Moa

Unfortunately FC2 and DCS are a bit buggy with regard to tracks. It has been the way since FC1 and there are many posts in the forums about it. It is also unfortunate we can't write an independent track viewer of any kind since the track format is proprietary (not known), and there is no way of composing a scene using FC2 even if you could decode the file (re-rendering the scene entirely yourself essentially means writing your own flight simulator). I'm pleased you guys like lottu and it is useful to you.

Wanted to do that for exactly the reason you mention. The problems standing in the way are: * It is not known at the start of a mission which coalition a base belongs to (or is neutral) using the log. Case cleverly determines this by the coalition that launches from the base. Of course this doesn't work if a base starts neutral or no one takes off from the base. * When a base is taken over the message does not say which side now occupies the base. It can be determined based on what side the base was on at start (if known) and from base capture messages. If a base capture message is missed (sometimes LockOn writes corrupt fragmentary entries) then all takeoffs and landings will be calculated incorrectly. Every entry should also be self-contained and not rely on any previous entries being parsed (this allows 'stateless' parsing of the logs, something not possible at the moment which substantially decreased reliability and accuracy of the parsing given the incomplete and corrupt nature of some entries). * When a player ejects, crashes, or is shot down their position is not given in the log. There was a thread a while back where we asked for enhancements to the log (eg. locations, UTC timestamps), and to fix defects in it. For now it would be better to keep the log as it is (every format change is a *lot* of work to sort out and sometimes less information is given for some FC2 entries relative to FC1 - so I view the FC2 changes in the log as somewhat haphazard and not always well thought out and were in a radically different format to FC1 so required a lot of effort to re-do stats). You can get location information by parsing the TacView in realtime, but this is a bit of overkill in terms of effort for information gained. Really, *every* entry should have at least (x,y) location, gametime, UTC time, callsign and aircraft/vehicle/weapon types involved (the only one of these consistently in the logs is gametime and that is basically useless unless you are trying to distinguish night from day in-game).

Disagree. Stats are an objective way of measuring pilot performance. It is interesting to see who gets a lot of kills but never lands, or crashes a lot, or who can and can't do carrier landings, or can operate many different types of aircraft effectively. Like most things, stats aren't perfect, but they are a lot more objective than simple anecdotal reflection. It certainly improved my flying once I realized that every death counts. For daily play this isn't such a big deal but for inter-squadron tournaments trying to accomplish your mission while still surviving with your one life is a critical skill (usually more important to the team than kills). Only by seeing your own stats can you measure an improvement in this over long time scales.

51st Case's 51st scoreboard is thoroughly excellent. Do check it out. There is another trial scoreboard for VNAO (and eventually for 104th, once I've worked all the kinks out) at: http://stallturn.com/scores/ You'll need a recent version of Java installed. Download Java for free from: http://www.java.com This scoreboard retains a 'career' score for each pilot, and pilot ranking (based on flight hours and air-to-air efficiency). Click on a pilot name and choose the Summary tab to see details about each pilot. Still a little buggy - but you can see what is coming. The intent is to open source this software (GNU GPL v3) as soon as all the bugs have been worked out (there are a lot of workarounds for bugs in the logs written by LockOn, so it does get a little complicated). I don't want to release this any sooner as helping each squadron install will be painful if pretty much all bugs aren't squished first. The intent is also for everyone to share data.There is a built in 'SOAP' webservice for sharing data between squadrons. A tool such as SoapUI http://www.soapui.org (or your favourite web-service enabled programming language) can access the stallturn data by pointing it at the 'WSDL' located at: http://www.stallturn.com/dynamicscoreweb/DynamicScoreWebService?wsdl With regard to score for 'mission accomplishment', all of Case, Grimes and myself have advocated for features such as this being recorded in the logs. It appears this may be implemented in DCS:A-10C, so these nice-to-have features should eventually appear in scoreboards. With regard to earlier poster's comment regarding working on stats for FC2 vs A-10C. Well, at the moment (A-10C Beta 2) internally they are not that different with respect to network scripts (there may be huge differences elsewhere, but not in the network scripts). This means that the stats/scoreboard software doesn't require a total rewrite to work with DCS (thank goodness) although there are some new types of events in the logs (this is evolutionary and a good thing).

