Kippy

Do any of these OP's question? No. Useless posts. Almost as useless as mine here. I shouldn't even have to point this out.

I need this stick because the wife does not approve when I play with the only one I've got now.

Dead Link I apologize... that is my foul. But keep in mind that I get my information from the weekly news, and I was unaware of this. The information must be around somewhere, but this is one of my points. Maybe ED could have done some more in depth news on the Spitfire to let us know that RRG Studios was doing the work? However I thank you for pointing this out. It has changed my opinion a bit on the subject. Well, the process to develop a module must be longer than I had thought. So what exactly would ED need to develop say an F-16C?

All due respect, I think you've missed the point. The whole point was to show that popular modules are likely to generate more in revenue despite the additional costs. In my experience owning a business, I found that larger, popular projects of course required more money but often payed off due to sheer number of sales. This is just my opinion, take it with a grain of salt. I've never designed modules for flight simulators, that's just how I think things would work with cost to produce compared to net revenue.

I've got quite a lot of frustration built up on this topic as well. Allow me to pitch in my two cents here. I've in the DCS Community a fair amount of time - long enough to see the arrival of modules like the Huey and the P-51D. Having spent time seeing modules be developed and released, I've noticed a divergence in the DCS Community. There are those who look for aircraft simulation of all time periods and flavors, and those who wish to fly aircraft relevant to the modern world. Neither of these groups are wrong; personally, I belong to the latter. And it seems that the latter is completely ignored. What many pilots here wish for, myself included, is a modern, relevant multi-role fighter such as the F-15E, F-16C, F/A-18C/E; the list goes on. Instead, however, we've been greeted with aircraft such as the Mig-21, F-86, L-39, C-101, FW-190, etc. The pattern is that none of these aircraft are relevant to the modern world. While these modules are fantastic and I'm sure there are those who enjoy them, they are not what a majority of the players here are looking for. What makes this issue even worse is that we've now seen Eagle Dynamics develop the Spitfire module and Normandy at breakneck pace, meanwhile the module that will clearly and obviously top the selling charts (F-18C) has taken the back seat to projects such as the Spitfire and Normandy. Why a Spitfire and Normandy, when an F-15E and an Afghanistan terrain will generate much more revenue? Some say that the reason we do not have access to modern modules is the classification of documentation needed to create a study-simulation level module. Humbug, I say. At the beginning of the development cycle for the A-10C Suite 3 module, I'm sure that some data needed to model things such as avionics was classified, but yet we still have things like TAD and Datalink with the A-10C module. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe ED received the data they needed for a consumer module in exchange for paying the Air Force a slice of the money. To me, this makes total sense. And EVEN IF the data they give us in this exchange may not be 100% true to life, I guarantee that the F-15E (for example) module would top sales chart far beyond the 100% true to life Su-7. So let's do some math. Let's say ED releases an F-15E module. This is obviously an instant buy for people who are here for modern jets. As such, sales will be phenomenal. 10,000 people buy the module at $49.99, generating $499,900 in revenue. The Air force takes it's share (let's say 20%.) leaving a total of $399,920. Now, Let's also say that ED releases an Su-7 module. It's rather obvious that not many people have in interest in the Su-7 compared to an aircraft like the F-15E, and we'll say that she only receives half the sales of the F-15E module at $49.99, bringing in a total of $249,950. Even after the Air Force took their share, they still made >$100,000 on the F-15E module compared to the Su-7. And I think most of the anger comes from how little we know about the development cycle. (I'm looking at you, F-18C.) Every Friday when the weekend news is released, we flock to the forums like hungry seagulls hoping for news of the latest and greatest projects, but are instead met with news of a "Screenshot contest" and a new sale for 20% off on irrelevant modules that many will not buy anyway. I always leave the forum, muttering to myself in anger on these Fridays. The lack of news drives irritability within the playerbase nuts. I don't care if the weekend news for the F-18C development is "We wrote 1 line of code this week," It's still news and we know what's being done. [/rant]

