Puma

In 2.5.6.52437 The behaviour of the SAI has changed for me. I can uncage it and it seems to automatically center itself instead of scrolling smoothly down to center as I adjust the wheel. If I move the wheel more, the SAI just jitters but remains very near center. Another user reported that he sees the exact same thing and is unable to re-cage it at all, so I realized it sounds like it’s not just me.

Yurgon is correct about the windmill restart being appropriate for single engine failure only. I suggest first figuring out why you suffered dual engine failure. Without knowing that it is hard to guess how to restart. For example, if you ran out of gas, restart will be harder. I suggest you confirm that your fuel boost pumps or on before initiating the dive. If you forget that and induce negative G for too long (10S) you may be fuel starving both engines at once?

You should definitely have tire noise. Maybe a repair would help? Check dcs log file fir any hints about sound issues? I notice it every time, especially on landing it sounds more grindy than I expect, which started a couple months ago and may definitely be just from me tweaking volume levels of my system.

The hud is a debatable bug for non-vr users. I find it very usable but yes its harder to see the edges/corners than it used to be. Position lights can’t go solid any more.

Really nice work. I love to see others so passionate about this product. Good luck with the project.

Just a heads up you posted this in the A-10C bug forum. Might have more luck in a different one. I fly A-10 exclusively so cannot help, sorry.

I recommend the ones the 476 put together. I used them for years long before I joined them. They are comprehensive and you’ll learn you can rush by skipping a few, but they are realistic which I enjoy. I completed all the maple flag missions using them too. http://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=29

We did get several flight in the week or two following the original post. Dragon12 had a work obligation come up and we left it open-ended but have not flown since. It was a great experience and if he pops back on and you get a chance it’s extremely challenging and satisfying to work with a human controller.

Thats great to know. Thanks for posting. I really wish all changes made it into the release notes. ED should take credit for fixes like this.

It has been acknowledged and is in a queue, but I suggest you investigate a work arounds until it is. If you have trackir it’s not too hard to look around to see the extreme edges. Certainly not ideal, but usable. Adjust seat hight helps too.

Sounds like some progress is being made then. Thanks for the update Ian. It goes a long way to just know that someone is still aware of the issue.

How is it that ED has enough time to break this on the A-10 yet two patches go by and not even a “known issue” acknowledgment of the bug in the release notes. A-10 community is going to get rough treatment if they can’t fix a three position light but think they can develop A-10c2. So scared!

I also test ejection seat behaviour and could not find any functional difference. Confusing they call it a “pin” when the only thing is the arming lever. My theory is that in the past with the seat unarmed, the ejection handle still moved even though the seat wouldn't fire. This change is that the handle won’t even move now??

My interest in the question is because I am frequently cross referencing information and procedures from other sources, but if we can confirm there is a discrepancy then it would help educate on any conversions required when taking procedures into DCS. Still love DCS, still not suggesting any changes, just enjoy studying the behaviours.

@David. So since I do have an engineering degree, am I permitted to continue an engaging discussion about the sim I love? I wasn’t aware of that prerequisite, but I’m glad I make the cut in your eye. Nothing said was negative, simply offering a theory that might help resolve discrepancies others have reported. My personal opinion is that I enjoy flying within limits of an airframe. If I wanted a “point and fly” aircraft I’d place ace combat. If you don’t want to hear opinions, maybe don’t read forum posts?

I have an out there theory to toss up: If I buy a 20HP lawnmower engine, I get a new engine and a guarantee it will product 20.0 HP for at least the duration of the warranty, and likely much longer if maintained properly. Now to deliver on the 20.0 guarantee, the engine will actually product well over 20.0, but the documents are going to indicate the minimum/guaranteed performance. Drawings come from engineers, who pad their numbers with safety margins to ensure their products always exceed their designs. Thus my theory is that ED building to the published docs means they are building the worst possible (but technically passable) A-10 FM with worst-case drag and minimum passable power.

Well I’m just going to throw a dart then: the bug is the accuracy of markpoints set from the hud. AFAIK they should be using elevation from the terrain database, but it wouldn’t surprise me if dcs uses the model geometry and thus gets elevation as accurate as the tgp does. Fun thread, thanks for bringing it up!

When you switch to HOT, the elevation is latched from the current steerpoint. In the real jet it definitely will use tgp spi elevation to set HOT when available, but there was some debate of dcs had modelled that (the guess is no). How did you create your mark point? If it is via the tgp then you do get the tgp ranged elevation (I believe with laser if it was on when you created the mark point ), thus a tgp quality elevation was latched to HOT when you left DTS. Try inspecting the original steerpoint’s altitude in the cdu to the altitude if the mark point. HOT is always more accurate than DTS, and thus preferred when you have time to configure it.

I think you may just be over estimating the accuracy of the terrain database. Since the target is on such varying terrain, definitely you’ll want manual HOT. Ideally you’ll be working with a jtac/afac or have been able to use tgp from a distance to get an actual HOT before getting this close.

Yes I saw another (external) forum post about this recently and they reached the same conclusion. Good catch.

I think it will. I had no idea this was possible but he’s actually creating a new row in the bindable controls list, with the desired effects. Once added you'd bind your warthog spb:fwd to this new row. Cool stuff.

Possible reasons are : he want to reclaim the speedbrake aft position for another hotas function, or he often forgets to retract speed brake and wants an automatic method. I agree most likely its not a warthog, but target works on other thrustmaster products and most hotas has equivalent software so the concept is transportable.

I think you could achieve this with helios. Add the warthog as an input to helios and then have the fwd button send speed brake open on depressed and retract on release. Might be able to do the same with the thrust master software and keystrokes, but I haven’t played with that. Before I go any further on how, can we back-peddle to why? With your proposed configuration, how would you hold speedbrakes open at 40%? The A-10 speed brakes are huge, and fully deployed they do their job very well. For landing configurations you want them open, but not to full until after touchdown.

Fascinating thats the opposite of my observations where the lights can flash but not set to steady, they flash in both positions. Maybe they latch the first position you put them in and can’t be toggled after that? Bug either way it’s just curious that it presents differently.

Issue is resolved thanks to another user. Unlike vhf heads, uhf head requires that you are in preset mode when saving frequencies. In my head it would save the “active” frequency so I was switching to manual before trying to save.