Underpowered Engines?

[CallsignPunch]

So I feel we've heard before from A-10 guys that this module is a bit underpowered from the real thing.  I'm aware of the difference things like temp, weight, and density altitude will have on performance, but if indeed the DCS A-10C II is underpowered or "rumored" underpowered based on data that is publicly availible, couldn't ED just bump the engine power in the code by say 5% or so?

 

Any real A-10 drivers swing by the forums and have any thoughts on the performance of the module compared to the real thing....sure it's a pig and generally underpowered all around, the module just seems even less performing than what I remember from my days controlling CAS.

 

Cheers!

[BuzzU]

I thought the real pilots said it was accurate.

[ESzczesniak]

What type of loadout are you using?  DCS simmers are a little aggressive on the load outs through TER's on, triple mavericks on a hard point, etc.  These loads are notorious drag suckers and were rarely used.  Particular at a hot Bagram with it's shorter runway, the A-10's just could not carry these operationally. 

[Ramses823]

As far as I know the engine preformance is realistically modeled, you will hear stories of real A-10 pilots saying they wish the airplane had more power. The biggest thing is to use realistic loadouts with the A-10, there are a ton of pictures online with combat loadouts that they use in real life and for new players you have to understand where the aircraft preformance is at its best which is from 15,000ft on down if you try to load the A-10 with 6 Maverics and 6 GBU-12s and fly in at 20,000ft she's going to be a absolute pig.  

[Dragan]

My standard loadout in 90% of missions is 2 Mavericks and 4 bombs, mostly GBU-12s but very often Mk-82s are also present. I have long since removed the AIM-9 and all types of ALQ electronic countermeasures from use, but I did this specifically because of the right slope that has been bothering me since last year because the weight of the AIM-9 missiles has increased and I don't know why, it's written here about it, with this loadout it takes me 10 minutes to climb to the set flight altitude of 19,000 feet, according to what I see you writing, increasing engine power would be appropriate if the pilots say so.

Edited January 27 by Dragan

[Thamiel]

We had that before:
 

 

[Ramses823]

1 hour ago, Dragan said:

My standard loadout in 90% of missions is 2 Mavericks and 4 bombs, mostly GBU-12s but very often Mk-82s are also present. I have long since removed the AIM-9 and all types of ALQ electronic countermeasures from use, but I did this specifically because of the right slope that has been bothering me since last year because the weight of the AIM-9 missiles has increased and I don't know why, it's written here about it, with this loadout it takes me 10 minutes to climb to the set flight altitude of 19,000 feet, according to what I see you writing, increasing engine power would be appropriate if the pilots say so.

I see your point. As long as they stick to the book as to what the engines are capable of per preformance charts I'm happy...

[Ramses823]

1 hour ago, Thamiel said:

We had that before:
 

 

I looked at the post and Snoopys opinion seems to be that the aircraft shouldn't actually be able to taxi at idle thrust and I mean the guy was a actual crew chief how can you argue with that? I just want the most realistic reflection of the A-10 that the developers can produce personally I'd like to see a pilot body for the A-10, a IFF page since the aircraft does have one even if it's just for looks I mean the F-16 has a IFF page so why can't we get one, also what I'd really like is further implementation of SADL because the A-10 should be able to communicate with link 16 so we could see enemy aircraft on the TAD as long as long as there is a AWACS in the mission.

Edited January 28 by Ramses823

[Thamiel]

The argument is that the guy in the cockpit tells it differently and sitting in an A-10 with airshow configuration the counterargument has been made that those aircrafts are much lighter and could indeed roll and taxi with idle engines. Only that you can reproduce that exact weight setting in DCS and our A-10s still wouldn't move.

[Snoopy]

16 hours ago, Ramses823 said:

I looked at the post and Snoopys opinion seems to be that the aircraft shouldn't actually be able to taxi at idle thrust and I mean the guy was a actual crew chief how can you argue with that? I just want the most realistic reflection of the A-10 that the developers can produce personally I'd like to see a pilot body for the A-10, a IFF page since the aircraft does have one even if it's just for looks I mean the F-16 has a IFF page so why can't we get one, also what I'd really like is further implementation of SADL because the A-10 should be able to communicate with link 16 so we could see enemy aircraft on the TAD as long as long as there is a AWACS in the mission.

That's my experience but I'll also say the the slope of the ramp, aircraft weight, wind, and other factors it probably could.

In addition to the TAD being more fleshed out that symbology should be included in the HMCS as well (and truthfully a lot of it in the TGP and HUD).  Maybe with ED going the "make assumptions off of youtube videos and other website info" for the F-35 we can start to see these things in the A-10C since you can find some of that stuff on various websites not behind a CAC wall.

[KevinAu]

What may need to be explored is the idle thrust being modelled and also the drag coeffiicient being used for rolling around on your wheels. It seems like all planes in dcs need a good goose of power to get rolling. My bet is there ground friction of the airfields in dcs is too high.

