Community A-4E-C v2.3 (May 2025)

[Hiob]

On 10/31/2022 at 4:39 PM, One Eyed Ross said:

ok, took the girl out for a spin today in OpenBeta.  Had to reconfigure my HOTAS a bit, and bind some keys & stuff (which was expected).  She flies a bit differently now than before, but that might just be me and 2.8 learning to get along.  Will take me a few days to get used to things.  Again, thanks for the hard work!

 

2 hours ago, JNelson said:

There shouldn't be any flight model changes in this version!

Perhaps the he set some curves for the axes that were reset with the update? That can already make it feel different?

Anyway. The Skyhawk is a marvelous module and a gift that keep on giving! Thank you!

[One Eyed Ross]

6 hours ago, Hiob said:

 

Perhaps the he set some curves for the axes that were reset with the update? That can already make it feel different?

Anyway. The Skyhawk is a marvelous module and a gift that keep on giving! Thank you!

That is exactly what happened.  Once I re-tuned the axis for my stick, things are all better now.  Best plane out there.  

[SomethingAncient]

Ah, so that's what happened. So glad it's a version difference that caused carrier launches to damage the carrier, the TACAN and ILS to not work, and different flight handling (reverted to a SFM possibly?). Downloading update now. Thank you to those who keep working on this mod!

Edited November 3, 2022 by SomethingAncient

[Calabrone]

Guys with each update I save the whole input folder and then restore it. I've always been fine with it.

[scoobie]

So the Scooter actually could be better than in the previous release? I didn't expect that!

Thanks a lot! Very cool sound additions - EW (I must explore it further), but also tyres when they're complaining, the spoiler arm/disarm gives a quiet short sound (don't know if it's new, but never heard it before), new (IIRC) missile warning sound, TEST button lets you test this sound too (so you can turn the volume down a priori and not get a heart attack when you get fired upon later). RWR test improved with the growl.
SLEW axes for lots of analog things, apart from a tonne of "absolute" (normal) axes. AMAZING! No one has ever done this before!
Again - huge thanks for the terrific job you guys are doing!

Microbug: "Shrike/Sidewinder Volume Knob - Absolute" controls the in-cockpit knob in the range of 50% to 100% of volume, in other words you can't turn down the volume below 50% with a bound axis, you can only do it with the mouse.

Edited November 3, 2022 by scoobie

[scoobie]

I don't know if this is a good place to ask this.
I seem unable to find solid info on "EW" package in our A-4, that is RWR, a jammer maybe (?), whatever exactly the set of devices is.

In the Community Guide it says it is AN/APR-23. In the cockpit it says APR-25 (twenty five, not three). One switch selects audio between APR-25 and "ALQ". ALQ should (I think) refer to a "broader package" of devices... or maybe not, IDK. What is "ALQ" then? Then you've got APR-27 switch (ON/OFF), what is APR-27? The community guide says it's "alert receiver"? If it's a receiver where does it receive the alert from? I thought the very RWR is - as the name indicates - a receiver. It receives radar signals illuminating the Scooter, demodulates them, probably does some more "post-processing" to turn the signals into audio for the pilot. So why do I need another "alert receiver" APR-27?
Finally we've got the separate grey knob OFF/STBY/REC/RPT, so "REC" is probably another thing that receives something. What does it receive? Then "RPT" seems to stand for "repeat", so is this a jammer?
In total 3 things can be turned or flicked into "OFF" position in this panel. How many devices do we have in this package then? Which one does what?

Sorry for all the dumb questions, but I've just realized I don't get what we've got there. I can flick switches at random, make the thing make funny sounds, but I don't understand what I'm doing.
Can somebody illuminate a simple pretend-pilot with knowledge?

[Rudel_chw]

2 hours ago, scoobie said:

In the Community Guide it says it is AN/APR-23. In the cockpit it says APR-25 (twenty five, not three). One switch selects audio between APR-25 and "ALQ". ALQ should (I think) refer to a "broader package" of devices... or maybe not, IDK. What is "ALQ" then? Then you've got APR-27 switch (ON/OFF), what is APR-27?

 

The A-4E was equipped with a first generation Radar Warning set, the AN/APR-25A. This device was designed to provide 360 degree warning of S, C and X band radar signals, giving the pilot aural and visual cues notifying when a radar was painting the aircraft.

