A-10C Screen Shots - 10 Sept 2010

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Nice!

 

Any chance of some night shots?

[CaptHawk]

:thumbup:Looking real good! BTW, hi all. Just joined. Old time flight simmer from way back. Just getting back into it and really looking forward to A 10Warthog Release.

[hassata]

Welcome!

[BlueRidgeDx]

 

Two of the screens shows a runway sign; "C 30-12" and "F 27-09".

 

 

As an aside, the sign configuration in the screenshots appear incorrect...at least by ICAO standards.

 

The red signs are mandatory instruction signs, and should only be found where the taxiway enters a runway, typically adjacent to the hold short line. Also, the white inscription should have a black outline, and the legend should have a black border.

 

In the screenshots, it looks like they're being used as an outbound destination sign, which would have a black inscription and a black border on a yellow background. Also, the dash "-" should actually be a dot "." to indicate a common taxi route to two different destinations. In this case runway 27 and runway 09 (even though they are the same physical runway, each threshold is a different destination).

[Focha]

As an aside, the sign configuration in the screenshots appear incorrect...at least by ICAO standards.

 

The red signs are mandatory instruction signs, and should only be found where the taxiway enters a runway, typically adjacent to the hold short line. Also, the white inscription should have a black outline, and the legend should have a black border.

 

In the screenshots, it looks like they're being used as an outbound destination sign, which would have a black inscription and a black border on a yellow background. Also, the dash "-" should actually be a dot "." to indicate a common taxi route to two different destinations. In this case runway 27 and runway 09 (even though they are the same physical runway, each threshold is a different destination).

 

It's a good critic but you should provide the information (or link to it), you can find the rules in ICAO Annex 14;

 

http://www.scribd.com/Annex-14-ICAO/d/5509407

 

Regards.

[BlueRidgeDx]

It's a good critic but you should provide the information (or link to it), you can find the rules in ICAO Annex 14;

 

http://www.scribd.com/Annex-14-ICAO/d/5509407

 

Regards.

 

That link causes my browser to die, so here is the FAA equivalent:

 

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5345-44H/150_5345_44h.pdf

[himti]

Very nice. Like the grass.

[amalahama]

Focha[/left];976562]It's a good critic but you should provide the information (or link to it), you can find the rules in ICAO Annex 14;

 

http://www.scribd.com/Annex-14-ICAO/d/5509407

 

Regards.

 

Be careful, ICAO annex 14 is only applicable to civil airports

 

Regards!

[BlueRidgeDx]

Be careful, ICAO annex 14 is only applicable to civil airports

 

Regards!

 

I can't speak about the Baltic region, but in the US - with very few exceptions - military airfield signs/markings/lighting are identical to civil airport standards.

 

No reason to reinvent the wheel.

 

EDIT:

 

Of the airports listed by Matt, I have no idea which ones are exclusively civil, and which might me exclusively military or "joint-use". But here is the Georgia AIP which I assume covers only civil airports:

 

http://www.ais.caucasus.net/eaip/html/UG-frameset-en-GB.html

Edited September 11, 2010 by BlueRidgeDx

[S3NTRY11]

My two cents:

 

Realise it's work-in-progress, but colour of grass is a little off. Needs to be same tone as surrounding area (perhaps a slight shade darker?). Looks almost cartoon at the moment.

 

Other than that, looking awesome.

[aaron886]

I have a question. Two of the screens shows a runway sign; "C 30-12" and "F 27-09".

My question is will the ATC tell you, depending on your parking spot, indications that lead you to the runway like in real life, meaning;

 

"N333XX, ready for taxi."

"N33XX, taxi to RWN 27 via taxiway A then C1 and holdshort of RWN."

 

Thanks.

 

Regards.

 

 

Not to nit-pick too much, but if a ground controller tells you "taxi to" that now means you have permission to cross all runways. You would never hear that anymore... your example would be:

 

N33XX, Runway 27, taxi via Alpha, Charlie 1, hold short Runway X.

[Kaiza]

Not to nit-pick too much, but if a ground controller tells you "taxi to" that now means you have permission to cross all runways. You would never hear that anymore... your example would be:

 

N33XX, Runway 27, taxi via Alpha, Charlie 1, hold short Runway X.

