Kippy

Cool, we've arrived at the core of where this rabbit hole of a thread has left us. ED has stated that smart scaling isn't going to happen. Your opinion wins the day. Was it worth tastelessly tearing apart somebody's labor of intensive academic research? Take some NyQuil and head to bed, boomer

And so... your sweaty hobby is justification enough to declare somebody's hard earned diploma and academic research to have been granted and conducted from a "diploma mill?" Acceptance rate: 84.4% ( ASU 84.8 ) Average admission SAT: 1196 (ASU 1250) Looks like UofA is a "diploma mill" too. I happen to think that identifying an aircraft is more important than having a "good looking" sim. So............ what now?

Have you ever looked at another airplane in the sky a day in your life? I see A-10s around the KFWA Class C when I'm up VFR'ing around - they don't look like small dots at 2 miles. DCS has some scaling issues. There are some proposed options on the table. It's one thing to refute it with sensible counterarguments... Instead, you've dragged on and made a donkey's rear end of yourself across several game communities tearing this guy's paper apart, attacking his personal qualities and now his alma mater, based on how you think the proposed solutions would "look terrible." Accept your Pyrrhic victory with ED's statement of "no more smart scaling," and take a long walk on a short pier. Where can I find your research paper on this topic at?

This has been ongoing for years now with the default skin selected for the A-10C. Select a skin proper through the menu or in the mission editor and it should stop.

This can be done, but it has to be done through editing the actual .miz file itself. Change the file type in the title from a .miz to a .zip, open it up, and insert these folders within it. UHF_RADIO VHF_AM_RADIO VHF_FM RADIO It will end up looking something like this. Don't worry if you don't have some or most of the other folders: Within those folders (like UHF_RADIO) for example, create a .lua and call it "SETTINGS.lua" You can then create presets in there and it should look like this

A good demonstration of how dynamic the ground situation can be and how detailed integration between friendly air and ground forces is a necessity. Really important lesson to be learned with the BTR - don't get so worked up about annihilating a threat outside of your mission scope. It's often overlooked because DCS doesn't really model suppression or firepower/maneuverability kills. If the BTR becomes a non-factor because he drives off after getting a bomb and a missile slung at him, continue with the mission. The BTR is present to obstruct your forces. If you're spending all your time focused on him and not your actual mission - he's obstructing your mission and in effect, completing his. In my first CAS training sortie with a player JTAC I was missed a T-55 I was slinging bombs at out at 62A. The effects landed close, but didn't blow it up like we're all accustomed to from DCS. I was expecting an immediate push and reattack clearance from the JTAC for failing to shack my target, but he came back with "Hammer41, good effects, target detracked and suppressed.." Reminds you, the K-kill isn't everything. Awesome work and good calls. JTAC training is cool stuff to do. Most of us here are pilots, but understanding a situation from the perspective of the ground forces from experience is incredibly valuable.

No, sorry, I was just describing a DCS experience. Didn't mean to convey that if I did

No kidding. We had just checked in with our ASOC and within a matter of minutes were informed of a TIC call. ASOC gave us an immediate vector and block altitudes. We got grids, and made our way over. We checked in with the TACP, who informed us of an active line of fire with mortars. He had us first address the threats and then kept rolling us in on immediate push and reattack passes. We had become comfortable with Type 1s and Type 2s holding in keyhole orbits where we had plenty of time to set up for a pass, consider threats, work the geometry out and engage with a shooter and cover. This was so much different. After the known threats had been shacked, we moved to combat trail, accepting the loss of mutual support in favor of speedy reattacks. A million things were running through my head as a lead. Where does this pass put the flight? Is -2 alright with the loss of mutual support? Is -2 looking at the right target? No time to get worked up about datalink... Which way did our TACP want us to pull again? How's my altitude? Is -2 still back there? Gotta think one step ahead, what's next? Watch for threats, stay aware... All while trying to meet the right constraints to not wander into an active mortar line, ensure we're executing the right safe escape maneuvers, maintain communication with -2, keep informed about the dynamic situation on the ground etc etc etc... I tried at first to write everything down on my "kneeboard," but found pretty quickly that that wasn't gonna work - it only added water to my cup. We slicked and had good effects on all of our passes - no major incidents besides a questionable CAF event following an immediate push where our trail had gotten compressed. "Raging helmet fire" is one way to describe it, though we made it work and completed our mission. Plenty of minor transgressions here and there that we analyzed in the debrief... That sortie really pushed me out of my comfort zone and challenged me as a lead and pilot. But I'll be darned if it wasn't the most fun I've ever had in DCS. Debrief was lengthy. Was a great learning experience.

This HUD tape provides great insight into what the actual CAS environment looks like. What I've found so far working with player TACPs throughout training ops in DCS has really surprised me. Having hit the books, spending many sorties over the Nevada desert perfecting attack geometry and mutual support, my first simulated TIC with a player TACP knocked me way out of my comfort zone. Much of the standardization and many of the procedures we had become familiar with fell by the wayside because the guys on the ground needed CAS and they needed it right then and there. -2 in this video even mistakes his role at some point, you can hear it at the 2:19 mark as -2 declares he's in hot and lead responds with, "Dude I said cover." Mistaking a role over the AO can have drastic consequences.. even the real guys get their proverbial "cups" filled now and then... I'm sure that was a debrief item. Awesome find.

