mattag08

Well, now we're getting into opinion. The things you're mentioning are absolutely not required to make an interesting or fun mission. Maybe a few mission makers will be put off by the fact that their mechanized battalion isn't advancing by the books, but I seriously doubt 90-95% of A-10 players aren't going to know (and even if they do, aren't going to be able to tell). My opinion is that that sort of mission design is totally unnecessary to generating something that is enjoyable and has high replayability to the vast majority of players. Maybe it is just my inexperience, but I have absolutely no concept of whether an armored battalion is advancing properly when I'm in the jet. All I see is threats. Those threats are sorted by priority and engaged relative to what is necessary to complete the mission. And ultimately if you do want that kind of system, it seems relatively easy to set formations or make some scripts that work. For instance, you have a random unit spawn at (x,y,z). A script then runs that spawns the SHORAD 2nm behind that unit using the reciprocal of its current facing and then creates waypoints using the a similar method. Even I could program that kind of script and I only had a couple years of C++. It seems like the addition of the random/radius function would be extremely easy to implement. Ultimately, it's important not to impose your own limits of logic and reasoning and creativity on a tool. You give a craftsman his tools and let him go to work. The more tools he has, the more impressive his artwork can be. With a simple saw, everything will be blunt and boring. And if you think that tool isn't very good for the job at hand, then don't use it, but don't take that tool away from your fellow craftsmen.

Not in my experience, but I'm not a real A-10 driver. If the mission maker wants to hide units it isn't that hard. The example of an open farm field is probably the biggest straw man response possible. You have to use a bit of creativity to make use of the tools given you. Just like the artisan carpenter crafts his vision into the wood, a mission maker has to use some ingenuity and creativity to make something that is fun to play. I don't see why. The unit (or squadron or whatever) could be randomly placed, but still in formation.

The answer in ArmA--and would work here--is to pick an area of relatively similar terrain so that it doesn't matter where in the radius it spawns. Additionally, you place multiple units in overlapping areas so that you can never be sure how many there are or where they all would be. It doesn't matter if you know the general direction of a threat. That's probably realistic in terms of the intel given to pilots before a mission. What you don't want is to know the precise locations of every possible enemy.

Well, hopefully the mission designer is intelligent enough to properly place them. As always, the mission designer has to be familiar with the things he's manipulating. Otherwise how would he design effectively? A third option to increase replayability that I failed to mention would be to have a static campaign where the player (or players in MP) could manipulate units, add packages of aircraft, etc. This would be as simple as incorporating new GUIs, the mission editor, and random generator together with some coherent, logical, and accurate code that simulates supply chains, keeps track of unit counts, simulates movement and engagement, etc. Then each mission would be self contained, but would be a continuation of previous events and would still have the benefits of being persistent and player driven/affected.

It's not really the same. The designer still know exactly where he placed all of the possibly 'random' units. With ArmA's setup you pick and point and a radius and every time the mission is loaded the game generates spawns and waypoints somewhere within that radius.

Even though I'm not adding anything new, I feel the need to speak up about the addition of a dynamic campaign as well if only to case one more vote in its favor. I own all of ED's products and enjoyed learning to fly all of them, yet I've stopped playing them all and returned to Falcon 4 (now F4 BMS) because of the dynamic campaign. Say what you will about the coding and algorithms and magic behind the GUI, it still feels like a real, working world and ultimately perception is all that matters. Scripting just doesn't create the same feel and unfortunately, if you script at least one person will always know exactly what's going to happen. In the F4 campaign you even get some level of "intel" which directly relates to your recon flights. It is entirely possible to have significant fog of war if your recon aircraft get shot down, did not scan a particular area, or cannot depart because their airbase was destroyed. The fact that there are AI who react to scenarios in a semi-real way is also engaging and significantly increases replayability. The knowledge that if I penetrate the FLOT the enemy is going to launch alert fighters to intercept me or the idea that if I wander off course I could stumble into an enemy SAM battalion that I don't have threat information on keeps me on edge. The tracking of every aircraft flight, supplies, ammunition, individual units in a battalion, aircraft/pilots in a squadron, etc. all make the world feel persistent and ultimately persistence is what you need to feel the highest levels of immersion. Ultimately, ED's products would have a large increase in replay value if they did one or both of the following: 1) Create a dynamic campaign, even if it is not perfect (and these days, what things are released that are perfect?). Give us something basic and build on it with each iteration. 2) Add some functionality to the mission editor. See: ArmA 2 for ideas on how to make a good mission editor. That thing is absolutely amazing. Pay particular attention to the ability to place units (and unit waypoints/instructions) within a random radius. This is one of the key features that allows the mission designer to participate without knowing exactly what's going to happen.