 

In addition, the A-4E was fitted with an AN/APR-27, which was a SAM Launch Warning Set. This device detected the change in signals of the SA-2 radar, which occurred when a missile was fired. It provides the pilot with an aural and visual cue whenever a SAM is launched.

On DCS these RWR devices detect any type of radar guided missile, tough in reality they were designed mostly to counteract the SA-2.

 

2 hours ago, scoobie said:

Finally we've got the separate grey knob OFF/STBY/REC/RPT, so "REC" is probably another thing that receives something. What does it receive? Then "RPT" seems to stand for "repeat", so is this a jammer?

 

Yes, when seting up the system, Rotate the ECM Mode Knob to its STBY position, to allow it to warm-up. It will take two minutes and then the STBY light will turn off. Once the STBY light goes off, Set the ECM Mode knob to the REC (receive) position, to enable the Missile Launch Warning alarm. 

 

On this Mode, the system is passive and does not emit. However, once the enemy has detected and fired upon us, you should then move the knob to the RPT position. This will activate the Jammer, to re-transmit the detected signal (repeat), to interfere with the SAM guidance.

[JNelson]

On 11/3/2022 at 12:33 AM, SomethingAncient said:

Ah, so that's what happened. So glad it's a version difference that caused carrier launches to damage the carrier, the TACAN and ILS to not work, and different flight handling (reverted to a SFM possibly?). Downloading update now. Thank you to those who keep working on this mod!

 

It's not possible that's it's reverted to the SFM, lots of things would not work. The carrier being damaged is a bug that has reared it's head before and has come back, but seems unrelated to the scooter (in that we have no control over that).

[scoobie]

5 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

The A-4E was equipped with a first generation Radar Warning set, the AN/APR-25A.

Thank you, Rudel_chw! I tried to dig some more details out of the internet, but to no avail. I think I need NAVAIR 01-40AV-1T(A). Couldn't find it anywhere.

Anyway, the set of equpiment in our A-4E-C version is somewhat mysterious.

AN/APR-25 should be a typical RWR suite - just as you said - for aural AND VISUAL cues, so it should have a control panel (similar to the one we've got in DCS:F-5E) and a round scope with lines stretching from the center of the scope outwards, indicating "contacts" (radar illumination directions).

Trouble is... our Scooter has no control panel, no RWR scope, but the ECM panel still suggests there's APR-25 on board. What the heck?
I think it's either because the ECM box was taken from a different version of A-4 (or a different plane altogether) and APR-25 was NOT really on board, or, 25 was actually installed, but only to generate aural indications to the pilot.

Things get even more confusing. The "ALQ" supposedly stands for AN/ALQ-51, which indeed was a jammer (or "track breaker"). You're right about SA-2 (I didn't know that!), I also read it was quite capable of defeating SA-2 missiles. When lucky, it could fool them to detonate prematurely or not detonate at all. But I digress. Apparently, ALQ-51 could also generate some kind of sounds for the pilot, as we have this "AUDIO" switch to choose between APR-25 and ALQ audio, but what sounds exactly - no idea.

All in all, it remains irrelevant for our Community A-4E-C, because the devs don't have information on what sounds ALQ produced, so "AUDIO" switch does not switch between any "two kinds of audio". Also, the "RPT" position of the grey knob only illuminates the "RPT" light on ECM panel when you've been locked or the missile is guided against you (it won't defeat or fool anything, it's just a light).

This is not to say our Scooter is any less awesome! I just wanted to understand more about real Scooter (but failed ).

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by scoobie

[One Eyed Ross]

On 11/1/2022 at 9:28 PM, JNelson said:

There shouldn't be any flight model changes in this version!

So, after further review (and recognizing that sometimes people can be...uh....) I have figured out what happened.  As I mentioned, I did have to redo my HOTAS settings a bit, since there were some new key bindings & co., with the update.

Seems someone (who shall remain nameless) inadvertently loaded the OLD settings for his plane and was hitting the air brake switch instead of the one he wanted....of course, being focused on something else, that person noticed the plane was flying oddly but failed to see the "speedbrake open" light in his cockpit.....

I will have a long talk with said individual and remind him that drinking whiskey while doing key bindings is not a good idea....

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, scoobie said:

AN/APR-25 should be a typical RWR suite - just as you said - for aural AND VISUAL cues, so it should have a control panel (similar to the one we've got in DCS:F-5E) and a round scope with lines stretching from the center of the scope outwards, indicating "contacts" (radar illumination directions).

