randomTOTEN

Kind of a bummer we didn't get an aged cockpit for the A-10C, but okay...

huh... it should be bound to the POV view controls.. okay strange.

Trim hat is the default POV for the Thrustmaster Warthog. At least it was in A-10C I.

A-10 doesn't use Link 16

Known issue. I appears the SEC mode operates like the PW 229 but this aircraft has the GE 129. The training mission tells you to follow the General Electric SEC check, which (while correct) fails. But if you follow the less demanding Pratt & Whitney version of the test it will not cut out on you. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=250834&highlight=SEC

Thank you for fixing the AOA Indexer and Refueling Status lights for the A-10A!! !:notworthy: Still hopeful for armament panel weapon types... but that's a stretch.

I have a stick

I ended up spending all of 3 minutes remapping everything from scratch. It isn't that hard...

"Save Profile As" "Load Profile" should get you most of the way

Did this change for the regular A-10C too? Neat.

Snakedoc, Check out my snapviews edit. That should position your head correctly. I haven't checked the latest HUD update yet.

Refresh, and check your account history. Mine's already gone through.

Oh you kids...:megalol:

Thank you for this thread guys. I didn't know how to use FTT or AGR... in fact didn't really even know what they were or how to use them in the Hornet. After 4 pages and some practice on the Test Range I'm pretty impressed by these new developments and now have a basic understanding! Thanks!

We don't have a 3 minute warm up for the HARM. Viper does.

I don't buy that an A-10 pilot has to crink his neck to see the light telling him his canopy is unlocked, but I do appreciate the improvement in the HUD. Hopefully a better position will work with it too.

can OP edit the thread title please?

My point of view is, "why do people repeatedly bring up a technically valid configuration to try and justify the existence of a (possibly) technically invalid configuration? When I bring up it's technical validity, it gets repeatedly dismissed on the basis of tactical use.. but apparently that objection only applies to specific modules..."

An MFCD isn't a "sensor," thus, you can't make it a "Sensor of Interest=SOI." If you have DSMS on left MFCD, and CDU repeater on right MFCD, you can't use Coolie Switch to set either of those as SOI. It depends on what page is being displayed. EDIT: Hawkeye is right TMS is the wrong control. Can't even keep my HOTAS straight lol

I don't know why people keep bringing up this objection to the evidence. By virtue of us seeing it fly on an operational (not test) aircraft, we know it's an airworthy configuration. As far as I know, all 10 missiles can interface with the systems of that Hornet, simultaneously. There's no missing fantasy wiring needed, no gameplay avionics updates required, right? You mount 10 AMRAAM's on the Hornet, the Hornet sees all 10 AMRAAM's, and can fire all 10.. right? If they were live rounds, he could shoot all of them in that same flight, right? So how is this not a "valid" loadout? Going back to the OP. Can an operational Block 50 Viper mount Mavericks on 4 different weapon stations?, does it have the wiring and avionics to do so? Is that an airworthy configuration? Can a Viper fire all 8 missiles in the same flight? I don't think the standards are the same here.

Now you can say you've seen at least 1 video. No, it's not a test aircraft, and it's not a test configuration. It's during a military exercise, and obviously in this case was a promotional decision, not necessarily a tactical one.

Here's my final answer for the A-10C Eyepoint and Eyeline. x=0.083200 y=-0.007510 z=0 p=-16.0 FOV=individual case (61 for me) if you want, you can use the SnapViews.lua to set it and it will override the DCS default. It will break your HUD in it's current version!

Buzz, I think the new cockpit geometry breaks what made the "old" view work. I suspect the cockpit shape is more accurate thus we need a more accurate eyepoint to correct it. The old eyepoint also extremely forward of the camera rotation axis, which caused massive location shifts with mere panning and tilting of the view. That needed to be fixed too. We'll just need to wait for the completed HUD work to fix this eventually. I think having proper eye position before that is more important, and should not be neglected.

I disagree with this. I think a lot of people try to make NTTR what it isn't, and get disappointed when their expectations aren't met. It's designed around Nellis operations into the NTTR. Not Fallon, not Lemoore, not China Lake, not Edwards. If you use the intended airports, and use the depicted airspace as the map is designed, you will have an excellent experience, and feel the AO is complete. The Red Flag campaigns highlight this point well. I really wish we had more users that wanted an authentic Nevada training experience, especially when NATO aircraft are so heavily represented. I fired my first Viper Maverick and HARM on the one dedicated testing and training map we have, using actual target ranges. Because why would I conduct testing and training anywhere else?

From your posted document. MIL-STD-1760 APPLICATION GUIDELINES 6.3.1.3. (pg. 85) This is all quite over my head, but it does seem like there is some difference between the outboard and inboard wing pylons. All I can really conclude is that the F-16 is an incredibly complicated design :lol: Good luck sorting out fact from fiction.