DCS A-10C QUESTIONS

[kylania]

In fact Sniper XR was avaliable in the real A-10C starting from very first Suites (at least I have seen it in Suite 3.1 videos). The reason why we don't model it is that it is almost the same as Litening pod for the pilot (same interface, same picture).

 

Yeah, but it's super sexy blue and angley! :) Maybe you can add it as an optional model and have it work just the same? But we'd be able to look this hot:

 

[ralfidude]

Oh dear god, what wouldnt i give to have that helmet sight... BTW, that picture up top, even though its landing, it still manages to look super dangerous with that minigun sticking out of its mouth. So I take it that you will not be upgrading the A-10C with any recent changes that may have been implemented due to the military only allowing you to declassify certain information? Either way, you guys are doing a helluva job. Im just waiting on the news of which fix wing aircraft you are working on currently (Fingers crossed on one of the F-15 variants, since its the best looking model in the DCS series I have seen to date).

[Olgerd]

Yeah, but it's super sexy blue and angley! :) Maybe you can add it as an optional model and have it work just the same? But we'd be able to look this hot:

 

The pod generated symbology in Sniper works in the same way as in Litening, but looks a bit different. See attached pics. So it is not enough just to replace the 3D model to get Sniper as accurately implemented as we have Litening now.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Olgerd

[GGTharos]

Oh dear god, what wouldnt i give to have that helmet sight... BTW, that picture up top, even though its landing, it still manages to look super dangerous with that minigun sticking out of its mouth.

 

It isn't a minigun ;)

[ralfidude]

same difference, ya know what I mean.

[ALDEGA]

It's a bit bigger than the Ka-50's ... nano-gun ;)

[Divide Et Impera]

The only différence i see is that one is in WHOT and the other in CCD . Will you implement it ? Its very Quick only to change the model , and the differences are quite nothing. It Will be a Nice présent to get this new pod , and More realistic !

[Snoopy]

The only différence i see is that one is in WHOT and the other in CCD . Will you implement it ? Its very Quick only to change the model , and the differences are quite nothing. It Will be a Nice présent to get this new pod , and More realistic !

 

How is it more realistic? Many a-10 units don't use the sniper pod...

[Olgerd]

I hear "suite 3.1" about what is DCS's A-10 model. What year or even month does this mean? If I make a mission I want it to be realistic to the time so no 2012 year SAMs against a 2003 year plane or something like this :)

 

2007-2008 years.

[Olgerd]

The only différence i see is that one is in WHOT and the other in CCD . Will you implement it ? Its very Quick only to change the model , and the differences are quite nothing. It Will be a Nice présent to get this new pod , and More realistic !

 

We will not implement it by just replacing the 3D model, as there are more differences than you have mentioned:

1) Different fonts used in the pods generated symboogy.

2) Different placement of the same symbology elements.

3) Different transfer alignment quality indicator.

4) Slightly different North indicator.

5) IR AREA instead of just AREA. In fact the pod can track IR picture while showing TV (CCD) picture.

6) Indication of the type of the laser used (combat or training).

 

The are many other differences not visible on the screens I've provided like completely different start up indicators (including start up BIT), etc...

I don't think that these differences are 'nothing'. :)

Edited October 31, 2011 by Olgerd

[kylania]

I don't think that these differences are 'nothing'. :)

 

Surely it's just one line of code! :huh:;)

[Divide Et Impera]

Olgerd, I am very happy with the LITENING II AT! :) For you to work late on Friday night so we have a TGP with a angle window in front is too much!

 

? its their jobs , not a free work. this sim aim the more realistic aspect possible, and they sell it with this argument, so i don't see it rude to ask for something's missing. And for Olgerd i love your work this is just to improve ;) , but if the differences are that much why didn't you modeled it ?

[nomdeplume]

? its their jobs , not a free work. this sim aim the more realistic aspect possible, and they sell it with this argument, so i don't see it rude to ask for something's missing.

But by the same token, the cost-benefit analysis wouldn't really stack up. It'd take some doing to implement the other pod and how many more sales would it yield? I'd estimate close to zero. Although I don't have any data to back it up, I'm pretty confident the number of people who chose not to buy Warthog because it only modeled the Litening II pod and not the Sniper pod could be counted on ones' fingers. If you're using the "but it's their job!" argument, then they're going to expect to be paid for it, therefore there needs to be a revenue prediction from spending that time. Nobody's going to run out and buy it because OMG Sniper pod!