 

Not a "typical" RWR, it was actually the first RWR in service with the USAF and it is a very primitive unit. The A-4E was not initially equipped with this device, it was fitted later, to those A-4E reworked per AFC 325.

On this early stage, the APR-25 had no "scope", and even if it did, the instruments panel didn't have space to fit it, that's why the Chaff and ECM were mounted on the cockpit frame rather than on the consoles or front panel.

Here is a nice article that I found on this subject:

https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ai6cuX3YQI26iahm0d5UanDUh3QU2w?e=IPYNkq

 

1 hour ago, scoobie said:

Trouble is... our Scooter has no control panel, no RWR scope, but the ECM panel still suggests there's APR-25 on board. What the heck?

 

On my case, I fully trust the development team behind the A-4E for accuracy, as they do had access to the real manuals and also to subject matter experts, so I don't doubt the accuracy of what is represented on the Sim.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Rudel_chw

[scoobie]

Thanks! No, no, I didn't suggest the team "hid" the RWR scope to cause social unrest or something I'm sure they know what they're doing. What I didn't understand was why there are 3 "ON/OFF" switches for 2 things and "AUDIO" switch to change audio from RWR to you-don't-know-what. It turns out there ARE 3 things there, not 2, and the AUDIO was to switch to some kind of jammer audio for the pilot, but no one knows what sounds it would generate. So everything clicks now.

And now for something completely different. I'm a pro - look!

null

[JNelson]

7 hours ago, scoobie said:

Thank you, Rudel_chw! I tried to dig some more details out of the internet, but to no avail. I think I need NAVAIR 01-40AV-1T(A). Couldn't find it anywhere.

Anyway, the set of equpiment in our A-4E-C version is somewhat mysterious.

AN/APR-25 should be a typical RWR suite - just as you said - for aural AND VISUAL cues, so it should have a control panel (similar to the one we've got in DCS:F-5E) and a round scope with lines stretching from the center of the scope outwards, indicating "contacts" (radar illumination directions).

Trouble is... our Scooter has no control panel, no RWR scope, but the ECM panel still suggests there's APR-25 on board. What the heck?
I think it's either because the ECM box was taken from a different version of A-4 (or a different plane altogether) and APR-25 was NOT really on board, or, 25 was actually installed, but only to generate aural indications to the pilot.

Things get even more confusing. The "ALQ" supposedly stands for AN/ALQ-51, which indeed was a jammer (or "track breaker"). You're right about SA-2 (I didn't know that!), I also read it was quite capable of defeating SA-2 missiles. When lucky, it could fool them to detonate prematurely or not detonate at all. But I digress. Apparently, ALQ-51 could also generate some kind of sounds for the pilot, as we have this "AUDIO" switch to choose between APR-25 and ALQ audio, but what sounds exactly - no idea.

All in all, it remains irrelevant for our Community A-4E-C, because the devs don't have information on what sounds ALQ produced, so "AUDIO" switch does not switch between any "two kinds of audio". Also, the "RPT" position of the grey knob only illuminates the "RPT" light on ECM panel when you've been locked or the missile is guided against you (it won't defeat or fool anything, it's just a light).

This is not to say our Scooter is any less awesome! I just wanted to understand more about real Scooter (but failed ).

 

 

As of the last update the RPT will actually jam when receiving a signal.

[JeffreyC]

Skidding had a bit of a problem. When the rear wheel locks up on one side and skids it should not cause the aircraft to suddenly start going straight forward. Especially if it was already in a turning condition previously. The reverse should happen, exacerbating the turning in the direction of the locked wheel rather than nullifying it.

Edited November 7, 2022 by JeffreyC

[JNelson]

On 11/6/2022 at 11:41 PM, JeffreyC said:

Skidding had a bit of a problem. When the rear wheel locks up on one side and skids it should not cause the aircraft to suddenly start going straight forward. Especially if it was already in a turning condition previously. The reverse should happen, exacerbating the turning in the direction of the locked wheel rather than nullifying it.

 

Static friction for rubber is higher than sliding friction. This means that a wheel which is skidding has less friction and therefore less braking force overall.

[JeffreyC]

11 hours ago, JNelson said:

Static friction for rubber is higher than sliding friction. This means that a wheel which is skidding has less friction and therefore less braking force overall.

