dok_rp

Thanks Viper... I had read that thread, but they stated that we should map the mouse axis as the Maverick slew control, correct? After doing that I guess I'd lose the mouse axis to control the external views, I presume? Someone there also recommends using the ministick set in bands. I also do that, and I have set the 4 keyboard keys that control UP/DOWN/LEFT/RIGHT to their respective slew controls, but that causes the strange maverick slewing bug. So, is there something I am missing? Is it still possible to use the ministick set as "bands" and use keyboard commands to control the Slew in the Maverick and not have the slew bug? Thank you so much for your attention and patience.

He most certainly did!!! :megalol: So, in theory the A-10A could carry 24 Mk82 bombs??? :shocking: :censored: Talk about cheating IRL!!! :pilotfly: It could carpet-bomb!!! :gun_smilie: Anyway, thanks for the info Eddie... :thumbup:

Hello guys, I was watching about the A10 legacy and @ 12s you can see what appears to be 6 Mk82 being released from a TER. There are two interesting facts here: 1) I thought a TER could only be loaded with 3 Mk82 bombs. 2) The TER is also released after the last bomb is released. I have never seen this in the sim, and it appears to me that the only way of "getting rid" of the TER is by jettisoning it after the weapons have been released. Have you guys ever seen this "extended" TER or this automatic TER jettisoning behavior? :smartass:

Hello, Is there a community fix for the veering we get in the seeker head of the maverick after it's been ground-stabilized and we try slewing it? How do you guys go about employing it? I have some friends that do not have machines powerful enough to run BS or A-10C and so we fly FC2, but the lack of continuous support to an upgrade that was paid for is almost insulting. :doh: Anyway, ranting aside, do you guys fly the A-10A multiplayer? How do you guys employ the maverick? I've been trying to do so, but I've been getting beaten to kingdom come when I try to lock anything up. I lock the pipper close to the target to ground-stabilize it, however, when I slew the seeker-head, for example, to the left it "kind of" veers to the right and locking the pesky thing up becomes a herculeanly difficult task. I have not seen too many posts on this topic, so has anyone found a fix for this problem? :smartass: :pilotfly: :thumbup:

I really don't think you guys should keep your hopes anywhere above zero on an update do the TGP IR image model. It had already been stated the its current model is WIP and it was what they were able to deliver with the time and resources they had. Take it as an experimentation model to quench our thirst of a functioning - even if at times far from reality - IR sensor. There are tremendous inconsistencies with the model that have been beaten up to death, and the fix they've stated in the changelog for the upcoming patch refers to brightness and contrast update and not to the IR filter itself. Wags has also stated in this very thread that changing the current TGP black/white filter to a more realistic model is way beyond the scope of a patch and significant changes should only be expected for the next module. POST HERE. Honestly I think they could've made a better job with the black/white filter since in many situations it's downright impossible to identify targets. The forests of fire and lava rivers, not to mention the searing crop fields are a considerable drawback. Of course we have great flight dynamics, and good overall simulation, but cutting corners in the simulation of a system that is pretty much THE most important one in the A10 and implementing it in-sim in a way that it could not be improved seems weird to say the least. Well, nevermind... 2014 is not that far off. :pilotfly:

I don't think it's possible with the current Black Shark engine. There's a very interesting tweak for DCS A-10 which does exactly what you want, though. I guess that with the compatibility patch the BS engine will, too, be tweakable in terms of object visibility and removal of the transparent buildings, which were included as a workaround to simulate atmospheric haze. :smartass: Now, don't go expecting your fps to stay up with these such tweaks. I have an i5 2500k @ 4,6GHz and a GTX 580 and my system is brought to its knees when overflying heavily populated areas. Of course the gorgeousness of the game is something to behold, but fps suffer drastically. :pilotfly: EDIT: Only now did I see you were talking about Flaming Cliffs. Sorry. .

