their work on the A-10C, it really is a very fine sim! Will I be playing it for a while and having counted the number of rivets on the fuselage after flying years and years in an old, ugly and bugged map? Yes, and DCS does feel incomplete, but can anyone else offer me anything better? No. EDIT: As for ED's poor communication, I get the feeling THEY don't even know the road themselves, and we see that in the delay of EDGE's integration into DCS for example. I don't think even they know what's gonna happen in the short them. And in the long term? To know that, all of us including ED need a crystal ball O_o

Hello everyone, If my fuel goes Bingo and I'm at Narnia, how to calculate on the fly the best engine thrust to go back to base which will save the most fuel? :) I found myself in that situation yesterday, I managed to get back to base just fine but on the way I didn't know if the fuel was gonna be enough. :noexpression: I don't think I can calculate on the fly the total weight of the plane taking into consideration current fuel, gun rounds, what's under the wings and my body weight after an all-you-can-eat buffet, so in that case I would assume my A-10 would be relatively light, not having much weight from weapons, such as maybe two bombs, 2 Sidewinders, a TGP and an ECM Pod with about 1000lbs of Fuel :D So, do you guys know a simple way ( doesn't have to be very accurate, just something I could calculate in my head ) to find a good airspeed based on altitude to get the most of my remaining fuel? :) Thanks in advance

Hello everyone, I'm interested in changing the default color setting for the sky colors in DCS. :D I know they are fine right now, specially the sunsets but I'd like to try to change them a little bit to fit my taste, such as different tones of blue. Does anyone know if it's actually possible? If so, which files contain the parameters? :book: Thanks! :)

Can't you guys figure out that this topic was just a mere glitch in the Matrix? :D

Thanks guys! Now it works :) The actual problem was that I was completely unfamiliar with the triggers menu :doh: When you were talking about triggers I thought you were referring to the Waypoint Actions :) Some other quick questions, not related to the main topic subject but somewhat simple things I believe: I've put about 4 air units ( not united by a group, I did this to force them to fly in very close formation ) from the blue coalition against 4 from the red colatition and set each of them to attack a specific fighter from the other coalition, the problem is, they fire one missile at the specified target and then immediately engage the other fighters, emptying their whole loadout right away. On one-to-one fights the AI behaves the right way, they fire one missile, and if it misses they fire another until one of their missiles ends up killing the target. Is there any way to force a fighter to get a confirmed kill on his assigned target before engaging others? :) Thanks!

hmmm I've been trying to get it to work but no success so far. I've unchecked the Late Activation checkbox and checked the Uncontrolled checkbox. I found the perform command > start but it has no time option. If I just add this command and leave it there the plane spawns but that's it, it doesn't ever start. Where exactly do I assign the spawn time and where do I put the desired ramp start and takeoff time? :book: Thanks for the help so far!

Hello everyone, I'm building a slightly elaborate mission and I'm having problems related to airplane units on the ramp of an airfield. :helpsmilie: What I want to do is having a bunch of bombers stationed on an airfield right from the beginning of the mission, and have them start their engines and take-off some time later like 30mins. :) My goal is to be able to bomb them but if the player takes too long they will start to take-off and escape. My problem is that by assigning a late activation the plane only spawns after the assigned time and takes off immediately. And if I uncheck late activation it spawns right at the beginning of the mission and takes off right away, regardless of what I set in the waypoint times. :noexpression: Does anyone know what I can do to fix this? :) Thanks in advance

Quick tip for you, try guns only against the Mirage 2000 :) I do the same. I noticed that AI F-15s, SU-27s and so on were useless, but for some reason while the AI doesn't do a very good job with the main fighters, the Mirage 2000 sometimes is quite difficult to keep up with, at least for me. :) I did that since the FC1 days... and weirdly the M2000 was even harder to beat in guns only in FC1.

Exactly, I was talking about the MWS indeed, sorry That's exactly what I meant, I've edited my main post now, from RWR to MWS. How does it detect missile launches exactly? What I can think of is of course radar illumination and maybe optical tracking or something, but I'm not exactly sure. :book:

Hello everyone, Title is self explanatory. I've been wondering how the MWS in the A-10C knows when my friends fire either Mavs or the SU-25Ts ARMs. As far as I know the MWS can only detect active radar illumination, and since Mavs and Anti-Radiation missiles have only passive seekerheads and not even their launch aircraft have anything radar-active related as far as I know, how does it pick up their launches? Is it accurate? :) Thanks!

I've tried dumping them with the laser firing and while the bomb does indeed catch the laser it still falls before the target, and it really doesn't seem that the bomb ran out of energy, it just doesn't hit if I'm at low-altitude. Even if I fire the laser later, either the bomb doesn't catch it or it still does the same thing, falling way before the target. :joystick:

Hello everyone, I've made up a mission in which I am required to stay below 5,000ft MSL, which is roughly the same as the radar altitude since it's near the ocean. I've loaded my A-10C with a number of GBU-12s and I've been having problems to hit the tanks. When I drop them from above 12,000ft as I usually do, firing the laser anywhere from 8 to 12 seconds to impact works very well , however if I drop them from below 5,000ft it starts to get tricky, many times the bomb runs out of energy before reaching the target so it hits the ground a few hundred feet before it , and sometimes ( not sure but this is what I believe might have happened ) if I fire the laser too late the laser point on the ground might end up outside of the bombs seekerhead "boresight" so it will never catch the laser and just fly a ballistic trajectory. Does anybody know if there's anything I can do to improve my accuracy dropping GBU-12s from a low altitude ( Angels 3 to 5 ) and level flight? Thanks!