Remember that time your jet broke outta nowhere? Wouldn't say it doesn't happen :lol:

Yeah, this is pretty insensitive. I don't see it happening from ED. Maybe some third party mission maker who would have the stomach for it. I don't think the mission would survive long on the DCS user files though.

Ouch.

This is a reported issue occurring on every map for the A-10C following a patch "restoring" SADL after it was completely inoperable. I am unsure whether ED is attempting to fix this, but I personally suspect we won't see it for a while, if ever.

I am for the representation of women in DCS World. I am not for expending precious development resources on this when there are much... much bigger fish to fry. This is pretty trivial.

Sup Shadow. You called? Could be that "bug." If scripts exist for the A-10s DSMS within the mission file, if you don't carry the payload specified by those scripts you may experience this problem. To check, simply change the extension of the mission file from .miz to a .zip and take a look - you'll be looking for script folders and files in there for the A-10. I don't remember exactly what the directory looks like: not at home right now. "From page 66 of the User Manual: PREPARE MISSION. The PREPARE MISSION mode is used for integrating navigation and environment data into the saved mission file. When near the end of creating a mission, you can start the mission in the PREPARE MISSION mode (it will look much like usual FLY MISSION start) and configure various avionics in the cockpit. Your avionics settings can then be saved and will start in the saved states whenever other players open the mission. The following avionics settings can be saved using the PREPARE MISSION function. A-10C CDU. All setting except a mission editor flight plan that can't be changed. IFFCC. The block of test menu. MFCD. Lower OSB buttons functionality. SADL. Network user ID, callname etc. (NET page) TAD. Profiles. TGP. Laser codes, integration, calibration method, gain settings, TAAF altitude. DSMS. Mission Control Page settings. Weapon profiles. Once your avionics are setup as desired for the mission, exit the mission and press the SAVE button in the ME once again to save all of the prepared data in the mission file. NOTE for mission makers: If you use prepare mission mode, please indicate in the briefing that the player should not use the mission planner. If he'll change the route or weapons for the mission, the avionics scripts saved in the mission file using prepare mission will conflict with the new settings. If you want to give the player the freedom of action to the use the mission planner, do not use mission prepare mode.

I wonder if in fixing SADL, they will revise taskings between aircraft so that elevation data will be transmitted in feet and not meters. At least, that seems to be the problem with elevation data on taskings.

The second post in this thread was from me, also picturing a 163rd A-10 in March of '11 with the Pave Penny pylon still attached. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3460879&postcount=2 There are many photos of A-10s, not just from the 163rd, with the missing sensor but carrying the pylon. I have never personally seen a 163 jet with the sensor on the pylon - but maybe I could be wrong. I do see the 163's jets often - not every day of the week though. If you've got an image, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong and that not every jet came back without the Pave Penny. Or perhaps seeing just the pylon doesn't mean that the Pave Penny is no longer on the jet? I'm just extrapolating here. You're obviously more knowledgeable on the topic than I am.

According to Snoopy back in this post, Suite 7s were deployed ≈2012. When the 163rd received jets from conversion in early 2011, they lacked PPs and were not Suite 7 jets. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2370367&postcount=19

When the 163rd started receiving jets back from Hill AFB after conversion to C models in 2011, all the jets lacked the Pave Penny. I think a handful of PE program A-10s may have initially kept the Pave Penny for some time, but to my understanding they have all been removed as of now. 80-0230 on final. March of '11. The A-10C model also received the 1760 data bus that allowed the A-10C to employ JDAMs and WCMDs; A-10A did not have this. Sniper XR capability was also added as a result of the PE program; could not be carried by the A-10A+, unlike the LITENING.

Yes; the first post was about combat use.

LM and USAF completed deliveries of Snipers to Davis-Monthan and Spangdahlem in the spring of '09. Moody received [or rather, was scheduled... you know how these things work] theirs in the summer of '09. Not employed in combat on board the A-10 until 2010, to my knowledge.

The Sniper was first carried by A-10s in 2010, whatever suite that corresponds with.

This. I think they could possibly re-open the agreement to develop a newer A-10C, but I think the latter of your statements is most accurate. Perhaps if the community continually expressed serious interest and willingness to pay for a newer A-10C suite.. Damn it.. I'm dreaming again.

Trust me, I'm quite aware this exists.

It would be great to see some things remastered in the A-10 such as new cockpit textures, and perhaps a revisit or implementation of some systems after gathering experience from F-18 development. Much to my sorrow, I highly doubt we will see any sort of capability changes or implementations of things such as the APKWS, Scorpion HMD, ARC-210, etc. This would require a newer suite A-10 than we currently have, which to my understanding, would ultimately require a new contract with the Air Force. I think the community would be largely behind an upgrade to DCS: A-10C, even if it was sort of an entirely new module. I'd pay the full price of a new module to receive a more modern A-10C. We're missing out on a lot of goodies. I reckon new cockpit textures will probably happen. A later suite, thus capability additions? Sorry, don't think it'll happen.