jasonbirder

Well, that's one mystery solved! The CCRP Invalid was (I think) because rather than creating a new DSMS profile for the CCRP drop...I edited the one i'd used previously for a CCIP drop WITHOUT deleting the DTOF I'd entered for the CCIP drop... I assume so anyway...by creating two seperate mk82 profiles on start up - the CCRP with very simple settings (SEM None, Min ALT 1000, SGL, CCRP) I didn't get the CCRP Invalid message and was able to drop at a variety of different altitudes. The 6.7 sec DTOF I had entered in the profile for my CCIP drop was obviously interfering with weapon release in CCRP mode!

Thanks BD - love the new Manual!

Who remembers the old "UFO Intercept" mission back in F14 Fleet Defender?

Thanks!

Thanks for the feedback both of you :) I am assigning a SPI in CCRP mode via TMS long, as confirmed by the lower left TGP indication in the HUD (I actually assign a SPI before entering CCRP mode by selecting the desired weapon profile with DMS left/right) though presumably if I hadn't assigned a target SPI the currently selected steerpoint would remain as SPI and whilst not guiding to the "desired" target wouldn't give me any warning indicators of no SPI in the HUD...the "tadpole" and then the ASL would just guide me to the wrong point in space? Aren't the "unwinding" range carats only applicable to guided bombs rather than unguided bombs in CCRP? Isn't all I get in CCRP with unguided bombs the "timer countdown" from 20 before the solution cue descends the PBRL Obviously weapon accuracy is going to be much better with the GPS/IAMs but I'm trying to get the unguided weapon deliveries down pat before moving on! From an accuracy point of view is it simply the lower the better/the faster the better (less bomb fall time/distance for wind/flight errors to kick in) Thanks again!

I'm gradually learning the wonderful A10C - working my way through the aircraft systems and procedures and now the different weapons and their employment. I'm pretty comfortable using a variety of different CCIP profiles to employ Unguided Low Drag Bombs...but am struggling a bit with CCRP... (In no particular order) 1. CCRP Invalid - I get a CCRP Invalid display across my HUD whenever I'm in CCRP mode and below 8000 MSL, whilst not the end of the world (why would I use CCRP below 8K) I can't believe that's the minimum altitude for all CCRP deliveries...it seems independent of Weapon Profile Selected (LDGPs and CBUs) so I'm assuming its a setting related to the Aircraft rather than the Weapon Profile in the DSMS (and the obvious Min Alt in the Weapon profile is at say 1000' for LDGPs and above the HoF for CBUs in the DSMS)...what am I missing? 2. Any tips other than the obvious be smooth/be trimmed to get accurate CCRP deliveries? Cos truth is - I suck! I can get a whole hatload of "shacks" with CCIP but my CCRP deliveries are like me closing my eyes and throwing a dart at a board...I know its inherently more inaccurate - but what can I focus on to improve my deliveries? 3. What does a "good" CCRP Weapon employment profile "look like" ? Again its easy enough with CCIP as there are plenty of "Z-sleds" out there to structure your delivery...what about CCRP? What sort of speeds and altitudes should I be at? How long should I be tracking the ASL? What should my maneuvers be AFTER i've dropped? The other question...somewhat allied to CCRP is related to unguided CBUs (87s and 97s) should I be using CCRP or CCIP to deliver them? What should my employment profiles look like? Thanks :)

I'm sure its been mentioned up-thread...but whats the difference between the original ADVs and my van? In my van - the bags of cement are in the back!

If the word from ED is that OpenBeta is the default user version and receives preferential support/Bugfixes for purchased modules/DLC, whilst Stable is a legacy version that will receive support/Bugfixes on a low-priority basis then thats exactly what i'll do... Is that the case ED?

The last Open Beta pushed out a number of bug fixes to a DLC Campaign I recently purchased from ED...What is the commercial justification for only making those bug-fixes available to users on Open Beta and not making them available to users on the stable version, who presumably paid exactly the same for the DLC? What's impatient about that? IF, ED consider Open Beta to be the default version of DCS that all users should be on, then why run the two installations in parallel? Why not simply have DCS 2.5xxxxx

Wasn't there an update to Open Beta mid-Jan (15th I think) ?

Any particular reason the update to stable is lagging so far behind the update to the Open beta this time? Are there genuinely significant bug issues that have been discovered in OB? Or is it just a lack of urgency in pushing it out to stable? Regardless of the fact that in MP (a tiny minority of DCS play) open beta has become the de facto release of choice for users...there is a clue in the name "Beta" ED should remember that "stable" is the official version and should be fully supported...

