Doesn't A-10C feel more flight capable in real life?

[Ironhand]

link?

Starts around 19:20

 

 

 

Further amplified here this past March starting around 17:30

 

Alert 5 Podcast

 

Edit: Looks like a lot happened, while I was off looking for the podcasts. I’ll leave the links anyway.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Ironhand

[Mars Exulte]

If that's actually the case I'm glad that I haven't bought the F-16 yet and I think that I can safely delete DCS.

 

I really don't get this mentality so often bandied around here. ''It's SIMULATION blah blah'' yeah, and there are no perfect simulations designed for home pcs. This is it, as close as it gets, and plus or minus a few percent it gives you a very good approximation of ''what it's like'' to fly and operate these aircraft.

 

If you want ''the real deal'' then enlist or re-up. Being a hardass because it's not perfect is just ridiculous.

[Mars Exulte]

Those are such negative options.

 

I will choose my own. Most pilots will feel a simulator is way different than the real thing because your office chair doesn't move like your seat in the aircraft. Nobody is incompetent. This is a simulation, and may not 100% give you the exact sensation or feeling of flying an A-10C.

 

I gave my answer on this now, it was not dumbed down, some sensor stuff was secret and restricted, but not the FM.

 

It's bluntly worded, but he's technically correct.

[NineLine]

It's bluntly worded, but he's technically correct.

 

But in the case of the A-10C, which the thread is about, I asked the creator of the FM himself, and he said nothing was dumbed down for it. So it shouldn't even be a discussion then, now the Hornet might be different, the Viper I think will be more like the A-10C. Each aircraft will have their own restrictions and challenges.

[A10Yoda]

But in the case of the A-10C, which the thread is about, I asked the creator of the FM himself, and he said nothing was dumbed down for it. So it shouldn't even be a discussion then, now the Hornet might be different, the Viper I think will be more like the A-10C. Each aircraft will have their own restrictions and challenges.

9line can you have him look into weapon and pylon drag. Several former A10 drivers including myself think there are some issues there.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Edited October 2, 2019 by A10Yoda

[nighthawk2174]

And engine temp/fan percent as we have a rlf pilot here who flys the jet and wrote down the numbers he was seeing in the jet.

[Andy1966]

But in the case of the A-10C, which the thread is about, I asked the creator of the FM himself, and he said nothing was dumbed down for it. So it shouldn't even be a discussion then, now the Hornet might be different, the Viper I think will be more like the A-10C. Each aircraft will have their own restrictions and challenges.

 

In all reality, there is nothing super secretive about a straight wing monoplane with twin jet engines, the physics are well known. what amazes me is that us lucky few in DCS has some of the sensors and weapons and aircraft that we do in DCS , so I feel lucky. After all DCS has many other Irons In the Fire, and the contracts must be a tricky endeavor to negotiate, so, yea someone who has flown a A-10 may see a discrepancy or two, but on the other hand, maybe he or she should....

[NineLine]

9line can you have him look into weapon and pylon drag. Several former A10 drivers including myself think there are some issues there.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

Will do, seems a couple modules suffering from that right now.

[NineLine]

In all reality, there is nothing super secretive about a straight wing monoplane with twin jet engines, the physics are well known. what amazes me is that us lucky few in DCS has some of the sensors and weapons and aircraft that we do in DCS , so I feel lucky. After all DCS has many other Irons In the Fire, and the contracts must be a tricky endeavor to negotiate, so, yea someone who has flown a A-10 may see a discrepancy or two, but on the other hand, maybe he or she should....

 

Totally agree.

[Habu23]

9line can you have him look into weapon and pylon drag. Several former A10 drivers including myself think there are some issues there.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

 

Thanks Nineline, I'd like to second that. It looks like people are able to get closer values for G available when the jet is clean. Could you also inquire about the GAU-8 dispersion as well? I know there are extremely passionate people in the sim community as a whole and I'm sure I stand with A10Yoda that we are here just to make things better and we love what we have. Thats why I made Bactria and why I'm working on a sequel. Please feel free to PM me with any specific questions you have, I know I have a few small inputs like current maverick slewing and lock logic, fuel flow override switches, motoring functionality, etc that can be looked at.