Try it in real world if you have to. Your function for skidding is opposite of what is should be. A wheel locked on one side of a vehicle, no matter what the vehicle is, produces far greater friction than a turning wheel. Once again, skidding on one side does NOT cause straight movement! Further, with a caster wheel, locking the inward wheel will NOT reverse the caster movement.

Edited November 17, 2022 by JeffreyC

[Chronocidal]

It's also not even entirely a matter of static vs sliding.. it feels like the brakes locking causes the plane to accelerate, even in an absence of thrust, as if the combination of brake forces is causing a negative friction coefficient in some cases.

Maybe I'm imagining things, but it feels like there's some really weird math going on when using both brakes.  I know the caster front gear is accurate to the aircraft, but the physics of that steering system have sent me over the side of the deck more times in the past week of learning the A-4 than all of the rest of my flying in DCS combined.  

There was a later nosewheel steering upgrade to the A-4, I believe at the F-model, so I feel like it would be worth offering an option to use normal steering, if people want it.

[tigayot228]

2 hours ago, Chronocidal said:

There was a later nosewheel steering upgrade to the A-4, I believe at the F-model, so I feel like it would be worth offering an option to use normal steering, if people want it.

Thanks guy. If has option of nosewheel, I can maybe play again this flight. I had sarcoma in leg and now is dificulty turning flight in deck. Impossible

[Tshark]

2 hours ago, JeffreyC said:

Try it in real world if you have to. Your function for skidding is opposite of what is should be. A wheel locked on one side of a vehicle, no matter what the vehicle is, produces far greater friction than a turning wheel. Once again, skidding on one side does NOT cause straight movement! Further, with a caster wheel, locking the inward wheel will NOT reverse the caster movement.

 

To be clear, if you have two wheels braking and one locks, then the locked wheel produces less friction (stopping ability) that the turning wheel with braking pressure applied.  The vehicle will yaw in the direction of the braking wheel that is still turning. This is the basic physics behind anti-skid brakes.

[JNelson]

2 hours ago, JeffreyC said:

Try it in real world if you have to. Your function for skidding is opposite of what is should be. A wheel locked on one side of a vehicle, no matter what the vehicle is, produces far greater friction than a turning wheel. Once again, skidding on one side does NOT cause straight movement! Further, with a caster wheel, locking the inward wheel will NOT reverse the caster movement.

 

I appreciate your concern, but this is categorically false. Skidding always reduces the friction, a rolling wheel has static friction which can deliver more force through friction when the brakes are applied.

There are two perfect examples in the real-world of this effect:

• ABS (Anti-lock braking system) -> this keeps the wheels spinning to decrease stopping distance (over fully locking your wheels, a driver can out brake ABS but this is only because the cause the wheels to never skid whereas ABS will cause them to skid less).
• Traction control for launching a car, when accelerating it is widely known that when the wheels spin due to too much torque the force put through the wheels is much lower due to the reduce friction due to the wheel sliding.

Lastly google is sliding friction v static friction you will find that static friction is higher than sliding friction, see: 

 

2 hours ago, Chronocidal said:

It's also not even entirely a matter of static vs sliding.. it feels like the brakes locking causes the plane to accelerate, even in an absence of thrust, as if the combination of brake forces is causing a negative friction coefficient in some cases.

Maybe I'm imagining things, but it feels like there's some really weird math going on when using both brakes.  I know the caster front gear is accurate to the aircraft, but the physics of that steering system have sent me over the side of the deck more times in the past week of learning the A-4 than all of the rest of my flying in DCS combined.  

There was a later nosewheel steering upgrade to the A-4, I believe at the F-model, so I feel like it would be worth offering an option to use normal steering, if people want it.

Hi this is not the case, there is still force slowing the aircraft down just less of it. 

[JeffreyC]

26 minutes ago, Tshark said:

To be clear, if you have two wheels braking and one locks, then the locked wheel produces less friction (stopping ability) that the turning wheel with braking pressure applied.  The vehicle will yaw in the direction of the braking wheel that is still turning. This is the basic physics behind anti-skid brakes.

You have an incorrect basis. One wheel is spinning freely and the other is locked it will always turn in the direction of the locked wheel.

22 minutes ago, JNelson said:

I appreciate your concern, but this is categorically false. Skidding always reduces the friction, a rolling wheel has static friction which can deliver more force through friction when the brakes are applied.