A US E-3 AWACS has a long update rate due to the physical rotation of the radar. Other nations (Sweden, Israel, and clients of the same) have electronically steered AESA AWACS that don't have the same refresh rate limitations (although they scan a more limited area). In general, pilots try to maintain situational awareness which means they know who is close-by. You would generally know who shot you unless you are not paying attention or were engaged when someone else sneaked in (something proper element/division tactics try to avoid). Furballs are great fun online but ever since the late 1990's they are much less likely to happen in real-life (compared to this game set in the 1980s) with the advent of better long-range missiles and better inter-aircraft communication and the great expansion of capacity for essentially un-jammable encrypted satellite links between them. Furballs are less likely when modern aircraft meet (caveat: if the Rules of Engagement require positive visual ID of a target then ranges get closer). What is known of current USAF doctrine is it seems to try to avoid furballs since that negates the electronic superiority of their fighter radars and missiles. US aircraft can engage, extend and re-engage at range. This maintains the advantage they have in AWACS control, fighter radar, and missile electronics. If the US has the strategic initiative (which it almost always does) then they dictate the range of the engagement (since they are not forced to close), making furballs more rare. Sure the US trains for WVR ('dogfight') combat (via the famous Red Flag, Navy Topgun, etc etc) since they *can* eventuate, but with proper AWACS control US fighters simply shouldn't get that close (if you do then it is a 'fail' tactically, since they're giving an advantage to the Russian aircraft which are very good in a furball). Even if the pilots versed in Russian tactics try to close the US will try to extend to maintain advantage. The proportion of medium-range missile shots to short-range missile shots changed between 1990 (think first Gulf War) and mid-1990s and beyond (Bosnia and Second Gulf War). This makes the question about 'would you know who shot you' of academic interest but not really applicable to real-life. You might not know straight away, but if you survived then the post-battle debrief would use numerous sources (E-3, E-8, ELINT, X-Band radar, Aegis AN/SPY-1 if these are nearby and there is an investigation/court-martial about a possible BLUE-on-BLUE) to find out. Even if some of these can't see missiles (many can) you can infer launches from aircraft locations and attitudes.

Harrier will not hover (at least as a player flyable). This is a limitation of the FC2 flight model. Set the loadout in the mission editor. Note that some of the stations are not right in the default EFA mod. I've done some (as yet, unpublished) fixes for the Harrier that will be part of a new VNAO mod (which I'm looking at combining the EFA and VNAO mods together so F-14Ds and F/A-18Fs can escort player-flown Harriers and E2C).

To clarify, I meant that if you start a 'dedicated' server you get booted out if you then use the same key when joining as from a (different) client computer. This will limit the number of multiplayer servers out there. People that 'self-host' (have multiplayer server and client on same machine) can get terrible lag spikes. This is to be expected at this stage of the Beta (not yet optimized) - but requiring an email address and locking servers is unexpected. As HiJack said, you need to be running Beta3 and be logged in to (the new) ED Net to see other servers.

Harrier is flyable with the EFA mod. The engine is underpowered. Fortunately FC2 allows some modification to the Simple Flight Model (SFM) so thrust values for the Mk.107 Pegasus engine can be entered. The Harrier doesn't match published performance when published engine thrust figures are used but it can be flown well enough (although it doesn't have enough grunt for ski-jump carrier launches).

Very few multiplayer servers. It appears that with the new multiplayer DRM (requiring your email address) you cannot run a multiplayer server on one computer and run a multiplayer client on the other. For example, if I start an A-10C multiplayer client and then start an A-10C multiplayer on my server machine (stallturn) I get booted out of the client (or booted out of the server if I started that first). Perhaps I missed some way around this and the DRM isn't really that bad (although it could just be 'wobbles' since it is the first Beta version it has been implemented - but does seem to be poorly thought out, and having to hand out your email address to play with no defined privacy policy is even more awful). Worse, if ED goes out of business, needs cost cutting (eg. shuts down validation servers and maintenace personnel to save money), or gets bought by another company (with no interest in the product at some point in the future) then you won't be able to do multiplayer - since you are tied to validating to a server to play. There have been enough short-lived MMORPS on the Internet already to show this is a distinct possibility for customers who have paid for a game that they can be locked out in the future. If you have to pay for two licences to run a A-10C server I can see the number of servers remaining very limited. I hope I am very wrong with this, otherwise it is epic ...