Simple, yet, very elegant explanation, EtherealN. Thanks a lot for that. :smartass: :thumbup:

I can totally understand the frustration of someone who sets up a mission and has his buddies over comms with all the correct terminology and everything, setting up radio frequencies, getting taxi and take off clearance just to have their immersion killed by someone taking off from the taxiway. Talk about an immersion killer. I too have two friends with whom I fly, but none of them can speak English, so, whenever they are online, I feel compelled to fly with them. Therefore, logging into a TS server from a passworded game and speaking Portuguese would not be the best way of getting acquainted. Something that I do immensely miss in the DCS series is a VoIP system similar to that one we have in the ARMA series. I've been able to have loads of fun by creating missions and leaving the server open and using the built-in comms system to talk to other players. I think the DCS series would greatly benefit from such a service. I hope that with the next compatibility patch more people get drawn into DCS A10 and that we may have more quality password-free servers. Well.. let's see what that turns out to be.... :smartass: :pilotfly:

I too had that over-sensitivity problem when getting acquainted with the Saitek pedals. The default response curvature is indeed too steep. I've set mine to 31 and it's beautiful. Works great for minor corrections when diving for a gun-run, doesn't get too touchy when NWS is activated and gets the job done. My suggestion is to try with various curvature settings until you get one you feel most comfortable with. After that, it's all happy flying. :pilotfly: :smartass: :thumbup:

This is a problem with the drivers and Windows 7 64 bit. It has been reported a long time ago and only recently it has been acknowledged as an incompatibility problem with Windows 7 64 bit. They are working on a fix for that. A workaround for that is to use the back USB ports and not use it on HUBS or FRONT CASE USB ports. It has worked for some and not for others. In my case, the problem still remains after complete driver uninstallation and reinstallation even if using the back USB ports. I have had this joystick for over 2 years and have used it for hundreds and hundreds of flying hours. It's still in impeccable condition, except for the nagging "profele" problem. Hardware-wise it's still tip-top. Are there PRO and non-PRO models out there that fail after 2 weeks of use? Of course there are, just as there are 400-dollar Thrustmaster Warthogs that become paper weights due to firmware problems, just as there are X65 with sensor problems, just as there are G940 with throttle wiring problems. Not for a minute you should think that by spending the price of 4 X52 PRO in a joystick you'll be automatically excluded from the fact that you too can become statistics on faulty hardware. That's the number one reason for disappointment down the line. :smartass: This is one of the threads in which the problem was reported ==> http://www.saitekforum.com/showthread.php?t=19182 You may need to be logged in to view it. This is what the site administrator has posted on June 1. And now answering your question... :smilewink: Buy a HOTAS WARTHOG IF: 1) You don't mind spending $400 on a joystick. 2) You can afford to spend another $80 on a set of pedals. 3) You want more realism and immersion. Say yes to all three of them and you're good to go. :joystick: :pilotfly: :smartass: :thumbup:

Thanks a million guys. I was playing around with the Aim9 and some AA engagements and I couldn't find a way to turn it down. :smartass:

Hello guys, Is it possible to turn down the growling sound of the AIM9? No manual reference. No forum post reference. Is it really unchangeable? :pilotfly:

Hello guys, I've had this sim for quite a while now, and I've been doing my best to learn how to use it properly, so when I would finally put it to use in the multiplayer mode I would not make a fool of myself and not disrupt other people's games. Having completed this first stage and after learning a good bit about the game, avionics and systems, I decided to give it a spin on the multiplayer with two buddies of mine. Much to my demise that was a truly frustrating episode due to the immense inaccessibility of the servers for them being almost all passworded. This is an utterly hardcore simulator with a supporting community that does not lag behind in terms of being dedicated and interested in making the best of such an incredible piece of software. Having that said, I don't seem to grasp the necessity of having the absolute majority of the meager number of available servers password-protected. Today, for example, a Sunday, which is a great day for flying, 10 out of 13 servers are inaccessible due to password protection. So to all servers hosts: Why not make a game, which by its own definition attracts an incredibly diminished public, more accessible by allowing others to join in in your missions? Adding to the fore-mentioned frustration is the fact that many of these passworded servers had no one playing. That's even more saddening. Well, don't take this is as ranting post or anything. It's just my expression of discontent on a behavior that only thins out the community even further. Thanks a lot guys. :pilotfly:

