Topgun505

I've got a training mission as well in which the JTAC has been assigned to utilize IR Pointer to mark the targets for this night mission. The JTAC calls in the strike as expected but does NOT attempt to mark the target in any way (aside from giving the UTM coords). Any idea as to why? They should have a clear LOS and only 1km away. Training Moving Targets LoDif JTAC Night_1.2.miz

I've set up a training mission. A night mission with a non-moving convoy at the side of the road. A friendly HUMVEE JTAC about 1km from the target and in the logic I instruct the JTAC to request a missile strike and designate with IR pointer (to point out the target). The callsign and radio freq are set ok when I run the mission and I can communicate with them and get the 9-line but while they do give a UTM coord, they do not attempt to designate ... at all. Do they simply not designate for a AGM strike? Or is this bugged? They are only 1km away and appear to have clear LOS. Thoughts?

I think it is safe to disregard this thread. When we tried to view previous tracks of this mission they would always crap out. On a hunch, my squadron-mate rebuilt the first portion of the mission and we do not get any major lag spikes and we can view tracks so it looks like maybe the previous build of the mission was somehow corrupted. So let this be a lesson to everyone ... if you are building missions, make a change and then save it as a new file instead of overwriting. Would really suck to spend countless hours on building a mission only to have a corruption late in the build force you to redo it entirely from scratch.

The trigger associated with the lag spike does not, in fact, activate units. It does turn on a flag to be used for activation of units several minutes later ... but that's all it does.

Me and a fellow squadron member have been developing our first real (non-training) mission for A-10. Things are going along ok except for one nagging issue. When the first aircraft from the blue coalition gets within the trigger zone surrounding the SA-6 battery the trigger turns on a flag. Now ... that flag, in turn, after about 3-5 minutes kicks off 3 other pieces of logic (which are also simple). But ... bear in mind, that is ALL that trigger does initially is just activate the flag. Yet the person in the lead A-10 who enters the zone and kicks off that trigger suffers around a 6-8 second lag spike where you get about 1 FPS. There really isn't any reason I can see why it would be causing such a huge lag spike. I'm at wits end on this so I'm posting this mission up to the community to take a look at. Jump in to one of the test aircraft, follow the waypoints to WP6 (SA6) and when you get around 3mi from it see what happens. If anyone can post a suggestion on how to get rid of this lag I'm all ears. First Strike ver 1_6 with lua.miz

Could a mod go ahead and move this? This should probably be in the Mission thread.

Geskes. This is really incredible. I've been working on building my first mission in A-10 ... been tinkering away with it for about 1-2 weeks and I've been having a couple of problems with lag spikes that appear to be caused from trigger points activating. I was going to post it on the Mission threads to see if anyone else can duplicate the error and/or give me explanations as to what is wrong ... but my jaw dropped when I saw your mission. You and I have darn near the exact same mission. Same starting point, same target airfield, same route through the river valley, and same air defense that initially covers the area (SA-6). Almost the same name even. I mean this is downright spooky. :surprise: I'll post my current mission just for giggles so you can see it. The biggest problem is: When the first A-10 flys for the first time into the vicinity of the SA-6 it causes a flag to activate ... very little logic kicks in at that point, yet I get a good 4-7 seconds of total game freeze when it happens. I would expect maybe a minor hiccup ... but nothing THAT bad. If anyone has any suggestions please let me know this bug are driving me nuts. EDIT: Removed the 2nd bug question as I found out it is a known bug that is slated to be fixed. First Strike ver 1_51.miz

A-10 Screenshots Doing a practice run shortly after A-10 was first released I strayed too close to some units and managed to get both engines damaged. Despite jettisoning my stores it became obvious that I was soon not going to be able to maintain sufficient airspeed to stay aloft so I turned gently away from the town I was near, leveled out, trimmed it to level and ejected. To my amazement the aircraft continued to fly/glide down to around 105 knt and eventually did a wheels up landing on a relatively flat field. It still wound up losing the tail and part of a wing but it came to rest as you see here with both engines still running.

I must be missing something. How are you guys even getting a screen capture of the ME screen? When I'm in mission editor and take a screenshot, I Alt-tab out and switch to MS Paint and when I paste I get a screen shot of the windows desktop, not the ME screen. For the life of me don't know why. Have used screen shots in any number of programs and have never had this issue previously.

It would seem the discussion could be clarified dramatically if someone were to make a video of the technique GGTharos is referring to. Anyone got FARPS and want to give it a go?