I think there is an argument that a UFC, 2 MFDs & a radio box with 2D rendering ARE more accurate than VR... Or shall we just say its all subjective and stop trying to measure d*cks

From the same sources "Iran’s defense ministry recently showed off what it claims is a locally-produced stealth fighter. The F313 Qaher (Farsi for Conqueror)" I'm not sure I'll take any/all of their claims as gospel...

You appear to be saying that a Missile designed for use against Bombers and Cruise Missiles (non-maneuvering targets essentially, that even in its final digital version was a 70s design with 80s elecctronics, that has a substantially higher weight and cross section than other AAMs, that has a truly dreadful in-service record and was swiftly retired ISN'T the ultimate, never to bettered, end-game evolution of the Air to Air Missile, with near god-like capabilities...

Well that is some super effective and super fast support! On a Saturday night too...above and beyond! 6pm Flew mission...no viacom...came on forums...reported it...saw others had same issue... Made macaroni Cheese...watched 6 Underground...checked forums...holy sh*t a hotfix already!!! Working great now...thanks Hollywood!

Viacom appears to have COMPLETELY stopped working for me since the last update... Any & all voice commands are met with "Command xxxx is currently disabled for this session and was not executed" I've deleted all the appropriate "Start/Stop Voice attack listening commands from TX1 -4 PTTs And reset the .lua Not sure what else I can do?

Hoping this means a Maverick Training video for the A10C on the channel soon Supernova!

The Hornet can do everything the F16 can...plus more...plus Carrier operations... It seems a no-brainer (and thats speaking as someone with hundreds and hundreds of very happy Falcon 4.0 hours under my belt) I know some PvP'ers will now tell em i'm wrong and that the F16 is faster/more maneuverable in A2A - but as (doctrine wise) its solely a Bomb Truck...does it matter :)

Just wanted to give a bit of praise to the Maple Flag team (and Sabre-TLAs timely responses on the forum!) I've just reflown the Basic Flight Training Campaign after a short break from the A10C (its amazing how much you forget in a couple of weeks) with the new cockpit and feel it deserves a shout out! The campaign tests you in all the basics of flying and navigating the A10C and the different missions had me expanding my "Hog" knowledge by digging into the manual or You Tube for more... Plenty of challenges along the way...the Flameout Landing and those damned Aerobatics being another that really frustrated me... Great use of objects and flights on the Airfield and Military Operations Area made the place feel "alive" and the dawn/dusk missions really showcased what a fantastic looking sim graphically DCS is... The final low level flight mission shows how the campaign is still supported...feedback from the forums has had the team recently adjust the altitude for the flight lead to make it more intuitive... Really enjoyed the 12 missions and came away with a sense of accomplishment having passed! Back into Advanced Training now...will I gain the coveted "Basic Mission Qualified" label?

You're right - the lighting does "feel" right...everything you read or hear remarks how dark it is...think how scary "RL" pilots find electical failures...trying to find switches by hand...shining a flashlight to find them BUT In a "RL" cockpit you can find the switches by touch...a sense we don't have in DCS...muscle memory allows us to know where they are in "static" situations such as start up...but there are some nooks and crannies in the cockpit that are VERY dark...and when you're flying and moving your head it can be very hard to find one or two switches/buttons when you've been moving your head around...and you end up "fishing for them" with the mouse until you get the green "active symbol" - the AAR lever is one i struggle with when its really dark, unless i have my view "locked" straight ahead...

Without getting into the logistics of the Capacity of those Airbases to house substantial numbers of Bears/Badgers/Bombers etc...the key difference is...we can ALL imagine the Soviet Northern Fleet contesting the GIUK gap - in a cold war scenario to open access for Bombers/Submarines to the North Atlantic Shipping Lanes... Coming out of the Sea of Okhotsk or Kamchatka and turning south a few thousand miles into the South-Pacific...why? As a prelude to an Invasion of Australia? Kamchatka itself would have made far more sense (as I pointed out earlier) CVBGs and MAUs vs Soviet Land based assets...

Its nearly twice as far from Vladivostok to Guam as it is from Murmansk to Iceland - oh...and look at the map rather than open ocean you have to pass enclosed waters off Japan... hardly the same is it? (Ignoring the size of the Pacific Fleet and the lack of capacity of Airbases for housing Backfire/Badger Squadrons)

Do any of the SCLs for the Viper show it with more than 2 AMRAAMs? Are there any photos of operational (rather than demonstration) sorties with more than 4 AMRAAMs?

You are obviously corect...but tell me that developing the Kurils and Sea of Okhotsk wouldn't have involved similar Water/Land ratios...little need for details land assets for placement and been a hell of a lot more relevent for US/Russia cold war scenarios (which is what our current plane set fits best)

Interesting read...thanks :)