 

 

Habu

Edited October 2, 2019 by Habu23

[bbrz]

I really don't get this mentality so often bandied around here. ''It's SIMULATION blah blah'' yeah, and there are no perfect simulations designed for home pcs. This is it, as close as it gets, and plus or minus a few percent it gives you a very good approximation of ''what it's like'' to fly and operate these aircraft.

 

If you want ''the real deal'' then enlist or re-up. Being a hardass because it's not perfect is just ridiculous.

If the simulation has it's limitiation and you can't get it right for that reason ok, but intentionally making the FM worse than it actually is for 'security reasons' is simply a no-go for me.

I'm designing high quality FMs for other sims and e.g. I fine tuned my F-15 FM until both F-15 IPs said that it's spot on and it did match the performance charts. Same goes for a few other civil and military FMs.

If I would design a jet where performance data are available and the max RPM would be 4% too low, and/or the top speed would be off by 10-15kts (my own design limit is +3kts), I could imagine the complaints from the customers.

I'm strictly judging this issue from an FM designer POV and I don't see anything ridiculous here.

 

Since the F/A-18 was only a stop gap for the F-16 for, I sincerely hope that NineLine is correct that the F-16 doesn't suffer from this artificial restrictions. But since the F-16 is also still in service and it's much more widely used than the F/A-18, I don't understand why it would be different than with the F/A-18.

 

Btw, since I'm flying the A-10 only clean or very lightly loaded, I'm of course looking very much forward to the new cockpit! :) :) The A-10 and the F-5 are still my most flown modules by far.

 

@ironhand, thanx a lot about taking your time to not only post the links but also for providing the time stamps. :thumbup: :)

Edited October 2, 2019 by bbrz

[NineLine]

9line can you have him look into weapon and pylon drag. Several former A10 drivers including myself think there are some issues there.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

Can you give me, or point me to a full description of where you see the issue, what you are seeing, what loadouts, etc and I will have the FM person look at it.

[A10Yoda]

Can you give me, or point me to a full description of where you see the issue, what you are seeing, what loadouts, etc and I will have the FM person look at it.

I tried answering this a couple ways yesterday and they all ended up confusing and extremely lengthy.

 

I think it will be easiest to put together a track.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Shadow KT]

To Habu, Yoda and the rest of the real deal pilots I would recommend that you adress the developers directly with an well organised post with details and so on instead of trying to fight the keyboard warriors on the forums.

 

Hopefully they can see what discrepancies there are and deside if they can or are allowed to adress them. Always hoping for a better DCS simulation (which doesn't mean the current one is bad, not at all)

[lobo]

To Habu, Yoda and the rest of the real deal pilots I would recommend that you adress the developers directly with an well organised post with details

 

Hopefully this is getting moved forward. ? :helpsmilie:

[A10Yoda]

Hopefully this is getting moved forward. ? :helpsmilie:

I am putting together what I believe is the issue. But so far putting together the track has been a little slow due to life obligations.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[lobo]

I am putting together what I believe is the issue. But so far putting together the track has been a little slow due to life obligations.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

I hear you on the r/l obligations... glad for whatever you can do on this issue.

 

Interestingly some similar talk on the new F-16 module in a thread titled: "Is the viper under performing? An experiment on sustained level turns" There are some suggestions in that thread that the Viper may be suffering from an external stores drag issue... To which I reply, Wait yer flippin turn! :pilotfly:

[A10Yoda]

I hear you on the r/l obligations... glad for whatever you can do on this issue.

 

 

 

Interestingly some similar talk on the new F-16 module in a thread titled: "Is the viper under performing? An experiment on sustained level turns" There are some suggestions in that thread that the Viper may be suffering from an external stores drag issue... To which I reply, Wait yer flippin turn! :pilotfly:

I believe the issue may be a weight on wheels drag issue with the weight in air.

 

Meaning, the amount of drag from weight on the ground is increased due to drag on wheels. There is less drag airborne because your weight on wheels is not causing additional drag.

 

I don't know how video games and this Simulator modules or calculates it's drag, but the ground weight drag value and airborne drag seem identical to me in game and I believe it is that increased drag 1-2% slowing that is causing the issue for all modules.

 

But I have been trying to track file it with a further explanation.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[lobo]

For giggles, I wanted to see the relationship (in the DCS A-10C), between weight, G loading and AoA.

