nomdeplume

Any unit can provide JTAC, but you need something with a "large caliber" weapon in order for it to mark targets (smoke, IR, laser). I don't know if non-US units can provide JTAC though, there's only one voice recording for JTAC and it would be weird to have a Georgian JTAC speaking with a North American accent...

It's not radar altitude, or rather not just radar altitude. I think it does show radar altitude when that's available, but it will show your height AGL even when the radar altimeter isn't available (e.g. too high). Fiddling with the altimeter's pressure setting doesn't change this value, so I guess it uses GPS or something to determine your altitude.

The targeting pod will give you your height above ground level in the top right corner, based on its "best source" which is usually going to be its terrain elevation database. But you're better off knowing the altitude above sea level for the general area and any threats you may be facing, since mountainous terrain tends to have quite variable altitudes. Your height therefore might seem okay one minute but then you fly over a mountain and you're suddenly in danger.

Maybe it's just particular areas that are screwy? If you find yourself randomly exploding etc. maybe see if you can get the precise position on the map and ideally try to replicate it in a short test mission (i.e. airstart at that location, land, see if it recurs).

You can open the mission in the mission editor and adjust to suit. The open mission dialog has a thing at the top to select system or user missions - the system missions are saved in the installation directory and includes the missions that ship with the game. The user missions are saved in your own user account directory. You might want to back up the mission first, or open it from the system missions folders and then use file -> save as to save your modified version in your user missions folder.

I don't actually think it would be. Announcing the airframe only gives you a small indication of what you'll be able to do. For example if they say they're doing a Hornet variant, immediate (and important) questions will be: will there be carrier ops? will it have HARMs? if it's going to have HARMs does that mean there'll be an IADS? will it have AMRAAMs? if so will air-to-air combat be a major focus? etc. etc. Lots of things that can't be answered until it's actually implemented and working. Right now, there's only one question: "what's the next aircraft going to be?" If they announce the aircraft, they replace that with hundreds of questions that they definitely can't answer yet. History shows that if ED were to say "we hope to have carrier launches + landings" many people read it as "we absolutely promise the most detailed simulation of carrier operations ever in a computer game" and get very upset when they don't get what they think they were promised. That's not necessarily the fault of the person misinterpreting the statement, either. We all have our own ideas of the particular features we'd like to see in the sim, and so there's a natural tendency to assume ED will have the same desires (as well as the ability to implement them). So I'd rather they delay announcing the aircraft until they can also announce the actual game features. There's also the possibility that they're not allowed to announce what it is until after some set date, or after completion of works for their "sponsor", or what-have-you. And there's also the possibility they're not allowed to publish any details of their contracts, no matter how trivial... :music_whistling:

In the advanced waypoint properties you can add the a "set option" command to set the formation you want, and most have an open or close variant. However I think these are all combat formations rather than show, so I don't think you'll find anything that's as close as you're hoping for. You could play around with the different formations and see if there's one that looks good from whereever the player will be viewing it.

I've never seen that, but there may be some oddities. Trees aren't collidable, so AI can detect you and shoot at you through trees; and you can fly through them. But there's also a strange rendering thing that happens sometimes if there's trees on top of a hill and your graphics settings aren't high enough to render them (not exactly sure if that's the cause). But this creates a kind of ghost layer of terrain which you can actually fly through, but doesn't look like you should be able to. Haven't tried to reproduce this though so I don't know if it happens very often.

If you mean what key/control it is to expend flares, then it's not quite that simple. There's no command specifically to "expend flare" or "expend chaff" - you can set up the programs however you like and then the countermeasure system can be instructed to start the currently selected program with CMS FWD (and to stop it prematurely with CMS AFT). Program C expends lots of flares, typically what I use if I want to use them up real quick.

Just gotta hold the wheel brakes. I think there's been some discussion about this as it seems more of an issue in 1.1.1.0 than it has been before, but not sure if it's something they have any view on changing. If you've got a controller with a switch that sends a continuous "button down" event then that can make do as a parking brake. I use a switch on a VRinsight panel for this. Exactly the same as just holding the toe brakes down, but without the strain. :) Other than that I don't think there's anything you can do in MP. In SP you can hold 'w' to apply the brakes, pause it, release 'w', then unpause it - and the game will act as if you're still holding 'w' down. That obviously doesn't work in MP. You might be able to use something like AutoHotKeys or your joystick profiling software to have it "hold down" the W key when you press a button.

Yep. It also changes the units shown on the in-game map view (F10) as well as the info bar at the bottom of the screen in external views.

