Temphage

You're attacking a tightly spaced group of trucks arranged in a circular pattern, which is both the absolute most ideal for rocket accuracy and yet the most laughably improbable arrangement of hostiles. That isn't proof that rockets are useful, that's a staged, best-case setup to prove a point on a forum. How about the Mk5s then? What possible use does an anti-tank rocket that *must* hit its target to be effective have on the A-10, which is equipped with a 30mm DU-spitting monster which is 100x more accurate with far more range? Without a doubt the rockets are questionable in-game mostly because our selection sucks. There exist two real-life Hydra rockets that we could make far more use of, yet don't have: The M261, which has 9 submunitions and thus would compensate for their shitty accuracy admirably, and the M229, which carries twice the explosive filler of the M151, again, a far more useful rocket especially in something like the A-10 which doesn't have to luxury of close-up stationary engagement like a helicopter does. There's no reason to not have these rockets available to us, especially as the extra weight of the M229 is a complete non-issue on this weapon platform. PS: Smiley faces don't stop you from coming across as a dick. :).

According to the track you expended 20 rockets and destroyed one truck.

Seeing as how QFE works fine in KA-50 I highly doubt it's a huge deal to fix. On that note, ATC worked a lot better in KA-50. They respond to what you say immediately after you're done talking which makes it feel much more natural... instead of the awkward pauses you get now.

I use PAC-1 sometimes, but PAC just keeps the reticule on target, which is not the problem. Even with the reticule on target they land, firing from ranges close enough to give GCAS a heart attack, all over the damn place. I'm just curious as to how realistic this (in)accuracy really is. They're unguided rockets so I shouldn't expect miracles, but at the same time, right now they're so poor as to be useless and I highly doubt anyone would put something that ridiculous on an aircraft.

If your flying masks the TPod (masking meaning part of the airframe or your weaponry is in the way) you won't be able to lase, which may have been your problem. I've not had a problem with the auto-lase.

Continuous *might* be if you specify auto-laser, but do not specify a laser time (ie: 0). At least, that seems logical to me.

I just don't find them economical at all. The *only* advantage to rockets seems to be weight. To that end, I really can't find much of a reason unless I'm seriously over-loaded to take, say, 21 rockets over 3 Mk-82s, especially since one Mk-82 will destroy a BMP, as well as devastate anything else in the area, whereas it'd probably take all 21 FFARs to reliably kill one. Even still, the A-10 does have the ability to carry *impressive* amounts of ordinance so it's not like weight should ever be too huge an obstacle to overcome.

That's why I'm not getting it, and while the control panels around it are neat, I don't think anything on there is something I generally touch more than once a flight. The autopilot control setting, maybe, but on my CH Throttle I just have a script that cycles through the three AP modes with one button. While the Warthog is nice from a realistic perspective and does have a couple advantages, the excessive number of buttons on the CH throttle as well as the infinitely superior Control Manager software more than likely leave the CH Throttle as the superior product. I literally have more buttons than I know what to do with, I already have every HOTAS command properly bound, and the minor lack of features on the CH Stick (2-stage trigger and Z-axis on CMS) are compensated with a shift functionality, which is pretty necessary anyway (for things like recentering TrackIR). Ultimately it comes down to this: You buy the Warthog not because you want a superior HOTAS setup, but because you want premier immersion first and foremost. What this means is that it's useless for your purposes in other flight sims, since it won't be 'realistic' to use it in those. So, why buy it? I'll stick with the CH setup which was far cheaper and has infinitely more functionality. Sure it's ugly as hell, but to date absolutely nobody has even attempted to mimic the power of the Control Manager. That alone is reason enough to buy one. Also for what it's worth, the F/A-18 and the F-15 use the same stick. Rest assured your F-16-style stick will be just fine (basically, remove the TMS and master mode switch, CMS switch can't tip left and right, and rearrange it and there you have it). The throttle grips, however, are fairly esoteric such to the extent that the TM Warthog throttle would make for a very poor imitation of it.

Alright, I outright suck with these things. Maybe everyone sucks a little, but goddamn this is difficult. I'm running some training mission I downloaded from somewhere here that has several targets set up in rows for rocket practice. Unfortunately even against some dinky trucks, 21 MK5 HE rockets later *maybe* I've killed three? One thing I find myself wondering is what is the convergence range of the rockets, if there even is one? Firing them in 'pairs' seems like the dumbest thing ever since they're guaranteed to land to the sides of targets... the best I've managed is setting them to single-fire and launching them off one pylon at a time. Ripple fire doesn't get me the results I want, and I don't think I've ever managed to do anything to a tank with the Mk5 "anti-tank" rockets... Tips here? The CCIP might as well not exist for how accurate it is :/

Neg, taking off at... Tiblisi I think reports QFE 28, and the QFE is 'actually' something like 28.30.

This makes me sad :( Enjoy going back for more bombs every twenty minutes. I almost wanted F-15E almost *just* for AGM-130s:

- NULL -

I have a question related to this... during the navigation tutorial, at one point he says 'Our next steerpoint is at bearing XXX from us right now, so let's turn there'. I've actually yet to find anything that shows the bearing to another mark/steer/waypoint. The best I can effect is when the point is off the HUD and gives you the 'bearing to go' on top of it. Yeah, I always zero-out my altimeter. If you don't, who knows, you might try to do an acrobatic maneuver while at an airfield 1000 feet higher in altitude than your home station and then crash your F-16 into Idaho. Not that I've not seen that happen or anything EDIT: Dammit, Castle beat me to it.

Most likely answer. Or alternatively, they may not consider the model to be 'solid' until they fully separate from it, so as long as the bomb is 'inside' the model it's considered a part of it. Either way, there's your answer, it's for technical reasons because collisions are pretty dang difficult to manage in games, all things considered. In all seriousness I'm not even sure what would really happen in real life if you tried that, or if it's even possible. I guess the bomb would just slide out of the back of the launcher and bang off of the ailerons. Or fall into the engine. Yeah, explain that one.

I was actually having someone print and bind my flight manual (turns out 335 pages is a number printers balk at, had to ask them to remove as many unnecessary pages as possible to get it to a manageable level while still being intact). I think I'll toss on the mission card and checklists as well :)