A-10 AGM missle problems

[slug88]

Regarding the problem above, are you guys binding the seeker to mouse axes, and then controlling them with ministicks on your HOTAS? If so, I had the same exact problem with unstable seekers. I solved it by setting bands to the HOTAS ministick, and binding keyboard keys to the bands to move the seeker instead. E.g., for the up band, i bound ;, for the down band, I bound ., and , and / for left and right respectively. This way I could control the seeker head on all AC with complete precision on all aircraft.

[nomdeplume]

For target-spotting: use the zoom-in feature to zoom into the seeker display. You can see much, much more detail like that. By this I mean, if you're using the IR Maverick, stabilise it near your target, activate its zoom mode, and then use the game's zoom ability (numpad / and *) to zoom into the display. You can make out a lot of detail on units doing this, and makes it possible to ID targets from a reasonable distance.

 

If you're using TrackIR, by default the Z axis (closer/further from screen) has a very small effect in-game. You can remap this to control your zoom level so it's far more effective.

 

Regarding the problem above, are you guys binding the seeker to mouse axes, and then controlling them with ministicks on your HOTAS?

 

I have the same problem with the ground-stabilised seeker never moving in the direction I want. I'm using joystick POV buttons mapped to send the ; , . / keys. (I'd really love a HOTAS with a good cursor-control input.) It's very frustrating trying to e.g. pan across a column of vehicles. Does yours work reliably once you're ground stabilised?

 

I also think the Strela lock range is far too short. I know it's done for gameplay reasons, but it just feels hokey. You have a column of vehicles and you can lock trucks or cars on either side, but the Strela in the middle is somehow undetectable by the IR seeker because it happens to be a Strela? Strelas should be sitting ducks against AGM-65Ds, IMO.

[VTJS17_Fire]

But, if the seeker is now "good and real simulated", why can i lock a ZU-23 on about 7 nm with the heat from the two soldiers (~38°C), who handle this aaa?

 

And a Strela, with a engine which have about the same temperature like a tank engine, at only about 3nm and the tank on over 7nm?

And, if the Strela is a smaller target for the missiles seeker (however?), why is the ZSU 23-4 a larger/ better target?

What's the reason? The targets temperature (engine) or the targets size?

 

I don't understand the logic ...

 

 

Edit:

The infrared Maverick D can track heat generated by a target and provide the pilot a pictorial display of the target during darkness and hazy or inclement weather.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-65.htm

 

 

kind regards,

fire

Edited May 28, 2010 by VTJG17_Fire

[ZQuickSilverZ]

Viper in regards to your pics where you highlighted the target in red boxes and asked the veiwer to "spot it now" those targets where on light colored backgrounds (the runway) creating high contrast and alot easier than normal combat conditions. Also using a still picture to spot targets is alot different than spoting them on a moving screen. All that aside I do agree with you that spotting targets visually is probably realistically modeled. However, the example you used was pretty flawed.

 

I also have had problems with the seeker jumping around. I refuse to believe that the military would use a system that FIGHTS pilot input in a high stress, limited time, life and death situation. I understand that its supposed to be somewhat automated to assist the pilot. However, I would think the pilot giving input to the seeker would override its automated assist, that way you dont have 2 things fighting for control of the seeker. If they let the computer overide the pilot during a targeting phase when the pilot is putting in constant input, thats a pretty foolish mistake. Tell me if I am off base here.

[HiJack]

I have no problem with either the Su-25T or Ka-50 on my POV2 assignment to slew the seeker. The seeker NEVER goes in wrong direction from the assignment there. So is it A-10A (MAV) settings thats screwed or maybe Su-25T needs some adjustments to??? Why stop there? Change the Ka-50 vikhr's as well!!!! They are well owerpowerd don't you think?

 

(HJ)

[159th_Viper]

.....However, the example you used was pretty flawed.

 

How so?

 

The Pic was meant to confirm that even though one knows where the targets are, they are still pretty impossible to visually acquire in a Test-Scenario, never mind a Combat environment.

 

Thought I was pretty clear.........

 

 

 

 

In this instance, it was simplified by the fact that it was a test/illustration of a principle-targets were within 'easy reach', so to speak.

 

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

 

Just for clarification - I did not visually acquire the targets prior to Ground-stabilizing the Mav reticle.

 

 

;)

[sweinhart3]

Im pretty sure the slew control is bugged as far as controlling it goes. Computer assist of slewing is a seperate but related issue which as ZQ states, I can understand initial computer assist but I refuse to believe that real life pilots have to fight where it locks (ground stabilizes)

[MIGHAIL]

ir for incrizing lock range

range of operation up to 20km

sorry, but shkval in su-25t same grap in game

wether condition could be change this 20km but not target geometrical parameter this is my logic, if u guys got docs what say about difference bitwin t-80 and zsu-23 for optical systems in agm-64, this will realy interesting, but not fantazy about this, maybe tramp or setting duck could be locked from 20km and tanks from 19km, but zur will locked from 10nm by this logick of newtonn optical conception, ir work for night hunting, as say ed enciclopedia:)

Edited May 28, 2010 by MIGHAIL

[Nate--IRL--]

Im pretty sure the slew control is bugged as far as controlling it goes. Computer assist of slewing is a seperate but related issue which as ZQ states, I can understand initial computer assist but I refuse to believe that real life pilots have to fight where it locks (ground stabilizes)

 

Just tested this and I have to agree. The pipper was slewing in completely the opposite direction or diagonally away from where I wanted it to go. Annoying to say the least.