 

I also don't really see at as being something that's 'missing'. We have a targeting pod that's contemporary with the avionics and weapons that are modeled. A clone of the targeting pod with some inconsequential changes to the symbology and visual model isn't an interesting feature, IMO. I'd actually prefer TISL to be implemented, since it'd only be a borderline useless addition instead of a completely useless addition. :)

[KillaALF]

AFAIK the Sniper pod is not compatible with the software suite that ED was allowed to portray, hence it's not in the sim.

[Divide Et Impera]

But by the same token, the cost-benefit analysis wouldn't really stack up. It'd take some doing to implement the other pod and how many more sales would it yield? I'd estimate close to zero. Although I don't have any data to back it up, I'm pretty confident the number of people who chose not to buy Warthog because it only modeled the Litening II pod and not the Sniper pod could be counted on ones' fingers. If you're using the "but it's their job!" argument, then they're going to expect to be paid for it, therefore there needs to be a revenue prediction from spending that time. Nobody's going to run out and buy it because OMG Sniper pod!

 

I also don't really see at as being something that's 'missing'. We have a targeting pod that's contemporary with the avionics and weapons that are modeled. A clone of the targeting pod with some inconsequential changes to the symbology and visual model isn't an interesting feature, IMO. I'd actually prefer TISL to be implemented, since it'd only be a borderline useless addition instead of a completely useless addition. :)

 

The TiSL isn't used anymore in the a10c. But the sniper XR yes. You can understand that its détails like this that make this sim great , if they modeled things like boarding ladder and canopy éjection in a patch why not the sniper XR ? In this sim psychology you can't say " oh its minor we don't care " . Its the principe of this sim to be that accurate. Do you think that modelling training weapons is More useful than this ???

[nomdeplume]

if they modeled things like boarding ladder and canopy éjection in a patch why not the sniper XR ?

If they took the same amount of effort to implement then you'd have a point... And these are functions I don't use/care about anyway, so it's a bit of a strange argument to make to me. Kind of like, "ED wasted time implementing these useless features, so surely that justifies wasting more time implementing more useless features"?

 

I'm not saying the features are completely useless. They're nice. But I didn't miss them when they were absent. I get that ED's priorities aren't my priorities, and I don't expect them to be. If they decide to add some version of the Sniper pod then I won't complain. There's just many other aspects that would add to my enjoyment much more than a different looking pod.

In this sim psychology you can't say " oh its minor we don't care " . Its the principe of this sim to be that accurate.

Sure but there's an endless list of minor things that aren't modeled. We can't have everything, and if we get to choose what not to have, then I'd choose not having duplicates of existing functions unless they actually provide materially different abilities/options.

Do you think that modelling training weapons is More useful than this ???

Well, yes. Training weapons provide an additional ability, i.e. the option of dropping inert weapons. Personally I'd like to see more time spent on training rounds, like having the ability to determine where they landed and decide if that was a 'hit' or a 'miss'. Even further than that, dry firing would be nice to have since that's something real pilots do a lot of. I don't know anywhere enough about this to determine how it's used and how it could be simulated, but every book I've read has included mention of it. Combined with the Nevada terrain that would provide a fabulously immersive training experience and a real clear line between "training" missions and "real" missions - given this is a sim and nothing is actually real. :) It would also help to relieve the cognitive dissonance I'm fairly sure I'll suffer when performing "training" missions in Nevada with live ammunition against maneuvering targets that fire back... especially air-to-air scenarios (which I'm presuming will be a feature of the next module).

 

In contrast, the Sniper pod wouldn't provide any additional abilities/features/functionality beyond what's already present, but it would take resources that could be used on other things - be it more work on DCS Warthog or getting the next module finished 6 hours sooner. Both would, IMO, be more valuable to me as a customer than another targeting pod that provides the same functionality as the existing one.

 

If there's actually a functional reason to take one pod over the other in the sim, then that'd be a different matter. But I think they're probably restricted in terms of what technology/capabilities they're able to present, so another pod would be functionally the same as the existing one. That's a pretty big assumption to base my opinion on, but I haven't seen anything contradicting it so far.

[Olgerd]

The reason why we have modelled training weapons and Litening (instead of Sniper) is that they already have been implemented in DTS. Perhaps in DCS A-10C 2.0 we could add Sniper. Will see.

[Olgerd]

AFAIK the Sniper pod is not compatible with the software suite that ED was allowed to portray, hence it's not in the sim.

 

Sniper XR is compatible with A-10C starting from Suite 3.1.

[Mack]

Well, Olgerd, you guys certainly did a fine job. There are many betters that are the enemy of excellent, but at some point the product has to ship. It's never happened before that a computer product has me considering purchasing the best hardware to run it, but you've done it. Looking forward to more.