If you are just learning to fly you may find that an overhead rejoin is easier than a straight in approach (since the airbases are essentially 'uncontrolled' airspace without fully-interactive tower instructions). You also get to inspect the runways (for bomb damage) and traffic, as well descending and slowing to near final approach speed. The rejoin uses low-G turns so may not be suitable for severly damaged aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_join While listed as being used by General Aviation it is also used by several airforces (especially those that had a lot of bomb-damaged airfields in the last World War). Here's a diagram for you to get an idea of this alternative to straight-in landings: http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/sop:standard-overhead-rejoin-procedure

In FC1 the tower used to say "Cleared for visual". Once you have that and are number 1 aircraft on approach you can make your own way in from the Initial Approach point (or Initial Approach Fix if you are doing an instrument approach).

I spent a lot of money on a Radeon HD 5970 but have an old (late 2008 ) Q6600 processor. The GPU upgrade made a difference from my HD 4870 so you would also see an improvement getting a HD 5xxx series card (some of them are cheap too). Both FC2 and A-10C run fine with everything up, but it is pretty clear that I'll have to upgrade my CPU to get the maximal benefit. These cards are so powerful they they often idle waiting for the CPU and memory transfers. Make sure you get a decent amount of RAM on your GPU (that is, prefer GPU RAM to a few more clock cycles). Moving textures between main memory and the GPU is relatively slow. 4 GB of RAM is plenty. On a 64-bit OS with more RAM than that you'll just be using it as a disk cache since the game doesn't need it (and textures are on the GPU). So, like everything else I'd suggest working your way through upgrades in the following order: 1) GPU 2) CPU + mobo + RAM (prefer faster RAM rather than amounts more than 4GB for the moment). 3) disk. If you upgrade to a AM3 mobo you will be able to upgrade CPUs for a few years without changing the mobo. AMD is not as performant in absolute terms as Intel but since it is *vastly* cheaper at the higher end (and with less planned obsolence in mobos) you can upgrade more often. This means you get better performance in a year or two, as you can afford to upgrade the CPU without having to change from an AM3 socket. If you have money to throw around then sure, get Intel.

Awesome. It is excellent to see that LEAVU has been put to use on a Linux server as well as the usual Windows clients. Thanks for posting here alpha_VTFS161. It is a bit of a relief knowing that the extra effort of going OpenGL was worth it. I'd feel pretty bad having suggested this and then no-one used it. I always reckon portability gives uses more options, but there can be downsides (beautiful looking but crappy speed of text rendering in Java 2D is one). One more feather in LEAVU2's cap and another well done to Yoda.

Yes, such a tactic (firing many missiles closely spaced in time) is known as a "rollback" in naval parlance. The idea is that even if the target has strong anti-missile defences the launch rate of these defences is limited. Even if the earlier attacking missiles are shot down there may not enough time to target and engage the following missiles (since there used to be radar tracking limits and launcher firing rate limits). The target tracking limit is effectively ended for the US Navy with the use of the AN/SPY-1 radar and Mk 99 Fire Control System components of the "Aegis" system (Aegis is a notable shield of Greek legend). The US Navy has recognized "rollback" as a potential weakness and is starting to change launchers from one-arm and two-arm Standard Missile Launchers to the Vertical Launch System (VLS, eg. the Mk-41). The US Navy is also using boxed launchers for the Rolling Airframe Missile that allows anti-missile defence at greater ranges than the Phalanx. Longer range means engaging missiles earlier, which means more time is available for engaging follow-on missiles. The US Navy is also working hard on anti-missile lasers to replace the Phalanx system. Such lasers has a very high rate of fire and can be retargetted very rapidly. This makes rollback harder against US Navy Task Forces.

Speculating just gets people in a froth. ED themselves have stated they have not yet decided what will come after Warthog. I think they are upgrading lots of stuff, so it might be unwise to take the presence or absense of various files as a 'divine sign'. There are/were upgraded Su-25 cockpit files for example, but I think that is someone experimenting during development rather than a decided direction. Similarly, that genius 4x4 Easter Egg doesn't mean that DCS:UAZ is going to be the next module.