 

Nate

[HiJack]

Just tested this and I have to agree. The pipper was slewing in completely the opposite direction or diagonally away from where I wanted it to go. Annoying to say the least.

 

Nate

It leaves the A-10A in the trash again. Must wait for next patch to do the campaign again then. Pitty :huh:

 

By the way, campaign mission 6B is a good test to do with the new settings!

Edited May 28, 2010 by HiJack

[JaBoG32_Prinzartus]

Had the same issue. But assigning the slew keys to bands in my hotas setup solved this issue for me! Using x-52pro.

[ZQuickSilverZ]

How so?

 

The Pic was meant to confirm that even though one knows where the targets are, they are still pretty impossible to visually acquire in a Test-Scenario, never mind a Combat environment.

 

Thought I was pretty clear.........

 

;)

 

Oh you were very clear. Thats what making a post at 5AM in the morning does for you when you should have went to bed at midnight. It makes you look like an a$$clown. I have no reason for that comment other than I was too tired to follow your thread with any logic due to lack of sleep. I am 100% right about the A-10 maverick targeting system being totally screwed though.

 

As a sidenote if any of you fly the Su25 or Su25t I would'nt mind some instruction. Maybee a fly along?

Edited May 29, 2010 by ZQuickSilverZ

[HiJack]

Had the same issue. But assigning the slew keys to bands in my hotas setup solved this issue for me! Using x-52pro.

 

Have X-52PRO as well. I use POV1 and it don't work good on the A-10A after patch. I use my Wheels for trim so bands is out of the question. ;)

POV1 works great with all other aircrafts and the Ka-50 so something in the A-10A config is broken :(

[nomdeplume]

Had the same issue. But assigning the slew keys to bands in my hotas setup solved this issue for me! Using x-52pro.

 

Are you sure you're talking about the same problem? It's only the ground-stabilisation mode that has this problem. i.e. if you slew the seeker head before pressing the lock button (while it's a dotted circle) it works fine. If you hit lock (enter) it will ground-stabilise on the point under the reticule. Now when you slew the seeker head, it will respond bizarrely to your inputs.

 

If you really do have it working perfectly fine with the 1.2.1 patch I'd love to know.

[JaBoG32_Prinzartus]

I just double checked. It does almost act the same in before and after ground stabilization.

Although in GS-mode, it sometimes does lock-on to buildings etc. when slewing, therfore it does not slew without 'hickups'.

 

Otherwise it is fine. Again, I checked and TDC-Axis ARE assigened to Mouse X, Mouse Y respectively. (I think I stated otherwise before).

And in Saitek Profiler I assgined pinkie+ministick with "Mouse"control.

 

It does work fine !

Edited May 30, 2010 by JaBoG32_Prinzartus

[nomdeplume]

Ah yes, you did say before you were using bands to send the keystrokes. I just tried it using the mouse for input and the issue isn't present there. Of course, then I can't use the mouse to control the external views, plus I have a cursor running around my second screen which is a bit distracting.

 

It also seems like the issue (when using the keyboard/button slew controls) is most prevalent at closer ranges, and when off-boresight. However it's possible it's just easier to notice it when it's closer since you can see more clearly.

[HiJack]

This is really bugging me :tomato: The lock and slew problem only comes when there are a AAA in the target area! Shilka for example is almost impossible to lock if there are tanks around it. It locks on to all other vehicles close by! It’s no problem to take out the Shilka with cannon but it’s nerve-wracking :cry: SAM’s is impossible to take out with cannon, haven’t tried but I guess it is if you play in real mode.

 

On the more positive side I’ve brought home the A-10A twice now with only one engine after Shilka attack and landed safely both times :thumbsup: Flying on the eminent 104th server of course. Question: How the heck do I put out the fire in the engine? I have the procedure for starting and shutting down the engines separately but I don’t know how to put out the fire. Is it automatically?

 

(HJ)

[Moa]

Well done landing your crippled Hog. There is no fire extinguisher in LockOn FC2. The upcoming DCS:A-10 will almost certainly have them (I'm not affiliated with ED in any way, but since the engine extinguisher controls are so prominent it would be a real surprise if they didn't work in the DCS version of the A-10).

[nomdeplume]

Given the short duration of most engine fires, I assumed the extinguishers were automatically fired in FC2. Either that or the severity/duration of a fire is randomly decided taking into account that a pilot would almost certainly activate the extinguisher.

 

I have noticed that the game seems to remember if the engine was on or not once you get magic-repaired, so I always turn the engine off it catches fire anyway. I don't think this has any effect on how long it burns for though.