I haven't seen anything official either, but Eddie's post in this thread uses the term. Granted he posted that after this thread so maybe he stole the term from here. :D

A HOTAS is definitely a good/great investment, and so is some kind of head-tracking system like TrackIR. You might want to consider getting some of these items second-hand to save a few dollars. Saitek's X52 is a pretty decent HOTAS for the price. I was happy with mine for years before I got the TM Warthog. Regarding aircraft pitch, are you trimming the aircraft? You will need to apply trim any time any aspect of your flight parameters change, i.e. speed, altitude, pitch, ...

That video is for dropping multiple JDAMs in a single pass. If that's what you're wanting to do then that's exactly what you need! But your first post didn't seem to be asking that, and so that video will include a bunch of steps that aren't necessary if your aim is to drop a single JDAM on a single target. For that, all you need to do is what Viper said. Select your JDAM as your active weapon via a profile or directly from the DSMS; make sure your master arm is on (:)); designate a SPI on your target using whatever means you wish - most likely the targeting pod; follow the steering cues until you're within parameters for the release; hold the pickle button until the bomb falls off.

You don't have to use steerpoints at all. The A-10C's weapon system is centered on the concept of "Sensor Point of Interest", or SPI. Any guided weapon you employ will attempt to hit your SPI. The SPI can be generated by any of your "sensors", which includes your steerpoint, the HUD's TDC, the TAD's hook, the targeting pod, or the Maverick seeker. Just make sure your SPI is set correctly. You can see what your current SPI is in the bottom-left of the HUD; if you're using the targeting pod it'll say TGP. Viper's instructions are accurate, however it might also be worth mentioning that you need to set the master arm switch to 'armed' before you can deploy any weapons. If you're talking about "make a quick mark" as in creating a mark point and then dropping on that, there's a few more steps, but it's not necessary. Just use the TGP until you're comfortable with the symbology and procedure, and then other methods of designating your target will fall into place. Oh, you also mentioned 'ramp start'. So, make sure you're doing the startup properly, in particular that you're waiting for full alignment of your EGI (waiting for INS NAV READY to blink before switching to NAV mode) and enabling EGI mode for navigation (on the front center panel). JDAMs are highly dependent on your aircraft having a good fix on its own location, and won't work properly/at all if your position info is substandard.

No reason you can't have Ka-50 vs Ka-50. I'm sure there's another explanation. But, I think some more info would be needed. First: is your Black Shark 2 in English normally? Second: did you originally create the mission in the A-10C editor? Third: by "unable to fire weapons", what do you mean exactly? How far did you get in the weapons deployment? Did you get the 'C' symbol telling you you were in parameters and able to fire and it just didn't fire, or did it fail prior to that? Fourth: if you create a new very simple mission just with the helos can you replicate this issue? Fifth: if so, can you post that mission here so others can try it?

Laundry Day isn't supposed to be an annual event. :lol:

AFAIK the system stores wind information only for certain pre-set altitudes, presumably 0, 3000 and 7000 feet going by your description. If you enter a different altitude it's 'rounded' down to whatever it actually wants to accept.

There's a difference between 'needing', 'being useful', and 'being harmful'. Many of the militaries using radar-equipped aircraft for CAS don't have a dedicated CAS aircraft in the first place. Of course they're not going to say "oh no this aircraft has a radar, it can't do CAS!". So I don't know what point you're trying to make. I don't know what current doctrine is, but I would guess that for most cases in present conflicts the radar would only be useful for navigational purposes, given that most of the hostiles are infantry and they probably have ROE requiring them to get visual before engaging. For example Ed Macy's books talks about their ROE restricting them to engaging people who they have actually seen with weapons in their hands. So even though they do have an awesome radar at their disposal, they still need to get visual before they can do anything with it. And at that point, you may as well just aim visually. In that light, the upgrades made to the A-10C make a lot of sense for current requirements. A ground engagement radar would be more useful in the scenarios the A-10 was originally designed for, but I don't think that's a particularly compelling way of selling an upgrade anymore. Point is, it's not just about it being technically possible or not, or being useful or not (more capabilities are almost always useful). To get an upgrade like that done would cost a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of political will, etc. And for what? To give an aircraft capabilities it doesn't really require for its current and likely future uses, when there's already plenty of aircraft (current and planned) that will have those capabilities? So, I'm sure it's been thought of, but decided it's not necessary, not worth the cost, etc. Same thing with e.g. not certifying HARMs to be carried on the A-10. Sure it'd be useful [for us], but the return on investment isn't there. Platform flexibility is always good, but then again, so is having the flexibility to deploy multiple platforms. Also, don't forget that different aircraft have the ability to work together, so in the rare occassion where radar is actually required, they could always have A-10s working with F-16s or F-15Es or whatever - with the radar-equipped aircraft handing off targets to the 'hogs. Or to put it one last way: why not certify the A-10 to carry every single weapon in the US arsenal? Surely there's cases where it could sometimes be useful for them to have Hellfires or Tomahawks or AIM-120s or tactical nukes or etc. etc. Hopefully the absurdity of trying to bolt every possible thingy onto a single platform is evident, and it's obvious you'd do a cost/benefit analysis and eliminate anything that didn't provide a sufficient return. The Air Force no doubt at least considered a radar, and decided it didn't provide sufficient return. It's merely one of many, many things that the A-10 (or any other platform) could have, but doesn't.