[Speed]

Personally, I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have a helmet mounted sight than the comparatively-useless addition of the Sniper pod- assuming the A-10C HAS a helmet mounted sight. Did they implement it yet on the real jet?

 

Anyway, it's such a pain in the @$$ to visually be able to see your target just fine, but in order to slew my sensors to it, I have to turn around, go into a dive, place it on the HUD, and slew the little box-thingie over it. UGH!!!! Things are so much easier in the Ka-50.

 

So yea, if there was ever an ED update for A-10 to add more functionality, AND a helmet-mounted sighting system gets added to the REAL LIFE A-10, then a helmet mounted sighting system would get my vote for most important addition...

[andysim]

I would have thought ground pounders would be prime targets for upgrades to Helmet Cue systems tbh. Im suprised all the CAS aircraft dont have this. If I was in charge they would hehe.

 

Which is why im not in charge, they cost monies =)

[EvilBivol-1]

Personally, I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have a helmet mounted sight than the comparatively-useless addition of the Sniper pod- assuming the A-10C HAS a helmet mounted sight. Did they implement it yet on the real jet?

 

"July 19/10: Raytheon announces a $12.6 million USAF contract for Phase 1 integration and qualification of the Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting (HMIT) system for USAF and Air National Guard A-10C and F-16C Block 30/32 aircraft. Raytheon Technical Services Company LLC (RTSC), the prime contractor, is teamed with Gentex Corp. in Simpson, PA to produce the system, based on Gentex’s Visionix Scorpion™ Helmet Mounted Cueing System.

 

HMIT will be a night-vision compatible helmet-mounted display that shows crucial information in high-resolution color imagery directly in the pilot’s field of vision. The color imagery is a step forward, and information displayed will include weapons-cueing, targeting and situational data from on-board and remote sensors. Like other HMDs, the system will track helmet movement to display accurate imagery, regardless of the direction the pilot’s head is turned. The program includes 5 one-year production options, with a potential total value up to $50 million."

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-highertech-hog-the-a10c-pe-program-03187/

http://www.gentexcorp.com/default.aspx?pageid=2602

[Specter1606688147]

It's not rude to ask at all :) Everyone should ask for what they want even if it's small or takes a long time or both. Never listen to anyone who makes you feel bad for wishing for a feature. Maybe it's outside the contract, not priority, or beyond cost/benefit but always express want. How else will they know?

 

I agree with you 100%. I've read to many times in the past that PC users just don't buy Sims and when they do, the sales are low. When I look at the products that are being released (like the new JANES title), it's no wonder that Sims are not being bought. They make what they think we want. But when a company like this one actually takes the time to do a real Sim, I'm both shocked and impressed.

 

Seems JANES thinks PC Simmers like the "Arcade" junk. This company knows we don't and that's because we let them know what we like.

 

As for a "Wish list" of add-ons, I'd like a single player career mode that allows the pilot to age, work up the ranks and earn both Ribbons and Medals based on career performance as well as mission performance and a screen showing the pilot in full dress uniform with decorations, BUT, that's just me :pilotfly:

[Torment]

As for a "Wish list" of add-ons, I'd like a single player career mode that allows the pilot to age, work up the ranks and earn both Ribbons and Medals based on career performance as well as mission performance and a screen showing the pilot in full dress uniform with decorations, BUT, that's just me :pilotfly:

 

That's an interesting concept, kind of like adding a bit of an RPG element to it.

 

Of course for the first couple of "years" you'd have to be a wingman with the AI telling you "Look you are a wingman you are only allowed to say: Two, Lead you're on fire, bingo, and I'll take the fat one."

[Specter1606688147]

That's an interesting concept, kind of like adding a bit of an RPG element to it.

 

Of course for the first couple of "years" you'd have to be a wingman with the AI telling you "Look you are a wingman you are only allowed to say: Two, Lead you're on fire, bingo, and I'll take the fat one."

 

Actually, the "career" idea is not a new idea. Microprose used to add it to all their Sims 10-15 years ago. They had ribbons that were earned over a period of time as well as medals depending on mission performance. Sims seemed to have moved in the direction of arcade games since they were bought out by infogrames (later changed to Atari) and then closed. Microprose last title was B-17: The Mighty Eighth. It tracked any where from 12 crewmen to 120. They were just told to release it unfinished during the buyout and never activated the Ranking structure or MP feature so promotions were not possible but there were 12 Medals (highest being CMOH and lowest being Campaign), and 1 (PUC) Ribbon and none were easy to earn and none were earned just for completing a mission.