Conure, this topic is one of debate from the A-10C community here at DCS. Having spent over 1,000 hours in the 10C, I've learned quite a few things. I assumed, going into the A-10C, that the fundamental skills of A-10A flying such as flying visually and attacking visually were moot and out the window with the new tech. Boy was I wrong. The tech of the A-10C is fantastic, and the big talk of the A-10C is her sensors. Tech like the TGP allows us to generate coordinates that are pristine and on the money. The TGP can allow us to pick out targets from 30nmi away, and that's a fantastic tool to have, especially when you compound it with guided munitions such as the GBU-38 and the GBU-12. Essentially, the A-10Cs new tech allows it to fulfill a role better than the A-10A - that of a surgical strike platform. This is great - it expands the A-10s doors further on roles like Air Interdiction and can assist the pig's effectiveness in CAS when needed. However, I've found that the more I fly in combat with the A-10C, the less I use the TGP and guided munitions. While both of these things are absolutely fantastic, they truthfully don't change the overall game for CAS, the A-10s primary role. Remember that the A-10 was designed to get low and slow, for the pilot to visually assess and engage targets. This is because sensors such as the TGP have a soda-straw view of the battle-space. Sure, I can see with the vision of a hawk within a 20 meter battle-space, and that's great for things like air interdiction and surgical strikes. CAS, on the other hand... Let's say that there's additional friendly units at 35 meters, that I can't see due to the limited view of the targeting pod and the JTAC I'm talking to doesn't know are there. I could very easily cause a hazard to those units. No matter how advanced the TGP is in it's current state, it can't replace just being able to look left or right and see the battle-space around you. Ultimately, the A-10 was designed for CAS. The A-10s greatest CAS tools, have been, are, and will continue to be the Mk.I Eyeball and the GAU-8/A. I've noticed this as a pilot, and as a CA JTAC. I'd much rather have the A-10 at 2,500 feet making gun passes every 20 seconds rather than have him at 10,000 feet dropping GBU-12s every two minutes. As a JTAC in CA, the first thing I do with my guys on station is to get their guided munitions on high value, hard targets such as MBTs and AAA, and then have them get low, slow, and kinetic with that gun of theirs as fast as possible, suppressing the enemy with focused, accurate gun passes every 30 seconds or so. This video explains it really well. https://youtu.be/_L_TjXXx7eQ?t=7m52s

Fantastic, This will make putting together missions much easier. Rep inbound!

While the screenshot does seem like a bug, it should be noted that it can be very easy for vortices to form. Often times at colder temps on the Caucasus map I'd get vortices in the climbout following takeoff in the A-10C. IMHO it's realistic for vortices to appear at 1.5, 2 G for some aircraft depending on the weather. I've seen an A-10 turn hard on a cold Indiana day.. you would've thought Cheech and Chong stole it.

As awesome and as fitting as it would be, I'm sure due to licensing and such that we will certainly not have this as our theme unless it is a user created, non-profit mod.

I can say that I have experienced MLWS indications from friendly maverick launches and it used to be very common. This is the reason that it is important to be in communication with the A-10s around your target area and to call your rifles. If you don't.... It's raining flares! Come to think of it however, I can't recently recall triggering a missile warning for a maverick launch.. I wonder if an update has changed the system recently?

Not exactly sure what's going on then. I rarely fly with AI.. your best bet is to keep trying things and open a report to ED. Sorry to hear about this problem.

Reluctant Wingman 2: AI Boogaloo Jokes aside, make sure you're transmitting over the UHF Radio, as that seems to be the only one AI will respond on. Otherwise.. we may be dead in the water with AI wingmen until ED fixes what could potentially be wrong.

Heya A-10C community, I'm looking for some fun projects. I've got quite the knack for livery work, and I've simply run out of ideas. I do small things with liveries, such as adding patches to pilot skins, adding nose art, retexturing pilot helmets, etc. I think small individual touches like these are what makes DCS so neat. Here are some examples: Thanks to Tom Weiss for the 122nd Fighter Wing "Blacksnakes" Livery seen in the picture. All edits were made with his permission. I'm open to just about any suggestions. You can reply here on this thread or PM me if you'd like to make a request. Thanks!