Flight instructor here. Flying the 172, 182, P28R, and BE76.

Alright ED. Here we go. Next two DCS modules: Saab JAS 39 Gripen AND MiG-29SM Rationale? --Both aircraft are old enough and widely used enough to have declassified material available to people like ED. --Both aircraft are very similar in air-to-air combat characteristics --Both aircraft are multi-role fighters (adds more replay value and dynamics to the game).

Except the "virtual device" doesn't work. Please re-read above.

Here's what I get: When the TARGET script is running I get no response from my joystick or throttles. When the script is stopped I have two entries in my game controllers window and both the joystick and throttle function properly (albeit without any useful scripting). I've tried reinstalling the TARGET application and it has not helped. One thing I should note is that I installed the drivers before I installed TARGET. Initially during the TARGET installation a window would pop up and say that new hardware was found and drivers were needed (typical Windows driver wizard). After closing that, the program would hang, so I went and installed the drivers and then came back and installed the TARGET software. During installation the installer hangs up and I get a "program not responding" dialogue box from Windows. If I close it the installer will continue further some and then hang again. After about 8-10 repetitions of this the installer finishes without issue, but I'm not sure if something is being lost when the installer hangs up. The TARGET gui and script editor seem to run completely fine though, so I doubt this is the issue.

I'm using a Thrustmaster Warthog on Windows XP. When I run any kind of profile on the TARGET software my entire throttle/control panel no longer functions at all. I tried multiple games and none of them would recognize any inputs from the throttle/control panel at all. As soon as the TARGET profile is turned off my throttles function again. Unfortunately, I would like to use some of the nice features that the TARGET software allows, so I'd like to be able to use it. Also, the device manager shows that my joystick works, but my throttles get no response. This is also the case in the Windows Game Controller panel. As soon as I disable TARGET, Windows re-detects both devices and they work as intended. As far as software, I installed the hardware drivers and updated to the latest firmware (Dec 21, 2010 I believe?) as well as the TARGET software. Anyone heard of this problem before or know of anything I could be doing wrong? (I know I don't need TARGET for DCS: A-10, but no one else [even Thrustmaster] seems to know what's going on. I figured the people here are my next best hope.)

Worked for Pinnacle huh? That accident is pretty famous. In fact, AOPA just had it in their most recent "NTSB Debriefer" column. My favorite part is where the angle of attack reached 29 degrees...who taught them how to fly an airplane?

That said, does the A-10C stall at the root or the tip first? It has a pretty normal dihedral, rectangular planform, and thick NACA671X airfoil which would tend to indicate wing moments/forces like a light GA aircraft.

Entering a perfectly coordinated stall should result in both wings stalling symmetrically and auto-rotation should not occur. Some wing designs are more forgiving than others (i.e. the precision required is lower and some stall from the root, while others the tip), but all things considered this should hold true. While WWII fighters with lots of torque, p-factor, and slip-stream issues had poor power-on, low speed handling qualities often spun (similar to the way the jet spins in the sim right now), a jet fighter doesn't suffer from the same serious turning tendencies in a low speed, power on situation as a prop aircraft. I would think it should be harder to create an uncoordinated condition at low airspeeds.

