wickedfastball

I have the 4 and it works great in A-10. If the choice is a 4 or nothing, go with the 4. It can not be overstated how much of a difference a TrackIR makes in A-10 and PC sims in general (be it flight, driving, FPS, whatever). I got my TIR4 shortly after BlackShark came out and, wow, what a difference it makes. The "window at 6 o'clock" question had to do with IR interference in the room. As the IR in TrackIR is for infrared, if there is any IR source or reflection of an IR source in the FOV of the camera that it is not expecting, the software will not be able to track the reflectors. I was once wearing a shirt that had a reflective logo on the chest. My TIR was going nuts and I couldn't understand what was up. But opening up the camera software showed, in plain view, a nice Adidas logo on the screen. I don't wear that shirt at the computer anymore... Something to note is you do have to wear something to provide tracking data to the camera. The unit comes with a clip that you attach to a baseball cap which you will have to wear when you play. Thankfully my wife thinks it's cute so I'm good. My daughter rolls her eyes and makes sure the door to the study is closed when her friends come over. :D

I had no problems whatsoever configuring in either BS or A-10. In fact, going from beta to beta with A-10 (clean installs) I only had to remap the flight control axes. All the buttons mapped right over. The CH Control Manager makes easy work of it. You can use someone's config files as a starting point and tweak it to your liking. Real easy to do and there is a rather active community for help when you need it. My desk setup allows the devices to be plugged directly into the computer but supposedly you can use a powered USB hub. I've never tried it but have read about others that have.

<Beating CH Products drum again> Go CH. As was mentioned about their reputation, it is certainly deserved.

Ditto everyone else here. I came from an X45 and now have the same setup you are considering. It has performed great for years. I got the CH yoke and pedals probably 10-12 years ago (I think) and got the Fighterstick and Pro Throttle probably 4 years ago. All are still functioning perfectly. The control manager software is very powerful and you really can't beat the service from the CH guys. They are a great group and quickly address any problems you have. You won't be disappointed.

Does anyone know if it's possible to redirect from c:\users\whatever to somewhere else?

Ah. Makes sense. I make liberal use of TIR Pause. I have it mapped to both an unused button on the stick and to a mouse button. I tweaked the curves to give me a "valley" around the center in each axis and limit the rotation "over the shoulder" but that's about it. I can see how tweaking for specific airframe shapes would be nice, but I just haven't taken the time. However, I might just use your profile as a starting point...

Maybe I'm not exploiting the full functionality of the TrackIR software, but what are you guys doing that requires a separate profile for A-10 vs. Black Shark vs. FSX? I use the same profile for each and it works perfectly. (btw, I'm certainly not being critical. If I can gain functionality I will change how I use it.)

Might I suggest you check out CH Products as well?

Like mace said, the short answer is nope. This is a simulation designed to mimic the behavior of the actual aircraft as much as possible. In the real jet, if the stick moves enough to overcome the authority of the AP it will disable. More generally, if the aerodynamic forces are too much for the AP to overcome, it will disable. Try putting in a good bit of roll trim and see how it behaves. Do this at altitude so you have time to recover (if you care about your death count, that is). The AP is not all-seeing, all-knowing, all-controlling. Much like the rest of the aircraft it has limits and you have to stay within them if you wish to use it.

Is there a way to set default volume levels for the stall and max. perf. warning tones? And, is there a general case for setting defaults in the cockpit?

1) As has been mentioned, use the TIR software to see what the camera is doing. I have the TIR4 camera with the TIR 5 software. Works well for me. If you have multiple monitors, you can even bring TIR up on the second while you have the game on the first and see how it behaves. I use the ballcap/trackclip method and have the camera right at eye level. Be sure you have the cap angled down enough so that the brim doesn't block a reflector. The camera must be able to see all three to be able to calculate position and orientation. Something to note, is, in the actual aircraft you really can't read the switch labels clearly from a normal seated position. After a while you don't read them. You just know where everything is and the labels are just a guide. It takes a bit of practice, but it comes. Ok, a lot of practice... :) 2) I don't use Saitek gear, but as was suggested, the Saitek drivers would be a good start. 3) I was considering buying the MFD screens but have found that you really don't do much fiddling around in the MFDs, at least during "dynamic" phases. If I have to spend any time in there I'm usually able to engage the autopilot and use an MFD snap view. And to me, the content of the MFD is more important than the buttons. If you get the live display behind the buttons then it might be worth it. (yes, I know some folks here have that working)

That is from Fleet Week, I believe. San Francisco bay. Pretty cool event if you can ever make it....

I mapped PAC-1 to the pinkie button and shifted the standard pinkie functions. Shift is mapped to the outboard button on the front of the throttle. So NWS and frickin' laser are shift-pinkie. Has been a fair trade off for me so far. I recently added zoom (in, out, reset) and TIR freeze to the stick (via shifted buttons). Makes zooming into the HUD for a gun run much simpler to accomplish and has made my shooting more accurate. I know it's not even close to "real" but actually being able to hit your target is much more fun.

Not exactly. I've only handled an x52 on the shelves at Fry's. But compared to the x45 (should be similar-ish) it's much less stiff. Personally I would like it to be a tad stiffer but (like Vapour said) the tradeoff is you get great precision. And like Rave pointed out, that SimHQ article is the only place I've seen a full-spread "shootout" for controllers. Sure, there's nothing like handling the gear yourself (plenty of pun-potential there) but they do give you a nice rundown of the state-of-the-industry at the moment. And to throw in another factor, CH has made an industrial-level A-10 setup (http://www.ch-hangar.com/SiteFiles/Images/product_images/CHProd_IITSEC_2.jpg). It was made for the military/contractors. They loosely hinted at the possibility of bringing it to the consumer side sometime, but that is conjecture for the most part. That being said, if they do start selling it I'll be in line for the first deliveries.

Curious as to why you are using hibernate? Sleep mode gives you low power consumption with potentially fewer complications. Plus you'll save the disk space from the hibernate file (small bonus). Now, if you are talking about a laptop that could be different, but I don't use hibernate on my laptop either. If it's going to be unused for more than two days or so power off, otherwise sleep works fine. And with Windows 7 the boot time is much faster. There isn't an appreciable difference between booting and waking from hibernation. And graphics performance is better (we *are* talking gaming, after all).

I have to give props to the CH Products line. While the Pro Throttle may not be A-10 specific, it is still quite good. You can map all of the A-10 throttle functions with buttons to spare. The Fighterstick, however, is nearly an exact match (save the two-stage trigger). The best thing is you can get a stick, throttle, and pedals for 2/3 the cost (maybe less) of the Warthog-specific rig. The build quality of CH gear is top-notch. I'm still using the yoke and pedals I got almost 10 years ago. The stick and throttle are about to hit 4. Had a Saitek 45 before and it was ragged after a little over a year. The CH software, while not the spiffiest of user interfaces, is amazingly powerful and really pretty easy to use. And the support from CH is like no other company I've experienced. You can have a conversation with the folks that actually work there, not some farmed-out tech support. I'm sold on CH gear. They don't give you a reason to look elsewhere.

Whoa, that's the beauty of the intertubewebnets. Someone (anyone) can create something and it's up to the public to determine if it is useful or not. In this case, being a member of "the public", I find DM's DCSWiki rather spiffy. It presents information found in "official" places (the product documentation plus random other sources) in a different (and concise) format and adds new content (schematics, etc). The "noobs will be lost" argument is a bit overstated. Surely, if you can get to the point where you are looking for detailed information on the operation and systems of a quite sophisticated simulation of a moderately sophisticated military aircraft, then the chore of navigating to another website and keeping the perspective that it is third-party should be a no-op. How many sites are out there for FSX? Heck, how many are there for other ED products? Of course, there is a caveat here. The information has to be consistent across sources. But that's one of the primary features of a wiki: editing is an open process. If a particular article is inaccurate (or worse, misleading) then "the public" will be able to correct it and the article history is maintained. Have faith in your community. It might surprise you. I hope other folks will use this as a resource to augment the "official" ED documentation. If you don't want to use it, don't. The "market" will determine if it stays up. Someone has to register the domain, maintain the content, etc. If it's not worth someone's time then it will dry up and blow away. If it is worthwhile, it will grow and, just maybe, someone will learn something along the way. How is that a bad thing? Something that might help with clarification, DM. You might want to consider stating on the front page "This is not Eagle Dynamics" or something. Just to be clear. Also, you might want to consider requiring registration in order to edit. This gives a little more traceability and one extra step to make sure that whoever is going to edit your page really has in interest to do so. Just my opinion.