I have to say DEADBEEF, I think you are correct. I agree that ED should spend time working forward instead of making sure people with older hardware can play. But also understand that not everybody can afford the newest monitors and hardware. We risk potentially losing existing customers. That's not something we want. I'm no expert, far from it, but I would like to hear from somebody with the experience whether or not ED could peruse an option to make the visibility ranges stay for smaller res displays yet decrease them for larger displays. DCS and it's modules are all "equal opportunity" and are independent of wallet size. There is no 20$ upgrade package for the AGM-65s that increases their effectiveness. Visibility range however.. :lol: Jokes aside, I'd like to see this fixed with both playerbases in mind. Either way, I'd buy a new monitor if it meant that I'd have to quit DCS otherwise.

rickberry49, thank you for the kind words. Just allow me to say that Track IR.. words cannot possibly express the difference it makes. I'm sure you've heard it before, but truthfully, Track IR will transform your A-10 experience. It allows you to keep your hands on the stick and throttle, which is vital for HOTAS aircraft like the A-10. It also allows you to quickly check MFDs, and it will allow you the most critical ability of all: To turn low and slow around a target area and continually track targets. Once I got Track IR, my combat style switched immediately. No longer did I sit at 15,000ft lasing GBU-12s. If I had the option, I'd hit the deck and experience the A-10C in it's most fun state, circling a TA at 220 knots, making gun passes. Godspeed and best of luck to you with your time in the Pig! She truly is a wonderful plane!

Bushmanni, what monitor setup are you playing the game with? I play with a small 1280 by 1024 monitor and have trouble even visually acquiring aircraft 4 miles away. Meanwhile my buddy in the back seat of my L-39 was spotting contacts at absurd ranges. He was playing on a 34 inch TV. How are you suggesting we fix this? Reduce the visibility range throughout the entire game, making the situation for players like me even worse?

AFAIK, A-10s rarely carried AIM-9s in Afghanistan for obvious reasons. In DCS, I personally think it's best to only carry them when you stand a chance of needing them. A lot of the missions I participate in are mostly counter-insurgency operations where we don't have to worry about Su-27s breathing down our necks. I do believe it is much better to be safe than sorry, and the AIM-9s add very little weight. However, they do obstruct the TGP view quite often, so I've made it a habit to load them on Station 1 or not at all (Assuming I load the TGP on 11.) Bahnzo, What I will say is that in my 1000+ hours in the Hog, I've spent much more time looking out of the cockpit than at the TGP. Now, this of course is due to the fact that most of the missions I've flown have been against opponents that lack heavy SAMs and AAA gear, so as such there was no need to keep a distance where only the TGP can be used to see the TA. Even with that being said, I absolutely encourage you to spend a good portion of your time over a target area orbiting the target low and slow, visually acquiring targets when possible. While LGBs and JDAMs are nice, the A-10's primary CAS tools continue to be the Mk.I Eyeball and the GAU-8.

Hey Bahnzo, This issue is one experienced by much of the Hog community. There truthfully isn't an answer that fits all scenarios. Sometimes you encounter altitude restrictions, terrain, etc. However, I've found that the best way to keep the TGP on a target area is to increase altitude and keep distance. In the A-10, a good distance to the target is around 6-9 miles I've found, that way you can keep a wider view of the target area but still be close enough to get kinetic with any kind of urgency. Always try to orbit the target with the TGP's wing facing the target, and avoid high bank angles. Keep pylon obstructions in mind. If I can help it, I don't load anything on stations 12 and 1 to avoid the TGP being masked by pylon equipment. Hope this helps. Kippy

I found these images of the Admiral Kuznetsov while prowling online. Perhaps they could be of use to ED for their upcoming model of the Admiral Kuznetsov. :)

Ab. so. lute. ly. Fantastic!

"Balance" has no place in DCS. This is a simulation, not World of Warplanes. While it would be neat to see an aircraft to combat the F-14's long range, it should receive no higher priority than any other aircraft.

Hey Stuge. I'd be happy to work with you if you haven't arranged anything so far. I do just about everything from general flight instruction all the way up to advanced ACM tactics. It's all up to you on what you want to learn. I'm also in the states and am available from 4pm to 10pm on weekdays and pretty much 24/7 on weekends. Just shoot me a PM if you're interested. Thanks for your time, Kip

Having been near and around L-39s... Yes. They're loud jets. I wouldn't say they're legacy hornet loud, but they are definitely loud.

Absolutely fantastic! Thank you.