 

I recorded 2 tracks. Test #1 was at aircraft max weight, test #2 was at minimum aircraft weight.

 

Both flights start at 25k. I attempted (as best I could), to maintain barber pole while in a descending spiral, and at the same time pulling to and maintaining the steady tone. (manual says the steady tone comes on within 2 angle of attack units of stall)

 

I accelerated while in the spiral following the barber pole and continued increasing the G loading to just shy of the chopped tone. Then I replayed the tracks pausing every 1k feet and recording the IAS, AoA and G loading. I did this at max and min weights. Here below are the results:

 

Test #1 @ Max Weight Test #2 @ Min Weight

Alt IAS AoA G Alt IAS AoA G

19k 330 6.7 2.7 19k 332 5.4 3.4

18k 340 6.3 2.3 18k 345 5.3 3.5

17k 348 6.7 2.5 17k 350 6.3 4.0

16k 355 6.8 2.7 16k 350 6.8 5.1

15k 360 6.6 3.0 15k 354 6.0 5.2

14k 366 6.8 3.1 14k 362 6.1 5.3

13k 374 6.8 3.2 13k 366 7.1 6.7

12k 380 7.0 3.2 12k 372 7.2 6.9

11k 388 7.1 3.5 11k 378 7.5 7.5

10k 393 6.5 3.9 10k 388 6.9 7.3

9k 400 6.6 4.1 9k 395 6.8 7.2

8k 402 7.6 4.9 8k 392 8.2 8.6

7k 404 7.1 4.7 7k 382 9.2 8.5

6k 405 7.6 4.8 6k 370 10.5 8.5

5k 402 9.3 5.6 5k 349 11.8 8.9

 

Formatting screwed up in the forum. See the post below with word doc and results in proper format.

 

Notes:

1. IAS was read from the cockpit steam gauge. Alt, AoA and G were read from the F2 page.

2. See the attached track files.

test 1 max wt spiral @ barber pole, maintaining max sustained G @ stdy tone.trk

test 2 min wt spiral @ barber pole, maintaining max sustained G @ stdy tone.trk

Edited October 8, 2019 by lobo**
added missing data point

[lobo]

Formatting messed up in the above post...

 

Here is a word doc with proper formatting of the above info.

Vg Test - Copy - Copy.doc

Edited October 8, 2019 by lobo**
added missing data point

[cercata]

I just started with the A-10C and I'm very surprised how well it flights !!!!!

 

I don't get this Warthog surname, I don't know what modules you used before this one, but I come from a C-101, and I'm amazed how well the A-10C turns, and how well it mantains energy when manouvering over targets

[mvsgas]

...I don't get this Warthog surname, ...

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3470012&postcount=194

[Ironhand]

....

 

Test #1 @ Max Weight Test #2 @ Min Weight

Alt IAS AoA G Alt IAS AoA G

...........................................................

5k 402 9.3 5.6 5k * 11.8 8.9

 

 

 

Notes:

1. IAS was read from the cockpit steam gauge. Alt, AoA and G were read from the F2 page.

2. * Test #2 at 5k could not read cockpit IAS due to blackout effect.

3. See the attached track files.

Not that it really matters, I suppose, but your missing data point for Test #2 @ 5k is 349 IAS in case you'd like to fill in the blank.

[lobo]

Not that it really matters, I suppose, but your missing data point for Test #2 @ 5k is 349 IAS in case you'd like to fill in the blank.

 

Hi Ironhand,

 

Thanks for that. Fixed.

[Habu23]

Hi Ironhand,

 

Thanks for that. Fixed.

 

 

Good tests and I like how you are approaching the topic. Keep in mind that the A-10 only operates in the way you are describing during BFM when the defender and attacker are in a spiral dive to the floor and both at steady tone but they are excellent data points. What kind of stores did you use to increase gross weight?

 

 

 

I want you to focus on G available at 300 knots (planned release speed for levels and 10 LAHD deliveries). Regardless of configuration you should have no problem holding 4-5 G's with steady tone happening in the high 4's at the end of the maneuver. If you do this at higher density altitudes, it is possible to experience what we are seeing in DCS right now, which is the inability to actually get to 4Gs before steady tone occurs.

 

 

Here is what the turn level turn looks like:

 

 

 

 

 

Habu

Edited October 10, 2019 by Habu23