Hello guys, Thanks for all the input. I tried and modified the files without simply overwriting them, and even though I couldn't get the "Very High" option to appear under the "Visibility Distance" setting, I was able to get it to work, I presume. The only downfall I noticed is a decrease in fps, when compared with the 1.0.8 version, but I have to test it a little further. Anyways, thanks for all the headsup. :pilotfly:

I didn't understand the "place holder" line. Do I have to add this line regardless of it not being included before? I also tried copying the contents of the "Very_High.lua" file into the "High.lua". However, to my surprise, some graphic abnormalities have appeared. Now, I get a dark green area on the map wherever forests should be on. That didn't occur before. I guess the patch changed a few more things that ended up "breaking" this mod. :cry:

I tried manually editing the files to add the new "Very_High" option. I fixed all the wrong lines, but the option no longer appears in the option menu. :huh: I guess they've changed something that blocked it. :huh:

Hello Kuky, I've just upgraded to 1.1.0.9 and the mod seem to have stopped working. I'm getting a bunch of "texture missing" messages where I should have a text box and the mission editor no longer opens. Is there a particular line we have to edit in order to get to work with the latest patch? Gosh, I just hope ED didn't do anything to prevent it from being used. :huh: Thanks again for your constant attention. :smartass:

Thanks a lot Kuky... I'll wait for the compatibility patch. I was comparing both config files from BS and A10 and they are pretty different. There are some lines which BS doesn't use/support. I guess, after both games become compatible and share the same graphics engine, we'll be able to use these same graphics settings. Thanks again for your effort. Best regards!!! :pilotfly:

This is really very nice. I'm also wondering myself why I had not bumped into this thread before. I've just tested it and I can confirm that the tree setting does eat a nice amount of fps. I haven't tried it in the campaign, but in the single missions it eats a pretty considerable chunk. As a result, I left trees at 7km, too. :thumbup: I am running and i5 2500k @ 4.6GHZ, GTX 580 and 8GB RAM. I also have another question... hope Kuky sees this. Is it possible to get these same results with Black Shark? I mean, it would be great to get rid of the transparent buildings. Now when you are looking through the TGP at a target 15nm away from you it's nice and solid, the way it should be. Would it be possible to get the same result with the Shark? Hope you get this Kuky. And +1 rep for your great work. :smartass: EDIT: I can't give you any more rep, Kuky. :(

Why on heaven's name are you using SHIFT+J which is the shaky camera feature INSIDE the cockpit???????? Quick advice... turn... it... off. :thumbup: That's supposed to be used OUTSIDE the airframe, just to add a little more drama when you are recording a video, for example. Fly safe. :pilotfly:

Hmmm... I might be wrong... but wasn't the Black Shark integration patch supposed to come out with this update as well? :pilotfly:

I'm sold since page 01. Bring it on ED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly:

Hello guys... I've just installed the new patch and I've noticed the aircraft sound is now really different. :noexpression: Is this new sound more realistic? I could swear the old one was spot on!!! :huh: I am not using a surround system. I have a Lifechat 3000 USB from Microsoft. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. I did not see any news in the changelog about the aircraft sound being changed, hence my question. :pilotfly::pilotfly: Thanks again for the attention. :thumbup:

Many of my thoughts too. I would gladly pay for more content and further expansions to Arma 2, but again who knows what their development roadmap might be like, right? Maybe, indeed, they did stumble upon some impassable wall in terms of engine improvement which can only be overcome by utilizing a new engine, even though it seems many things from the current engine will be recycled in this new one. Oh well, let's wait for more sneak peek material to come out... :)

I, on the other hand, think they'll go on the exact opposite approach. To me is seems Bohemia is trying to give step forward towards mass marketing and to appeal to other publics that have always been afraid of the Arma series. Arma has always had its right foot in the arcade genre in terms of flight models and ground vehicle handling. The only salvage factor was ultimately left to the infantry department, one of which has been my favorite. I appreciate the flying a bit, but it's always been to arcadish to my taste. IMHO, from the we-are-taking-every-single-possible-creative-liberty philosophy we can gather from the screnshots, seems pretty tangible to infer that realism is their smallest worries right now. They jumped from adding weaponry that has never seen active duty in Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead to "Oh God, What on Earth is that"? From an avid fan of the OFP series since 2001, never had I though I'd say that... but I might just skip this Arma III wackiness.