Wrong forum and use the search function.

F/A-18 over the F-14? Are you guys kidding? Screw the "bug." A realisitic Tomcat would be amazing!

Giving us the ability to setup the DTC and loadout/fuel before mission launch would be incredibly awesome (See: Falcon 4.0:AF).

Yeah that thread didn't help. It says to make sure you have full real settings on in your mission/server. I definitely do and refueling is still not working. The problem I described above is still happening.

I'm having an issue similar to this, but with the F-15. My understanding is the autopilot is supposed to kick in, however when this happens my aircraft begins to roll left and will not stay connected to the tanker like it is supposed to. It enters about a 5 degree left bank every time without fail. Anyone have any clues? It would be nice if I could fly by hand, considering I can stay with the tanker much better than the autopilot it seems...

Best thing is to go slow and use the Vikhr's range to take out any AAA/SAM emplacements you can find. However, in some missions you'll come up against SAMs you can't outrange so you have to use terrain to your advantage and execute a pop-up attack quickly enough to kill it and then drop down before any missiles it launched can hit. Single MANPADs hidden in forests can be a pain in the rear as well. Only decent strategy sometimes is to fly high and slow and let them shoot at you (so you know where they are), dump flares and run and then engage them from the edge of your range. General tips: Most SAMs cannot outrange you, but will fire within about 6km so you have to spot them before they're in range. The ones that do out range you are extremely deadly. If you get a laser ping that you didn't expect (IFVs shooting TOWs for instance). Then dive and turn for the nearest terrain because a SAM is probably ranging you for a shot or is actively guiding a missile. Most IFVs will open fire under 5km. TOW missiles are easy to dodge though, just generate enough lateral speed that the missile cannot track (usually about 50kph perpendicular to the missile's flight is enough). IFV guns can be devastating, so never fly head-on into an IFV at an altitude where its turret can traverse upward to you. Tanks will fire under 2km. You should never get this close to a tank, there simply is no reason. The 12.7mm or .50 cals on these things are bad enough, and then there's the main cannon which will knock you out in one hit. Rifle-equipped infantry will fire about 1km. Usually not an issue, but they can get a lucky hit on critical systems, so don't risk it. Stay away and use the cannon to make quick work of infantry.

I finally fixed this issue. If you're having this problem then you probably changed your X/Y axes' curves. Once I returned them to zero curvature the force feedback trim started working flawlessly. Perhaps this is something DCS could look into? The fact that you can't use force feedback trim and adjust your curves for the sensitivity you want is pretty lame.

So there isn't an answer here? I'm still having this issue.

Okay, I've got the axes resolved just fine, but there is something weird about the way the game assigns the FFB. When I push forward and press trim the force feedback stops at a position that is closer to center than the one I've selected. So for instance, if I was to push my joystick full forward and hit the trim button the new force feedback center would be about half way between the true joystick center and full forward deflection. I thought the stick was supposed to stay wherever you release the trim button at. What gives?

Okay I'll look for that, I didn't see any options like that at all. I did try to do a forum search, but gave up after the first couple searches because the stupid anti-bot filter is too damn hard to read. It would take me a minimum of 3 tries to get the filter text right. Blech. Thanks anyway though! :thumbup:

I'm using a Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2. When I press the trim button the trim doesn't hold in the direction I've input instead it holds on the opposite axis. For instance, if I move the stick left and click trim and then allow the force feedback to neutralize the stick, the joystick will move forward and I pitch down. If I move the stick forward, click trim, and then neutralize the FFB I get an uncommanded roll to the right. This continues around in a circular fashion so that: Left cyclic + trim = Pitch down Forward cyclic + trim = Bank right Right cyclic + trim = Pitch up Back cyclic + trim = Bank left Arggg...I'm really just at a loss. Did I define a control wrong somewhere or is there some other issue at play here? I'm running on full realism settings and patched to 1.0.1c. UPDATE: