here is why I may switch to A version of A-10

[WildBillKelsoe]

I own both C and FC3 A versions. After reading OAF (A-10 Kosovo), I think I want to switch to FC3 A-10A version. Here is why:

1- IMHO, A-10C is more spoiled version. We have TAD, SADL, and pretty much a targeting pod. Most pilots in the book relied on binos and eyeballs to detect targets.

 

2- PAC spoiling. I think PAC simplifies the shooting of that massive pistol, but I like fighting the cannon (and getting rounds on target for that matter).

 

3- Map usage (again, TAD related). I like using sectionals (I have TC-1 shredded to sectionals with a chart catalog to each area), mainly because I like talking to people on multiplayer and AFAC'ing them, specially Sharks, on target. Plenty of practice with MGRS/LL and descriptors.

 

4- Simplified radios (not a particular problem to me, I like A-10C's realistic radio, but I enjoy the one button to anybody approach.

 

5- Mk-20 (although I don't know if they are burst, I'd love to try them on armor and see effects)

 

In short words, I like A version because it reverts to sort of the vintage (101) ground pounding role, without too much simplifications and relies more on analog-like procedures. Sort of comparing A-10 to Stuka, well, I'll take the stuka for sure.

 

 

So that is about me, what do you guys think?

[rcjonessnp175]

Lord.... Have fun.....

[T_A]

Guess i`ll be the one to say it -

you can do all that with the C model, just dont use the TAD , TGP ,PAC etc.

and you can use easy communication and not have to deal with the radio also.

and there are plenty of cluster bomb options on the C in the sim.

[Flagrum]

1 - you are saying, the A-10C is not challenging enough so you switch over to FC3? :o)

2 - the A had also PAC, iirc

3 - too much SA, need more challenge!? :o)

4 - enable easy comms?

5 - Mk-20 ... not much of a difference compared to a CBU-87 - at least not in DCS - except less flexible / no changable settings

[NeilWillis]

And a simple flight model in the A compared to the Professional flight model of the C.

[PFunk1606688187]

You can do anything with the C that the A can except you can't use the Pave Penny and sadly nobody has binoculars in either version.

 

So don't use the TAD and fly without PGMs. Done deal.

 

A-10s over Kosovo said that they mostly flew with Mavs, Mk82s and CBU-87s, so no problem there. People should realize that its not the airplane as much as how you fly it. Still, they integrated the TGP into the A before the C showed up and as far as I know C pilots still rock Binos on occasion since TGP and binoculars are not mutually exclusive in their utility.

 

You can learn a lot about being a better attack pilot from how they flew A-10As over Kosovo, but those skills are not lost just because you have a TGP and SADL. By the same token you can find a few anecdotes in that book that demonstrate how A-10s needed F-14s with their pods to help them in low light situations and in that conflict at night they had to fully surrender their FAC role to the F-16s and F-14s.

 

Overall I think most DCS A-10C players could learn a few things about flying if they left the TGP at home now and then and figured out old school talk on skills.

[Shaman]

Actually only one A-10 in flight should take the TGP, rest is communication.

 

FC3 A-10A is not a hard core pilot's sim, due to simulation limitations, which is also officially described by ED as very limited simulation of the Warthog compared to full Sim module.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Shaman

[WildBillKelsoe]

That would be flight lead, right? He/She is responsible for handing out targets, so I guess thats why one TGP needed.

[Shaman]

Yes, flight lead is responsible to sort out targets for wingmen. Position of targets can be sent via data link network, or given by radio, all you need is MGRS reference system or descriptive visual cues and pass it to wingmen. Lead may also laser guide wingman's LGBs.

[joey45]

And a simple flight model in the A compared to the Professional flight model of the C.

 

Thought the A got the same FM as the C.....?

[shagrat]

And a simple flight model in the A compared to the Professional flight model of the C.

Both use the same AFM since quite a while (since before the F-15C got the AFM)... So that's no difference. The MAV, though is pretty "simplified" in the FC3 A-10A.

I need to check on the A hog again to be sure, but have they removed the "tracers" from the gun? And the CCIP symbology, still uses the FC3 fixed to the top line "pendulum" Pipper?

[PFunk1606688187]

Actually only one A-10 in flight should take the TGP, rest is communication.

Yes, flight lead is responsible to sort out targets for wingmen. Position of targets can be sent via data link network, or given by radio, all you need is MGRS reference system or descriptive visual cues and pass it to wingmen. Lead may also laser guide wingman's LGBs.

 

There is no rule that the wingman should not carry a pod. Tactics are not so prescriptive. It may suit the tactics that the wingman be able to use the pod to generate his own coordinates from a target picture much the same way a lead would talk his wingman onto a target visually. A wingman needn't even use his pod image for target coordinates and could simply use it to aid in a visual attack.

 

Its another SA tool, another piece in the puzzle. Datalinks can be jammed the same as radios. Verbally handing off coordinates is slow. Describing a Pod image is fast, especially when the wingman can see the image clearly from a distance that would require more time when using binoculars.

 

Its not all that simple in my opinion.