Although the Ka-50 cannot share laser codes with NATO laser designators (AFAIK) I believe the Georgian Su-25KM Scorpion may have the capability (since it was modified by Israel's Elbit Systems to be 'NATO' compliant, but maybe that's avionics only). Can anyone confirm this (do we have any Georgian or South Russian/Adygean simmers here?).

Fantastic to see the 51st stats getting even better. Nice work Case.

In the sim, yes? In the real thing you would hear and feel it coming out (in the quietness of gliders you can judge airspeed reasonably accurately by the sound of the air alone!)

Blender would be good. File format specification would be better. Models in Collada format would be best.

At VNAO they have a retired US Navy instructor "Pop" with around 10,000 flight hours. Loves flying this sim and others too. Once it is in your blood I suppose it is hard to get out. I would not be surprised if A-10C pilots give it a go if they find out about it (not that they can always comment on some things).

Would like to see the Lebanon/Israeli/Syrian border. Very active and lots of hide and seek up there. Some nice terrain to model and not too many cities. Also, some of the islands or the West of Taiwan would be a good scenario (hopefully never to happen in real life). A-10C in Korea could easily be flown to Taiwan (eg. via Kadena in Okinawa).

Yes, there is a thread for the manual in the Beta thread. Please buy the Beta :)

In the RNZAF (the Air Force I was in) the officers were trained to write for the level of a 12 year old, and to write as simply and clearly as possible (avoid ambiguity). This style was great for orders but not so good for training/learning. My point here is just because that may be how current military manuals are written doesn't mean things can be improved if a slightly different style is adopted (see below). In the international technical writing I have done (post-RNZAF) I have followed the principles of Information Mapping (look it up!) as it is based in the psychology of how people learn to do technical tasks. This is a good style to base technical writing on. It is not particularly entertaining to read but it is excellent for learning and teaching. From an Information Mapping point-of-view the A-10C (beta) manual is much improved from the FC2 manuals in that it contains introductory historical and reference material which you don't need to memorize immediately (and can sometimes skip entirely). Near the end it contains procedural material (in the form of checklists) that you can start with without having to memorize the entire manual at once. Once the default keybindings are finalized and the checklists have the required keystrokes in them then the manual will be good for new starters - and they can perform common operations (eg. fire the gun) without needing to understand the complexities of the entire aircraft (particularly all the avionics). The departure from Information Mapping makes sense for the A-10C manual since this manual is partially for entertainment (people like to read and expect historical stuff, which is mostly useless in the cockpit). Of course this is not how real military pilots learn, but they get two years full time to learn this stuff, and then an entire career to practice what they learnt. We hobbyist have a few hours each week to do the same thing. This is what makes the re-organized layout of the manual much better than those for earlier sims (although it could be argued that further improvements could be made). ps. The aerodynamics section does not list 'gravity' as a force acting on the aircraft (lol!), so yes this section could use some attention. I've already reported this omission in the Beta forum.

In the 2006 Lebanon War Hezbollah did not try and kill Merkava directly with AT-5. I guess this was because the AT-5 was judged not effective enough. Arguably the M1A2 has better frontal protection than the Merkava (although lower crew survivability on hull breach). Instead Hezbollah appear to have been trained to ambush tank commanders exposed in open hatches. This is where a large number of the casualties on the Israeli side came from. Once the Israelis tanks and infantry got close enough they made mincemeat out of Hezbollah (the latter still talk big, but it is telling they are not active over the border as they were before that War). Clever tactics by Hezbollah (eg. experienced Iranian instructors). If you think the BMP-2 is lethal wait until you fly over a BTR-80 in your Hog. Their manually aimed optical sights do a vastly better job than the radar-guided Shilka (at least in FC2, have not tried in A-10C yet) - plenty of "huh?" moments there.

Apparently their accident rate is high relative to other aircraft (India has also had a hard time with the accident rate with them), and they're probably expensive to maintain given their relative capabilities (viz a viz Tornado IDS and Eurofighter). Poor old England is short of a bob or two these days, eh what?. A sad day indeed, but rational from the bean-counter point-of-view.