 

 

Your own statement shows mine is categorically TRUE. This it not a state of brakes being applied to two wheels and one locks. this is a case of brakes being applied to ONE wheel which locks. The friction of a FREELY TURNING WHEEL is always LESS than that lock a wheel which is dragging. This is very basic rudimentary physics.
Move an object forward, stop wheel on one side, object turns to that side.

[Art-J]

You guys are talking about two completely different things - one of you describes the situation where the wheel on non-locked side rotates freely, the other one describes situation where the wheel on non-locked side brakes, but without locking (like ABS in cars). In such situation both of you are right at the same time, so maybe step back and figure out what the original question / issue was in the first place ;).

Edited November 17, 2022 by Art-J

[JNelson]

46 minutes ago, JeffreyC said:

You have an incorrect basis. One wheel is spinning freely and the other is locked it will always turn in the direction of the locked wheel.

Your own statement shows mine is categorically TRUE. This it not a state of brakes being applied to two wheels and one locks. this is a case of brakes being applied to ONE wheel which locks. The friction of a FREELY TURNING WHEEL is always LESS than that lock a wheel which is dragging. This is very basic rudimentary physics.
Move an object forward, stop wheel on one side, object turns to that side.

Firstly you never said that you were braking with only one side. Secondly the friction is still less when a wheel is skidding when compared to the static friction.

In the condition you go from optimal braking to skidding the wheel there will be less braking force and therefore less turning moment. The only time it will turn into a skidding wheel more is if previously your wheel was freely turning and if you actually test this in the sim this is the case.

A quick way to test is to use the takeoff mission, accelerate to about 40 knots and then slam one brake on, it will turn into the skidding wheel. If however you apply optimal braking on one wheel it will turn in that direction then increasing the brake until it skids will reduce how fast it turns but it will still turn into that wheel.

35 minutes ago, Art-J said:

You guys are talking about two completely different things - one of you describes the situation where the wheel on non-locked side rotates freely, the other one describes situation where the wheel on non-locked side brakes, but without locking (like ABS in cars). In such situation both of you are right at the same time, so maybe step back and figure out what the original question / issue was in the first place ;).

 

Because they said exacerbate the turn I assumed they meant they were already braking with that wheel and were increasing the brake until it skids not going from zero brake -> full brake. To exacerbate would indicate they already turning, which if no brakes applied shouldn't be the case. 

[JeffreyC]

43 minutes ago, JNelson said:

Firstly you never said that you were braking with only one side. Secondly the friction is still less when a wheel is skidding when compared to the static friction.

In the condition you go from optimal braking to skidding the wheel there will be less braking force and therefore less turning moment. The only time it will turn into a skidding wheel more is if previously your wheel was freely turning and if you actually test this in the sim this is the case.

A quick way to test is to use the takeoff mission, accelerate to about 40 knots and then slam one brake on, it will turn into the skidding wheel. If however you apply optimal braking on one wheel it will turn in that direction then increasing the brake until it skids will reduce how fast it turns but it will still turn into that wheel.

Because they said exacerbate the turn I assumed they meant they were already braking with that wheel and were increasing the brake until it skids not going from zero brake -> full brake. To exacerbate would indicate they already turning, which if no brakes applied shouldn't be the case. 

Firstly, I said right from the start it locked up on one side. You assumed, wrongly, there was braking on both. The condition you stated is exactly what happens. Maybe I can make it more clear:

Condition 1: start vehicle moving straight, press full right (or left) brake, that wheel locks and vehicle continues straight.
Condition 2: while vehicle is moving use light to moderate right or left brake as needed on that one side only to induce a turn. While turning, apply full brake only on that inward wheel (no brake on outer wheel). When wheel locks vehicle snaps to straight movement.

Hopefully this makes it more clear. Text can certainly be a limitation in conveying information at times and not a condition where a screen capture would be useful.

Oh, I should mention also, I did delete 2.0.1 for a clean install of 2.1.0 (DCS 2.8) to prevent weird copy over things from happening.

Edited November 17, 2022 by JeffreyC

[Chronocidal]

2 hours ago, JNelson said:

Hi this is not the case, there is still force slowing the aircraft down just less of it. 

This is the part that doesn't feel like it's actually working though.  It feels like there is -no- force slowing the plane down when both brakes lock, because they stop working, and the plane just starts gliding over the edge of the deck with no way to stop, as if pushed by something.

I'll go try it out in a few different conditions, it might have been a combination of wind and weather making things worse yesterday on the server I was on.