When I run into this I restart the mission with simple radios to see if it's a me-problem (radio operation) or a them-problem (mission config, etc.). Now I can't comment on the campaign missions as the early-beta roughness has turned me off of campaigns until the full release, but in standalone missions (both ED and user-provided) JTAC usually works fairly well (at least as of Beta 4).

I imagine the 30 mark on the flap position indicator is a remnant from an earlier version of the aircraft (or something like that). Besides, another 10 degrees of flaps would probably only add drag and not contribute much (if any) lift, and drag, along with copious amounts of bad-assness, is something the A-10 is not short of.

I have an 8800 GTS as well. Actually, two. I expect that a single GTX 400-series card will outperform the SLI'd 8800's. GTX 470's are down to $265 so I'm going to pick one up soon. We'll see how it does. EDIT: some are even cheaper. Found one for $250 plus a $30 MIR. Will be ordering from NewEgg shortly!

I'm finding I play this mission more than anything else at the moment. Well done, Bahger. And idea for you for part 2. You could start in-air, enroute to target and require an aerial refueling before proceeding to target. Would kinda simulate a "real" mission from a far-away base. I might try with something like this over the holidays if I get enough play time. Also, I still want to figure out the ramp-start versus runway start w.r.t. DTOTs issue. I really hope there is a simple fix to that. Starting to really see the potential of this game. And it looks good.

Now, I could just say "what blaster said" and be done. But where's the fun in that? :) Game and simulation are not mutually exclusive. This game is simulating an aircraft. Is there not a score kept? The equipment does not change depending on who is using it, but rather on how it is used or at least the intent for which it is to be used. Take the Space Shuttle simulator that is used to train astronauts or a 767 sim at an airline. Those are simulators. The purpose is to go do something with the real-life device. If I sit down in the simulator cockpit or Sully Sullenberger does it's still a simulator. If I sit down in front of DCS or <insert famous A-10 pilot here> does it's still a game. Again, a very good game with an amazing amount of detail and is a ton of fun, but still a game. I think we are all saying the same thing and generally agree with each other but are just using different semantics. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I do write software for simulators so I'll admit my position might be a bit biased. Now, let's muddy the waters of this discussion, but since Black Shark was brought up I guess it's ok. Does anyone else feel much more productive with the A-10 versus the Ka-50? In just the two months or so of beta-level software I feel I can do more and fly a mission so much better in the A-10 versus the year+ (has it been two?) I have in the Ka-50. Yes, fixed versus rotary wing is a bunch of that but I really don't have an issue just flying the Black Shark. The problem is employing it in an operational environment. Is there something there regarding design philosophy/culture? The Ka-50 is Russian and the A-10 is American. I'm American. Now I know physics doesn't care where you were born and F = ma the world over, but is there something to the origins of the aircraft? Just curious what other folks have experienced.

My custom snap views have suddenly stopped working. I checked the config files and they are correct with the modifications from the OP. Any idea what would cause that? I don't recall making any changes but could have done something inadvertent.

I have a TOT question. I bumped the mission start time back 20 minutes to allow for a ramp start. Doing that did not change the TOTs for each mission waypoint so I end up being late. Do you have to change the mission waypoint TOTs individually or are they linked somehow? I'm going to experiment but was wondering if there was a trick to it.

This is a game. Very good and highly detailed, yes, but still a game. If you are simulating something for training the implication is you will be employing the simulated device for real at some point. Now, while I would go to great lengths to be able to fly a real A-10 and fire that magnificent GAU-8, I don't think that is ever going to happen. Besides, it is a war machine and, while I hope I would have the mettle to perform in combat, that is an untested situation and will hopefully remain so. Now excuse me while I go log some more game time.