I made a mission where you are to take out targets at an airfield. The airfield is guarded by a SA-6 (and other air defense units will start popping not long after the attack on the airfield begins). In order to survive the run in, the waypoints are set up to lead the A-10s through a river valley. You end up coming out of the valley and popping over a hill around 3.5 clicks away from the SA-6 (inside their supposed 4km minimum range). The theory is that you can use CBUs on a low level pass to take out the radar (and hopefully some or all of the launchers) and turn hard to stay inside the 4km min radius if you don't catch them all on the first pass. I tested it last night. I popped up over the hill but only managed to catch one of the 3 launchers (I shoulda dropped both CBUs instead of just 1). I overflew them and was around 2km away and in the process of turning when the surviving 2 launchers both lobbed 1 missile each and cooked me. Anyone else ever try to exploit the min range of larger SAMs? And, if so, did it work? Or are the min ranges not really implemented in DCS?

Minor corrections and airfield navigation data added to each mission. Added another maverick mission with the goal of picking off multiple specific targets on a single pass. This one has moderate air defenses. Added 2 more Takeoff and Landing missions. Both at night, one with static weather and the other with dynamic. Added a moving target mission. The goal is simply to get practice using various weapons against targets moving at high speed. Current version is now 1-6

I sooooo hate those things after my experiences with those in Black Shark. Just nasty lil buggers.

EDIT: Takeoff and landing missions have been moved to Batumi in order to permit practice for TACAN and ILS (the other airport had no such aids). Current version is now 1-5 and has been loaded to the first post.

In which case they re-release it as a 'limited edition' (which allows them to jack up the price) :cry_2:

Yeah besides ... if you do the F-5 you'll eventually have to do the F-14 ... and then you'll get some goofballs re-enacting the movie Topgun. hehehe

Another minor point to consider. Thrustmaster would love it if DCS would do the F-16C .... since that would likely boost sales of their Cougar HOTAS. Love it or hate it .. but I think enough good points have boiled things down that in all likelihood it will end up being the F-16C. Actually, that aircraft is NEEDED here compared to the F-15C. The existing DCS aircraft cannot carry HARMs. Nor can the F-15C. And with more and more complex air defenses in missions being done by DCS, and by player-generated missions, we are going to need that capability for the SEAD role.

I use the up mic switch as the PTT assignment for Teamspeak. Made sense since thats the switch that controls communications. :) Once more of my squardron have A-10 will get the TARS mod for Teamspeak.

All the guesses ... very little logic being applied. Let's reason this out shall we? While I will broadcast from the highest mountain that DCS has produced some of the best sims I've ever seen ... I think it is safe to say that their weakest point in these sims is the AI. Can ANYONE argue this? I don't think so. So ... it stands to reason they are not going to rest their reputation on an aircraft that relys on AI for half of the aircrafts functions. So it is safe to say that ANY 2-seat aircraft is out. Maybe they will tackle this hurdle later once they have had more time to work on their AI ... but right now it just isn't there. As to the poster who stated F-4 ... interesting ... but given the technology of the existing DCS aircraft ... that's just too antiquated. On the flip side of the coin, you will see a blizzard in he** before you see a DCS-level quality sim of the FA-22 as that's WAY too classified. I would hazard a guess that the FA-18E also falls into this category. There's just too much about them that DCS would not be permitted to release to the public. Don't get me wrong ... I believe the USN could potentially contract DCS to make just such a sim for MILITARY personnel for training of airmen. But there would simply be too much classified to re-release to the public and still be enough there to be a full fledged sim. So ... modern aircraft, that aren't uber-classified, but aren't antiquated, and single seaters. Something to think about though folks. We have the A-10C ... and a RUSSIAN aircraft in the KA-50. So ... who's to say it has to be an American aircraft?? So with this in mind that leaves us with: F/A-18C F-15C F-16C MIG-29 (variant model?) SU-27 (variant model?) I suspect those are the only logical and possible choices. However ... DCS is gearing, I think, towards doing a full blown all-aspect war simulation series. As such any aircraft introduced as time goes on needs to fit in to this picture. We have the rotary aspect covered, and now the CAS role, it makes sense to work on air superiority next. I suspect what they will do is crank out a US fighter, and then maybe backtrack and cover a US rotary (AH-64A) to cover the U.S. side ... and then proceed to cover Russian aircraft (probably the SU-25 and then the MIG-29) that way you can start going head to head against other players in a full on campaign. With all this in mind, since they did the A-10C last, I would imagine they would continue with U.S. aircraft so that leaves the 18, 15, and 16. The 15 is air superiority ONLY. As such its use in DCS is somewhat limited since it cannot assist in the prosecution of ground targets. So while I like this aircraft I have my doubts they would go with it (though I wouldn't mind if they did). Though I easily see them doing this one later on. The 18 has the sexiness of being carrier based. Who wouldn't want to do a carrier based landing in a sim of DCS quality? But there is the rub. Doing so is EXTREMELY difficult. Even real USN pilots regularly bolter off the deck. So that might almost be too difficult. Plus you have the added difficulty of having to not only model the aircraft in full detail ... but the entire carrier as well. That's not a small feat ... and might be a huge resource hog for your typical desktop computer. But it IS an attack aircraft as well as a fighter, so that makes this one a little more likely than the 15. The 16. Yes ... it's been simmed to death. So you lose the sexiness factor because everyone has seen it before. But it's land based (so don't have to worry about modeling a carrier and its entire associated battlegroup), the developers would undoubtedly have full access to the aircraft and aircrew (heck ... I had access to F-16 pilots for a research project for Ohio State Univ like 15 years ago so I'm sure they could manage now). And it is an all weather attack and air superiority aircraft with full BVR capabilities. So I'd say the odds are good for the 18C (I'd give it around 35%), or the 16C (about 50%) ... with about 15% left over for the 15C. Honestly I'd love any of these and can't wait to see it. I wonder though ... is Thrustmaster going to release yet another controller simultaneously with it? Holy crap that would be an expensive venture to keep getting new controllers. lol

