nighthawk2174

No not the ones from the A-10A-1-1 manual the ones in the 10C are going to be the same but the manual itself is either ITAR or still classified. Np, hopefully like with the GAU8 we can push for fixes as well here.

Well the AIM-120 updates have all been in the right direction hec just look at BMS for how far they still have to go even. With the SD10 the thrust drop and timer drop don't make much sense and it'd be nice if we could get a comment probably from chiz or yo-yo why this was made. Edit Deka's comment on Battery life:

I do want to note the drag almost perfectly matches my CFD results what's odd is the drop in both thrust and missile life time.

Ok if its imigur just take the actual file lol: https://www.dropbox.com/s/f0tsg7xxadge9ud/HiRes_SD10.JPG?dl=0

Hmmm did you fully delete all of the modded files before reinstalling the mod?

This was changed last patch it seemed you guys were confident about the battery life?

F15 is particularly bad and is worse than the F16 and F18 btw.

I think I may even have the same doc, I do hope though we see an improvement in its performance.

I wanted to reopen a discussion on the A10 FM on the forums, it seems that the road to getting fixes is going to be a long one. Both Habu (a rlf active duty A10 piolt) and I have been very suspicious of the A10's FM for a long time. Habu has been on the forums for a while now since he got assigned to an A10C unit and started talking about the differences in performance. Recently however we started to make a big push for fixes especially considering that the GAU-8 dispersion finally got mostly fixed (something else he has been saying is wrong for a long time) Now with the FM we believe the biggest issue is some combination of drag especially at high aoa and/or lift. With a secondary concern being engine thrust. -----------Drag-------------- Habu's notes after testing the FM and comparing it to the docs he has from his unit in response to this quick vid I made as a baseline. Engine ------------------- So something that has been disused a lot is the engine performance while habu and I don't think its the main cause for the performance issues it does seem some parameters are off. Now Habu shared with me an image he took while flying of the instrument panel, now he didn't want me sharing the image on a public forum but I can share the results. Take note we matched the ingame conditions to the rlf one as much as possible for pressure, temperature, and winds. The picture however was shared with 9L so it should be in ED's hands. Current in Game Temps in DCS are low and the max temps marked in the real jet are higher - Just under 800 DCS and ~805-850 rlf PSI is quite high - DCS ~94 and ~70 rlf Fan is low, now this is important as this gauge has been described to me as being representative of the thrust being put out by the engine. - DCS ~82-83 and ~86 rlf Fuel flow is high in DCS - DCS ~3650 and ~3350 rlf Now I know its been debated the engine parameters for a long time but I hope this can shed some light on the issue. -------------------------- Well at this point we don't know who your piolts are or if they've even really tested the jet. Habu spent well over an hour doing tests of the jet and comparing to the actual docs he has from his unit. Not only that but at this point there's been what 3 other rlf piolts who've all said the same thing and a few crew chiefs... like I'm sorry but I don't see how its even possible that your piolts can even say its accurate if they've actually tested it and cared about how accurate the FM is. People who I know personally who I've been sitting in discord with as they've tested the FM and compared to the docs they got from the unit they fly with say its wrong often very wrong... Not to mention the actual image he took while in the jet shows with out a doubt that the ingame engines are off. Ontop of that when compared to the A-10A-1-1 document DCS is off as well. --------------------

Can I just mention that the burn time isn't even correct: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=248394

To me I see no reason one can't use the information gathered from video recordings and then ask SME's if its accurate and then adjust as needed as more information comes out over time. It doesn't need to be 100000% accurate just i'd like the features on the actual US lightning such as the tgt coordinates and the N arrow. And this would fit more with the goal of the hornet which was originally just USN but then ED added the TGP that the marine core used.

Slightly it matches quite closely to my cfd results, which may I add makes me quite happy! but in short it goes subsonic about 3Nmi’ish than previousl https://imgur.com/kbVuZru

I wouldn't mind this and I hope they don't just outright delete the work they've done so far, just add it as an option in the settings to switch the Spanish TGP for those out there who want to use it. And once the hornet is released when it is more reasonable to add stuff like that. ohh yeah *cough* gau/vulcun dispersion *cough*

I mean what source? The current symbology is so different from the standard US design that I am very confused and skeptical.

? wait wut I think the OP pretty conclusively showed that what we got is not what's on american hornets

Nice that's a whole lot of extra detail over what we have right now!

Well the model needs to also take into account some other factors such as G onset rate, time since g warmup, amount of time at high G, and amount of time at high negative G. You totally could blackout after 9G after only a few seconds if you add on that G really quickly and your piolt is already tired from doing 9G's already. Now our understanding of Gloc has come a long way and modern Gsuits give a trained piolt around 8.3G sustained for a many minutes at least and at best up to 9G's for a max of a few min (source below) assuming the full lower body G-suits and Positive pressure breathing became a thing. But just making it so you black out slower at 9G is not necessarily accurate there's a lot of factors at play. In short it will probably take a while to do right and ED has already said their working on it. Now not sure if that means we'll get to it in a few years or its actually being worked on but still give it time. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a296761.pdf

Nice thanks for the research i'm kind of surprised how big of a difference that is.

No it seems that if you make any edit to the files in there it will de-authenticate your module and whenever you try to load into the jet with a moded file in their coremods folder you spawn into an A-10 not the jet you wanted to spawn in. I can thankfully still adjust stats for the guns and like 98% of the missile in the game but whenever I try to change any stats for the SD10, AIM54, or the F86's barrel heat you get the above effect.

This would more be for SP not MP. While yes static objects could be weird since the default carrier is the wrong size.

Currently you can only fly the SC if a mission has that specific unit in the mission. Wouldn't it be a lot better to have it so when you load it you can select to use the SC if you have it? You just put down a carrier in the ME as per normal, but when you load in if you don't have the SC it will automatically switch it to the normal one. And if you have the SC you can choose which specific one you want to use all before loading into 3D. It just seems like a logical solution that a modern game would have/ should have.

Hotfix is up once again though if you don't feel like re downloading the whole mod just delete the CoreMods folder and it should fix the issue. https://gitlab.com/Nighthawk2174/nhawk---weapons-mod-public-release

Ok I'll look into the F86 (forgot to check that one whoops) and MP as well. Edit: welp the F86's gun barrel heat is modded in the coremods file which well is no longer editable so unfortunately the absurd gun heat induced dispersion is now beyond my ability to fix unless ED fixes this issue. I'll drop a patch here in a few minutes but to fix it just go into the mod and delete this folder: CoreMods/Aircraft/F86

So an issue that came about from today's patch is that any moded files modifying files in the CoreMods folder can either A) Crash the game on start (you never even reach the loading screen) - only happened with an edit to one file B) Cause aircraft to stop working. in the Jeff I modified the SD10 files and when I went to fly I was put into the A10 instead of the jeff - Most common happens to any edits on files in specific aircraft files C) Break every loadout. - I also modified the AIM7.lua in the coremods folder but this had teh effect of bugging out the loadouts for most jets, in particular the hornet, where I was unable to add any weapons but the 120C and fuel tank on the center line and check stations. D) Crash the game on loading in to 3D. - I modified the RIM116 file and upon loading into the game on any mission the game crashed. Other thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=274099

With my mod any files that I edited in the coremods folder immediately either crashed the game or caused some really wierd bugs to happen. For example I edited the SD10 file and when I tried to commit as Jeff I spawned in an A10 lol.