Puma

I wouldn't say I noticed that. I got hit last night, lost cicu and a variety of systems. I had no air speed indicator but controls were highly responsive. Wingman indicated I was smoking. Did a high key overhead break recovery. I botched it, but I still think it demonstrated significant damage but no loss of engine power.

Sometimes the altitudes are off (probably more of a qfe/qnh issue than a bug). One several missions Id get halfway to sp 2, realize something is missing, circle back through 1 higher and lower than then it would resume.

Helios and start exporting gauges. There was just a new profile posted for A-10 that should inspire you. Keep the main monitor for world-only.

Also totally anecdotal, but I did two staffing runs last night and was surprised how much damage was done. Seemed much more like what you see in youtube videos.

Has anyone found any documented evidence of this? Im reading of opinions confident it has changed and others saying no difference. Its a little hard to believe they would have intentionally altered the flight model without any mention of it, BUT we've seen lots of unintended changes so its believable.

I regret bringing this up, again, but contracts can be amended, expired or completely re-nogiated. Im not even making a prediction, but ED started with no contracts, needed some rights, negotiated and got those rights. Likely each active airframe has its own conditions and restrictions. I completely agree that ED wont spontaneously release something that violates terms of an active agreement, but to state that because an agreement exists, new features must be completely impossible for all futures, is not accurate. Now I am also not making a prediction that they will, but just over-reacting to the claim that they never could.

A-10C suite 7 as a module is a great idea. Ive always struggled understandying why ED would upgrade if they cant monetize it. But once f-18 and f-16 are settling down theyll have all the core code close so an A-10 addon is at least business-wise conceivable.

Well said

I think this is all good healthy discussion. Its fair to be on either side of this divide. I hipe that the fact the discussion is happening will help educate EDs future decisions about how to best serve their market and in turn be profitable. If the right decisions are made, we ALL win

Can be done (I have a 39” 4k primary and a 15” 1920x1280 for my mfcds. It really makes no difference, follow any multi-monitor configuration guide/thread and itll work out.

I think its a great idea. The world is moving to a subscription economy and while its tough to swallow it is a good way to ensure companies follow your individual interests; “put your money where mouth is”. Automobile analogy is voided because if I purchase a 2002 Honda civic, I don’t need to download an update to get to worm (play online), and worse if I do, my civic doesn’t suddenly invert it switches, reverse its headlights or crash into the nearest telephone pole.

Viper hype vs DCS community I supported the preorder of the Viper within 24 hours. I am extremely torn about throwing my support. I do want to support ED's pursuit of making DCS the go-to standard for study level simmers and pseudo-simmers alike. I am in the software industry myself and deeply empathize with the complexity of balancing social demands versus revenue generating streams. Adding an F-16 is a pivotal strike into the simulation community. We all know who ED is targeting with such a module. As a long term and fully committed A-10 module supporter, I hope that ED will use the Viper traction to build an ecosystem of reliable, stable and entertaining simulation products. I do deeply fear that they are taking advantage of a desperate community, over extending promises and "delivering" modules far before they are consumer-ready. Job postings for testing positions are encouraging. Claims of efforts towards supporting existing modules (A-10 cockpit, for example) are promising, but for now, on the consumer side, I must choose to judge this from the consumer side: The pursuit of new modules and new markets is compromising the experiences and I am not convinced that ED has the team established which can handle the multi-dimensional complexity they have exposed by releasing modules and extending promises about future modules which may be far beyond their capacity. I sincerely hope my concerns are unfounded; I dread that I am right and ED's capacity may not position them to overcome their challenges. I am a dedicated fan; will be on-board to whatever end may come.

@Tippis Great tip thanks, I never realized there was a shorter route than through the cdu.

Ouch. Classic ED.

Love your approach Buzz. The A-10 is worth the effort. Super satisfying to use the airframe to its max. Happy to help if you run into any challenges. I love training campaigns.

I am also fuzzy on the details but can confirm all of this matters. I would add its pretty unusual to need this. Emergency jettison or keep it all has sufficed for my “career” thus far.

There is a setting in the general options: game vs real. When you have this set to game, the a10c game controls apply. Change the setting, then the other controls apply.

Absolute yes. I use it to run half my pit.

Iffcc switch is what determines if you see a hud or the menu including the bist. Check your bindings for iffcc mode on the master arm panel.

Its a new struggle for sure. I am also not convinced it wasn't an attempt to be more realistic. It feels like it may be a bit too far, but either way its hard to work with. Wish we got a better change description to know if this is a bug or a reality check.

Can confirm. Is this a bug or is the smoke actually hot enough to blind ir?

Check view axis bindings especially for z-axis. Ensure that only trackir is bound. I agree it looks like you are too far forward. If you recenter trackir after starting dcs mission does it go back where you expect? Does your trackir app show you centered in the z-axis before you start dcs?

Perhaps the plot thickens. Was just browsing AFI11-2A-10CV3 and encountered this which suggested hud alt can differ when in nav 3.10.2.2. If the other flight member/element is also blind, then the flight lead will take action to ensure altitude separation based on the cockpit altimeter or sector deconfliction off a known point. Use a minimum of 500 feet altitude separation when directed to deconflict by altitude. Avoid climbs/descents through the deconfliction altitude. Low Altitude Safety and Targeting Enhancement (LASTE) HUD altimeter readings should not be used as the primary altitude reference for deconfliction due to the potential of significantly different altimeter readings if not operating in NAV mode. Once deconfliction is assured, pilots may use SADL to assist in regaining visual.

Im going to guess it does not. Since the hud symbology already includes separate displays for rad alt and baro alt, having the switch change either would be confusing and extraneous. I was surprised not to see more options in the iffcc test menu, but only metric and tapes settings come up.

Maple Flag training campaign has great AAR missions. Or if you just want a sandbox to play in, you can use the mission editor to create one.