Not a problem. Mod them however you wish.

If the bombs are already set to Fixed Lo within the inventory page prior to mission start (you will see this underneath the weapon on the DSMS) then yes you just have to switch to Nose fuse in the profile. If it is not (in which case it will read Fixed Hi) then when you try to switch to Nose fuse you will see Invalid Fuse on the HUD and you will not have a bomb fall line.

Yes ... to some degree. I actually have the flight manual to the A-10A which does cover the location of the access panels on the exterior to extend the ladder, etc. Assuming of course the aircraft has not been modified and the panel location changed (which I doubt it would), I should be able to find it. I have the TM Warthog HOTAS so I'm used to the controls being where they should be. Assuming nothing has been left out of DCS A-10C in regards to the start up sequence I'm sure I could get the aircraft up and running from a cold start. But that's where the easy part ends. If ... and I mean IF my controls had their curves values set such that they pretty accurately mimicked the same amount of control inputs on the real aircraft, then I might have a chance at taxing successfully and MAYBE taking off without major mishaps. Just flying around wouldn't be a problem (although coordinated flight would take some practice). Landing, however, would be another matter entirely. The other big obstacle would be dealing with G-forces. Yes the A-10 isn't going to be pulling any 9G turns like an F-16 ... but sitting in a flight seat at home doing maneuvers constantly at 1G would be a lot different compared to when you are trying to focus on several things at once in combat, and experiencing G forces which you are not accustomed to. So could you get in and fly? Possibly. If you have the Warthog controller so you don't have to relearn all the control locations. But even then I'll give you odds of 1 in 3. Maybe 1 in 2 if you've flown other aircraft already with similar handling characteristics. But being combat effective? Not likely. But if the Air Force ever decides to do an experiment to this effect ... I'm game. Bring it! hehe

It's not one simple setting. You have to first go in to the Inventory page, changing things there, get back out, go to the weapon in DSMS and then go in to the Profile page and make a new profile with the correct settings there. That's the short explanation. Now you know why I say it's a pain in the rear. There is a video on You Tube on how to do this but the author doesn't have any verbal dialog to explain what he's doing and he does it really quick so you have to watch closely. Consequently, unless someone else has done so already, I will probably make a step by step set of instructions soon on how to do so. Keep a watch for it. :)

The next mod will be relatively minor. Will probably do some changes to the iron bomb mission so that two out of the 4 racks of Mk-82 AIR will be set up to drop in high drag profile (chutes deployed) and 2 racks as low drag (no chutes). The default in DCS A-10C is high drag. It's a relatively minor change, but it's not covered in the manual and is a pain in the butt to do if you've never done it before. I will leave the iron bombs alone in the Mix Missions so that if you want to drop them in low drag profile (no chute) you will have to program it yourself.

ALL Missions now also have at least 1 aircraft set up as Player so you should be able to launch these missions from the Single Player client of A-10 as well. The current version is 1-4. If you previously downloaded the Training Pack zip you will want to delete those and download the new set (the old zip in the original post has been removed and replaced with the updated pack). I did these mods in a bit of a hurry, so there might be some errors, but if you find any issues please let me know. Enjoy!