Open A-10C

ED has stated A-10C is feature-frozen and except fixes, we shouldn't expect big changes in the module.

And DCS A-10C is great, however there are many points that could be improved, like JDAMS, TAD display, Laser maverick, new SW suites...

If ED doesn't have resources to keep improving the module, it would be nice to open at least some parts of the avionics code to allow interested parties to keep improving the module.

I know it's difficult to balance open code with intellectual rights, but maybe ED can find a point in between that can satisfy everybody?

Just wishing

Regards!

there will be no laser mavericks, they were removed from the consumer version by request of the USAF.

as for newer SW Suites and unlocking any "code" Pretty sure the USAF would have something to say about that too.

there will be no laser mavericks, they were removed from the consumer version by request of the USAF.

 

as for newer SW Suites and unlocking any "code" Pretty sure the USAF would have something to say about that too.

I find it funny that the usaf has a problem with laser Mavericks, and some minor improvements to the suite package. Nothing Opsec would be disclosed. Oh well it was done in the past but it's blocked now, guess only hope is the USAF changes their position on it. You can google it and find out exactly what's in the current bird it's not like their protecting states secrets by preventing a 1 to 3 suite package upgrade lol.

Has anybody recently engaged a conversation with the usaf in regards to this and I say again Recently?

I find it funny that the usaf has a problem with laser Mavericks, and some minor improvements to the suite package. Nothing Opsec would be disclosed. Oh well it was done in the past but it's blocked now, guess only hope is the USAF changes their position on it. You can google it and find out exactly what's in the current bird it's not like their protecting states secrets by preventing a 1 to 3 suite package upgrade lol.

Has anybody recently engaged a conversation with the usaf in regards to this and I say again Recently?

DCS Currently Models Suite 3, Current Suite is like 8 now (Snoopy?)

Rgr that so what would be the problem with say a suite 5 or 6 pretty please !

DCS Currently Models Suite 3, Current Suite is like 8 now (Snoopy?)

Correct. As to the other comments being "surprised" what the USAF will not allow to be modeled, I'm not.

 

If ED doesn't have resources to keep improving the module, it would be nice to open at least some parts of the avionics code to allow interested parties to keep improving the module.

No way, I don't want anyone outside of ED or a trusted 3rd party or partner touching the avionics code. That being said, I do hope ED develops DCS A-10C 2 that upgrades to at least suite 5 or 7. And I would happily pay 60 dollars for it.

Correct. As to the other comments being "surprised" what the USAF will not allow to be modeled, I'm not.

 

 

 

No way, I don't want anyone outside of ED or a trusted 3rd party or partner touching the avionics code. That being said, I do hope ED develops DCS A-10C 2 that upgrades to at least suite 5 or 7. And I would happily pay 60 dollars for it.

Same here easily pay another 60 dollars

Same here easily pay another 60 dollars

I'd actually pay a lot more than 60 dollars. Cost benefit analysis for DCS A-10C just MP flight hours, not taking into account the hundreds I did when I was still a tester.

Purchased for 59.99 October 2010 , so about $0.09 per flight hour (just over 649 MP hours).

Even if I toss in the peripherals, on average, It still would be cheaper than other hobbies.

Rgr that so what would be the problem with say a suite 5 or 6 pretty please !

It is one thing to request features, but no amount of bargaining is going to get ED to violate their contract, and I doubt pestering the USAF would accomplish anything either.

To many defeatist mindsets around here. Nothing will change or get better if attempts are not made. If it's that simple that a contract prevents progress so be it. I still wouldn't take a no that was given years ago as final. I would recommend a new dialog and see if things have changed, as they do very often in the military.

No way, I don't want anyone outside of ED or a trusted 3rd party or partner touching the avionics code. That being said, I do hope ED develops DCS A-10C 2 that upgrades to at least suite 5 or 7. And I would happily pay 60 dollars for it.

ditto

I find it funny that the usaf has a problem with laser Mavericks, and some minor improvements to the suite package. Nothing Opsec would be disclosed. Oh well it was done in the past but it's blocked now, guess only hope is the USAF changes their position on it. You can google it and find out exactly what's in the current bird it's not like their protecting states secrets by preventing a 1 to 3 suite package upgrade lol.

Has anybody recently engaged a conversation with the usaf in regards to this and I say again Recently?

We just don't know how exactly the list of allowed features was compiled. We only assume that it has to do with security concerns. While that might probably play a not too unimportant role for some features, it could also just been that they had a list of features and the USAF scrached a few of them without going too much into detail. However it was done, ED and the USAF then agreed upon that list .... and that's it. The list was compiled, contracts were signed, the product was developed - and end of story. If ED now wanted to extend that list, they just had to get into negotiations again - and that for a product that was finished long ago. Probably not worth the effords and the bothering of their contacts at the USAF.