[Shaman]

No rules as such at your home, so what you say is true, but so DCS missions are almost never taking into consideration logistics management in real life for spares and stores. DCS giving all pilots opportunity to take whatever and wear equipment as they prefer.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Shaman

[shagrat]

Oh, you could easily change that as a mission designer... Just, empty the warehouses and stores until you have only left what should be available. :D

[zaelu]

I would also like a full DCS level module of the A. C is too much... electronic? for me. :D

[joey45]

Well, the A model WAS going to be the one they were going to release but they got the go ahead for the C..

 

Having a FULL ON A model would be call.

[cichlidfan]

Thought the A got the same FM as the C.....?

 

The A-10A has an AFM+ while the A-10C has a PFM. Note the lack of toe brakes on the A.

[PFunk1606688187]

No rules as such at your home, so what you say is true, but so DCS missions are almost never taking into consideration logistics management in real life for spares and stores. DCS giving all pilots opportunity to take whatever and wear equipment as they prefer.

 

There's a big difference between logistics denying everyone the opportunity to carry a pod and that being a rule that you expressed being irrelevant to a logistic situation.

 

There is also no eventuality for jamming in DCS and so issues a real pilot would face are not part of our scenarios either. Jamming radios, datalinks, GPS, all degrade capabilities of systems you quoted as being a stand in to using the pod.

 

I find your augmented argument more unconvincing than your last frankly. If you look at pictures of A-10s in ferry configuration when they're deploying somewhere you'll see them carrying a TGP or ECM pod. The same logistical argument applies to the ECM pod but I doubt you'll find a picture of an A-10 going into combat without one in a non-permissive environment even if the TOLD for that flight sees the wingman go without a TGP.

 

So lets be fair and assume fewer TGPs than aircraft deployed. You never fly every single aircraft with usually at least one CANN and several stand by jets if you have to abort a jet on the ramp in preflight for a fragged mission not to mention the ones that are out of the cycle for required maintenance. I don't see why you're going to have trouble running a TGP load on every mission if you so choose it.

 

But don't get me wrong, you should be able to function as a wingman without a TGP. I personally love being -2 to a lead who does all the heads down business working only coordinates and visual talk ons with my eyes otherwise out of the pit. Nevertheless its not a rule and shouldn't be since the pod offers flexibility that would otherwise not exist if the wingman is without one.

 

Whats else is the wingie gonna carry there anyway? 7 Rockets? :lol:

Edited March 8, 2015 by P*Funk

[Exorcet]

Oh, you could easily change that as a mission designer... Just, empty the warehouses and stores until you have only left what should be available. :D

The warehouse system is a good start, but as it is, it's rather limited. You can limit the amount of weapons available to a realistic level, but that doesn't stop one plane from loading all the good stuff and leaving none for anyone else (and then crashing into a hill).

 

We need loadout restrictions in additional to limited warehouse resources, such that even if there are 6 AGM-65's in the warehouse, a plane can only load 2 at most.

 

As for A-10A vs C, I do like flying the A because it's less capable. However that doesn't necessarily make it more difficult to be successful with, and the FC3 avionics are a bit less fun.

[Witchking]

IMO, the C turns out a lot easier to manage just because of the detailed MFCD and the capability. I know I am engaging PAC with the two stage trigger on my warthog. I can do pinpoint precision strikes with laser guided munitions and even dumb bombs. With A, It feels like its missing a little. "C" triggers cannon and automatically turns on PAC. But for some reason, it is not as satisfying as the two stage trigger on the C version. That still elevates the C like the badass it truly is...just like how you see in the videos of real A-10s in action.

[PiedDroit]

The real "hardcore" stuff on the A-10A is not modelled anyway, so there is no point using the A instead of the C because of the fancy stuff (you can remove the TGP and not use the TAD, the MFDs are configurable).

 

I read somewhere that the first versions of the A-10 did not have the LASTE, IFCC nor PAC (no CCIP/CCRP), they had to rely on the depressible piper + tables to be able to make an accurate delivery, that could have ben fun to have :joystick:

 

(some info here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=60079)

Edited March 8, 2015 by PiedDroit

[shagrat]

You can, the depressible pipper is still there and works (UFC has controls for it)... So you can do "basic" deliveries like in the 70ies, 80ies...

[SkateZilla]

And a simple flight model in the A compared to the Professional flight model of the C.

 

A has the same AFM in flight as the C for the most part, the toe brakes and some other things missing.

[cichlidfan]

A has the same AFM in flight as the C for the most part, the toe brakes and some other things missing.

 

Not according to Wags:

 

Examples of AFM+ in DCS include the Su-25 and A-10A.

 

DCS examples of the PFM include the A-10C, Ka-50, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, F-15C and Su-27 (in development) for DCS Flaming Cliffs, and the Fw190-D9 (in development).

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801

 

...or are you trying to say that there really is no 'in flight' difference between an AFM+ and a PFM?

Edited March 8, 2015 by cichlidfan

[Flagrum]

Not according to Wags:

 

 

 

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801

 

...or are you trying to say that there really is no 'in flight' difference between an AFM+ and a PFM?

I interprete Wags statement as "both have basically the same PFM, but it is for the A-10A - due to the lack of ASM - somewhat 'degraded' to AFM+ standards"