@ WC: I meant I was not being efficient as I wanted to with the MK-82s, not the guided bombs :) @ Yurgon: Indeed. I'll practive steep angle dives though, from above 12000ft, let's see if I can manage to stay safe. Bad thing is that at high altitude I am exposed to other longer range threats. @ HugePanic: It's a very good idea, helped me with T-55s and APCs! ...but those T-90s are some *censored* that are *very long beep*. @ kk0425: I will try the Flight Path Marker idea coming from a steep angle, let's see if I will hit them more often! @ Madog: Thanks for the link Madog! Very informative and helpful! @ AtaliaA1: I am perfectly aware of this angle consideration since I use guided bombs very often, I assure you this is not the case. @ Crescendo: I will try this, thanks! @ BeachAV8R: Until now I don't love it so much because of the near misses and the incredible gun round collection inside my engines, but hopefully I'll get better at it by diving in at a steep angle form high altitudes! @ Eight Ball: I have no words really :P Your sig is VERY relevant in this case!! :lol:

I know how to operate the A-10C really well but it ends there. When it comes to tactics, keeping safe and proper situational awareness I wouldn't last long at all. Below Angels 10 the unpredictability is just too high, I end up stung by IR missiles or MANPADS all the time. :pilotfly:

Hello everyone, I got used to having GBU-12s, GBU-38s and CBU-105s in my loadouts, however, I decided to use MK-82s since dropping guided bombs from above Angels 9 was getting boring. :) I am not however being as efficient with them as I wanted to :) I usually put a number of T-90s on my missions, I was dropping the bombs in CCIP mode with moderate success. Matching piper alignment with the correct timing to press the button gets tricky. I can aim them with a near 100% success rate but that requires me to get too close to the tanks and then I end up with some rounds inside my engine or the very sad XX XXXX in my GAU-8 drum status on the HUD :doh: Getting below 2500ft or less than 0.8nm from the T-90s and going straight while aiming is asking to get swiss-cheesed... :cry: So I decided to try dropping the MK-82s in CCRP. I align with the targets from about 3 to 4000ft, hold the button, wait for the countdown and then let the plane release the bombs by itself. One or two times I've hit them spot on, but all of the other times the bombs hit about 5 to 10 meters away from them. This is 'relatively' close but since they are really tough, if it isn't a direct impact it doesn't make much of a difference. :helpsmilie:Note: My tests were at zero-wind condition, either single bombs or single ripple of 3 units, 40 or 75ft apart. Somtimes it happened the tank was between the blast of two bombs and it survived :Flush: Does anybody here use them in CCRP? If so, do you have any suggestions on how I could raise my chances of hitting them while being relatively safe from ground fire coming from the T-90s in either CCIP or CCRP? The tank guns seem to be very accurate and they really love my A-10C engines if I'm closer than 1nm. Thanks :)

Excellent work so far! In all the skins I've made I've just increased the opacity and adjusted the curves of the dirt and weathering layers of the template, but I always had the feeling it wasn't nearly enough :) I really like what you've done in the area behind the canon, looks fantastic! :thumbup:

Hi :) I've finished paiting an A-10C skin, however I cannot get the in-game assigned nose or rudder numbers to not show, since my own skin already has it painted on itself in slightly different positions the original numbers overlay the ones on the skin. I've tried assigning empty textures for the number layers in the description.lua file but it doesn't work. Does anyone have any idea how I could make the tactical numbers not visible? Thanks!

I'd like to make it clear that being realistic or not, I would actually like to have my camera shaking a little more when the A-10C fires, simply for the sake of added immersion. I assume the pilot would feel at least some vibration on his body, and the only way that the players can get a bit of this feeling, in my opinion, is to have something visual telling that there is some shaking going on, and this has to be a little exaggerated. :) But while we're on the subject, check this: at 0:17, when the plane fires, the camera shakes and some parts of the cockpit also shake and move! :) ...and make some noise too it seems. :) at 0:15, in the HUD tape there is some quite noticeable shaking :D But then again, I just wanted to show this because these videos came to my mind after reading everyone's replies. Even if there wouldn't be anything that could show some shaking while the planes fires I would still like to have my in-game camera shaking, at least in my opinion nicely done camera effects and audio can compensate a little bit for what we cannot physically feel inside the cockpit :)

I would also like to know this. Even if the shaking isn't realistic, some things must be exaggerated to give a little more immersion since we're not feeling everything that a pilot would feel inside the cockpit.

It kind of reminds me of the A-10C CDU. In my opinion it doesn't look as nice as the red one though. :)