BMS or VRS have done a pretty good job with their F-16 and F-18, respectively. And they don't have formal contracts with the USAF or US NAVY, beyond maybe some copyright arrangements with the aircraft manufacturers.

With the public information available, support from operators and some educated guess to fill the 'gaps', some features can perfectly be done without formal support from USAF. I'm thinking about laser mavericks, for example.

I'd pay for an A-10C 2.0 too but let's face it, probably it's not the case for the users majority. And ED is handcuffed about what he can do with the module, due to USAF arrangemets. But an independent party shouldn't face the same restrictions, since it doesn't have the same visibility to confidential data.

Regards!

I'm flying A-10C from 2011 and I would be happy to pay for module update also.

What is current ED's attitude about this topic? No for now, Maybe, Yes for sure? Maybe somebody form ED could comment on this. Wags?

I know that resources are limited, but the job could be delegated to the one of 3rd party devs.

So you'd like a second A-10C and not an entirely new airframe like an F-16?

I have no doubt at all that the A-10C will be revisited in time, but as it stands now, it is still a very useful package.

You only have to look around you to see that if anything, there may well be far less likelihood of any relaxation of the current secrecy situation, and let's face it, we definitely ought not discuss stuff that is considered sensitive here.

Upgrading the A10-C is an excellent idea. Even as a new model you have to buy again or buy the upgrade.

Who should do it? I prefer ED, but is open to a trusted 3 party company, who have proven their worth.

Regarding if USAF will or will not allow it to be modelled, I think it´s worth trying some negotiations. I know it´s delicate matter, but if not trying, we gain nothing at all.

Cheers

Personally I'd like to fly the A10-C training missions in Nevada, all I ever wanted from the module. Fingers crossed that gets ported over....

Not sure I'd pay for more module updates tbh, but that doesn't mean its not a popular choice for other owners. Very much looking forward to the F18 though.

When militaries prevent certain avionics from being modeled like laser mavericks, is that because there IS some sort of national security issue (exploitability) or is it a bureaucratic thing like the policy of the manufacturer of a certain component?

So you'd like a second A-10C and not an entirely new airframe like an F-16?

Who said that? I would like an A-10C updated to at least an avionics suite that isn't approx 9 years old (C model upgrades started around 2006). Suite 5 in 2009, suite 6 in 2010, suite 7 in 12 and suite 8 this past year, although being integrated slowly because of the uncertainty about the future of some units.

Will it happen, only ED knows.

I sure don't want ED to step on USAF toes or they might just tell ED, remove the product. That would not be helpful at all... I think an effort modelling a laser guided maverick or adding HMCS can better be judged to be directed to a new module, and I'd pay $100 for an A-10C fidelity F-16 suite 3 (if that suite is not applicable anymore or disclosed by manufacturer. Or any other contemporary module.

I really enjoy EDs work but lets not forget that ED is bound by a contract and most of us would prefer a new module rather than an upgrade that would be bugged and would require resources that ideally work on newer modules.

Who said that? I would like an A-10C updated to at least an avionics suite that isn't approx 9 years old (C model upgrades started around 2006). Suite 5 in 2009, suite 6 in 2010, suite 7 in 12 and suite 8 this past year, although being integrated slowly because of the uncertainty about the future of some units.

 

Will it happen, only ED knows.

It is more a case of priorities than you saying anything. They obviously have finite resources, and I expect they'll want to widen the appeal of DCS World by increasing the variety of airframes long before they'll revisit the A-10C. Hardly rocket science.

Like they did with Blackshark 2 right?

I sure don't want ED to step on USAF toes or they might just tell ED, remove the product. That would not be helpful at all... I think an effort modelling a laser guided maverick or adding HMCS can better be judged to be directed to a new module, and I'd pay $100 for an A-10C fidelity F-16 suite 3 (if that suite is not applicable anymore or disclosed by manufacturer. Or any other contemporary module.

 

I really enjoy EDs work but lets not forget that ED is bound by a contract and most of us would prefer a new module rather than an upgrade that would be bugged and would require resources that ideally work on newer modules.

I think those two things are not comparable. It is much less work to update A-10 software comparing to develop whole new aircraft.

We are talking about small refreshing update for A-10C here, not about year or two of development for whole ED team.

I would definitely purchase an upgrade to the A-10C, it could also be some quick cash for ED pocket.

I guess one of my questions, is what would upgrading the suite really do for us as flight sim pilots? I don't think any of us here are intending to get into the cockpit of a real A-10 and fly it with the skills we have from the sim. We have a product that has higher fidelity than pretty much any other commercially available combat flight simulator out there, where you can utilize the A-10C as the devastatingly effective ground attack plane it was designed as. They COULD have just left us with the A-10A model, which was still a great plane, but they provided us with the 21st century A-10C model, which upped it's capability 10 fold.

I guess I'm saying, be happy with what we do have, because it is amazing. I'm more interested in having a better world, more realistic allied forces and enemy force to fight, than an update to an already impressive module.