[ASAP]

21 hours ago, Ramses823 said:

I looked at the post and Snoopys opinion seems to be that the aircraft shouldn't actually be able to taxi at idle thrust and I mean the guy was a actual crew chief how can you argue with that?

I can argue that by saying that crew chiefs don't taxi the airplane around... Pilots do and I've heard from plenty that they never have to touch the power and the jet will taxi out of the parking spot as soon as you release brakes. They will bump the power momentarily to get out of the spot faster but if you are not on the brakes the jet rolls.

[Ramses823]

3 hours ago, ASAP said:

I can argue that by saying that crew chiefs don't taxi the airplane around... Pilots do and I've heard from plenty that they never have to touch the power and the jet will taxi out of the parking spot as soon as you release brakes. They will bump the power momentarily to get out of the spot faster but if you are not on the brakes the jet rolls.

I wish one of those pilots would weigh in on the issue but since there are no A-10 pilots communicating on the forums it makes sense to pay attention to what someone who has actually worked and been around the A-10 says ,honestly I wish one of the developers would weigh in on the issue it's either properly simulated or it needs refining if they just randomly add more thrust you can bet it's going to cause a issue somewhere else, I'm sure you've been playing DCS long enough to know supposedly fixing one thing often leads to something else being broken and playing around with the thrust seems like a thing that could cause some unexpected issues. I want a accurate simulation of the A-10 as I'm sure you do as well but before they put energy into messing with the thrust I'd rather the energy be put into a pilot body and further SADL implementation..

[Snoopy]

14 hours ago, ASAP said:

I can argue that by saying that crew chiefs don't taxi the airplane around... Pilots do and I've heard from plenty that they never have to touch the power and the jet will taxi out of the parking spot as soon as you release brakes. They will bump the power momentarily to get out of the spot faster but if you are not on the brakes the jet rolls.

Sure you can but how many A-10s have you been around connected on a headset to the pilot with chalks pulled and the pilot saying he's taking his feet of the breaks for a few seconds to stretch his legs?  

Also did you even read my post a few up from your post or are you once again just trying to counter what I say?  
 

 

Edited January 29 by Snoopy

[Snoopy]

12 hours ago, Ramses823 said:

I want a accurate simulation of the A-10 as I'm sure you do as well but before they put energy into messing with the thrust I'd rather the energy be put into a pilot body and further SADL implementation..

This!!!  If I'm right or wrong (again just going on what I have experienced over the years) but like @ASAP likes to point out I'm "just a crew chief" how does engine thrust at idle being to low to move the jet on the ground impact the effectiveness and fun of a combat simulator?  IMO is more important to have more fleshed out systems that actually matter in combat. 

If they're going to fix anything with the engines how about the damaged/windmilling engine still producing 3000 PSI which is 100% incorrect.

Edited January 29 by Snoopy

[Thamiel]

If you want to pursue your own agenda like pilot bodies or SADL improvements, just open a new thread and dont derail. Whataboutism is not going to undermine the topic of this thread which still reads "underpowered engines" and nothing else.

Do underpowered engines matter in combat? Depends on how underpowered they are. If they are that is, as some people quoted other factors possibly playing into this like tire pressure, friction rates and so on. I like the DCS Hog on the TWY. The Real Deal seems a lot more unnerving and troublesome while rolling down the lane.

[Ramses823]

14 minutes ago, Thamiel said:

If you want to pursue your own agenda like pilot bodies or SADL improvements, just open a new thread and dont derail. Whataboutism is not going to undermine the topic of this thread which still reads "underpowered engines" and nothing else.

Do underpowered engines matter in combat? Depends on how underpowered they are. If they are that is, as some people quoted other factors possibly playing into this like tire pressure, friction rates and so on. I like the DCS Hog on the TWY. The Real Deal seems a lot more unnerving and troublesome while rolling down the lane.

Don't be so emotional buddy it isn't that serious everything is going to be alright lol... listen the reason I brought up SADL is because I'm saying those things are of greater importance, imagine if you could actually see enemy aircraft, and SAM rings on the TAD or how about not having to sit in a empty cockpit. My statements are on point because I understand that things are going to be prioritized and a more realistic implementation of SADL should be a higher priority...

[Thamiel]

1 hour ago, Ramses823 said:

Don't be so emotional buddy it isn't that serious everything is going to be alright lol... listen the reason I brought up SADL is because I'm saying those things are of greater importance, imagine if you could actually see enemy aircraft,

The A-10 is not my only one DCS aircraft, thank you very much. Accept that SADL is of greater importance to you but not to me, so go promote your SADL somewhere else.

[Ramses823]

31 minutes ago, Thamiel said:

The A-10 is not my only one DCS aircraft, thank you very much. Accept that SADL is of greater importance to you but not to me, so go promote your SADL somewhere else.

My friend just like you're entitled to your opinion I'm  entitled to mine as well and I'll  voice it wherever I choose to do so. More over why are you so hostile? Take a chill pill the world isn't your punching bag. I'll send you a virtual hug you sound like you need one...

Edited January 29 by Ramses823