I think you'll need to post a track for this one. Try doing an instant action mission so you start airborne and just fly around enough to demonstrate the problem, then quit the mission. You should get an option on the debrief page to save the track, so do that, and then use the 'go advanced' button here to get the full post interface and use the paperclick icon in the toolbar or the 'manage attachments' button below to attach it to your post.

You might want to install the videos available from the DCS site - particularly this one. The Shkval display is powered on by the targeting system switch on the left panel, just in front of the fuel cutoff valves. The power switch is on the bottom left of it. You'll need AC power available for the display to switch on. Here's a screenshot: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/images/black_shark/HelModel_05_Big.jpg It's where those four buttons in a square are directly to the left of the cyclic.

Yes. From the roadmap: "Nevada map. This will be a $19.99 add-on that will be compatible with A-10C, Black Shark 2, and FC3. Users that purchased the A-10C beta will get this map for free."

What are your volume settings? I ran into this as well with BS2 and found that increasing the 'global' volume to 60% restored the cockpit sounds. Anything less than that (even 56%, which seems to be next 'notch' down) mutes them. It might also be a combination of the different volumes. Attached is a screenshot of my audio settings for A-10C. My BS2 settings are similar but not exactly the same.

Probably just a misunderstanding on my part. The Ka-50 does continue to generate 'new' laser warnings for a few seconds after breaking the LoS, but it seems to only do so in the same quadrant as the original warning. I just did some more testing and spun the helo immediately after breaking the LoS and it didn't generate any additional warnings on either the 'new' or the 'old' quadrant during those few seconds. So, it's a bit of an odd (to me) behaviour, but not what I thought was happening. When flying I'd always had my nose pointing at the threat when I ducked from it, so it was a bit annoying to keep getting 'new' warnings after breaking the line of sight. Guess I should just be a bit more patient before resetting the warning... it's only a few seconds, after all. :D When I really noticed it in Warthog was with an SA-10 at Gudauta and I was flying through the valley with the dam in it north of Senaki. The blip on the RWR continued for a very long time after breaking the line of sight. However in a quick attempt to replicate that scenario I can't get the SA-10 to appear on the RWR at all, so not sure what's going on there. I tried with the SA-6 and it showed up fine, and disappeared pretty quickly after breaking its LoS. So, I think the issue is fixed. One weird thing I did note though, is that if I performed a roll after breaking the LoS but before the RWR warnings stopped, it would disappear as soon as it moved into the RWR's blind spot and then reappear once it moved back, despite their being no LoS. By the way, is "quite normal" normal as in real life, or normal as in the sim? i.e. do they really continue to warn for a few seconds after they stop receiving the energy? It makes sense they would (better safe than sorry), but then I'm not sure why the threat is immediately removed from the RWR when you put it in the blind spot, and then returns afterwards, even though the energy is no longer being received. Likewise, why the Ka-50's system stops generating new alerts if you spin the chopper (shouldn't it keep generating 'new' alerts on the original quadrant?).

Careful with this. The conditions determine whether or not the task will be executed when it's encountered in the unit's task list, not the time at which it will start. So for example, if your mission starts at 12:00:00, and you have a 'fire at point' task on the first waypoint of a unit with a condition of "time: 12:05:00", then that fire task will never run. This is because at the mission start, the game logic will consider whether or not to run the fire task, test all of its conditions (only one - mission time > 12:05), find it to be false, and therefore skip running the task. The start (and stop) conditions can be satisfied by any of the conditions being true, as opposed to all of the conditions being true. So in your case the time condition is irrelevant since the probably 100% condition will always be true. If you want a task to always be run, you don't need to enable any conditions at all. You only need to enable one of them if you want to be able to prevent the task from being started on some occassions but not on others. Also, for "fire at point" tasks, it's a good idea to specify a stop condition with a duration. 10 minutes is probably long enough. Otherwise the units will reload and start firing again, often a long time after the first barrage. I just had some Grads recommence firing nearly an hour after their first barrage, which gave me quite the surprise when I was coming in for landing (they were near my FARP).