 

 

PANS-ATM standard is that you need permission for crossing every runway and the U.S has just followed suit. :thumbup:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N7110.528.pdf

 

But yeah, interested in whether this will be the case. Accurate ATC would be so much more immersive.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Kaiza

[Druid_]

If you want immersive then ATC should have red and green flares for comms blackouts. Not too bothered about ATC too much, its not FSX, very low on the priority list for me. I'd prefer to see arrester gear and threshold emergency overrun arresters first.

Also since when did western block countries conform to ICAO airfield signage? I mean they still use metres for altitude ffs.

 

Like the detail thats gone into the airfields, very nice. I know its WIP but rubber deposits at both runway thresholds please (Senaki).

[Bucic]

If you want immersive then ATC should have red and green flares for comms blackouts. Not too bothered about ATC too much, its not FSX, very low on the priority list for me. I'd prefer to see arrester gear and threshold emergency overrun arresters first.

Also since when did western block countries conform to ICAO airfield signage? I mean they still use metres for altitude ffs.

 

Like the detail thats gone into the airfields, very nice. I know its WIP but rubber deposits at both runway thresholds please (Senaki).

 

Knowing that Warthog will feature radio chatter of other units if radio is properly tuned here's a related question - will we get at least half of the Falcon 4 AF ATC functionality?

 

I F4 it's like when you approach ATC controlled space you are simply being 'taken over' and have to obey orders from ATC, just like in real life If you won't you are being reprimanded and it lowers your mission score. All of ATC operations including taxiing are tied by strict discipline. Again - like in real life.

 

The functionality I describe is present on sim market for 10 years. Don't you think it's about time for ED to step up? :music_whistling:

 

.

[BoneDust]

Agree radio comms are an essential part of emersion for a real hardcore simmer. Working the radio is 80% of a pilots job.

 

I might have misread a post that stated Western airfields use metric; that's not true. Even in Canada where we do use metric air operatons are still conducted using the old English system; atleast in the military world.

[DarkStar]

I mean they still use metres for altitude ffs.

 

In the technical world, more and more are using the metric unit as a standard. Wouldn't be surprised if imperial units disappear sooner than later ;)

[BlueRidgeDx]

If you want immersive then ATC should have red and green flares for comms blackouts.

 

Light guns, perhaps.

 

I'd prefer to see arrester gear and threshold emergency overrun arresters first.

 

The only barriers found at Nellis and Creech are BAK-12's, and an A-10 isn't going to make much use of them without a hook.

 

I don't think you'd find any of them in Georgia, either.

 

Do you mean the "net" type of barrier? The BAK-15 and MA-1A barriers can be used by an A-10, but again, I don't think you're going to find them at any of the presently modeled airports in DCS.

 

Also since when did western block countries conform to ICAO airfield signage? I mean they still use metres for altitude ffs.

 

I assume you mean Eastern Bloc?

 

Actually, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Macedonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine have all adopted the ICAO standards.

 

Some have more deviations than others, but they're all operating under the same set of regulations now.

 

Georgia references altitude to feet just like the rest of Europe. Within the Georgian airspace system (along the FIR boundary with Russia), there is a transition zone between standard RVSM airspace and the meter-based level system used in Russia.

[Yellonet]

Yes, unfortunately the backward imperial standard is gaining ground.

I wish people in the flying business would see the error of their ways and adjust to the more intuitive metric standard.

[Focha]

Not to nit-pick too much, but if a ground controller tells you "taxi to" that now means you have permission to cross all runways. You would never hear that anymore... your example would be:

 

N33XX, Runway 27, taxi via Alpha, Charlie 1, hold short Runway X.

 

It was a simple example just to explain what I was asking it was not meant to be real world procedures on a full airport. It was not that the purpose of the example. But thanks for the correction anyway.

 

Regards.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Yes, unfortunately the backward imperial standard is gaining ground.

I wish people in the flying business would see the error of their ways and adjust to the more intuitive metric standard.

 

That would cost a fortune and cause all sorts of issues.

 

It makes sense in, for example, engineering where metric units make calculations simpler, but in aviation units are primarily used for reference so changing would bring very little in the way of benefits.

[Focha]

If you want immersive then ATC should have red and green flares for comms blackouts. Not too bothered about ATC too much, its not FSX, very low on the priority list for me. I'd prefer to see arrester gear and threshold emergency overrun arresters first.

Also since when did western block countries conform to ICAO airfield signage? I mean they still use metres for altitude ffs.

 

Like the detail thats gone into the airfields, very nice. I know its WIP but rubber deposits at both runway thresholds please (Senaki).

 

I am not saying that I want a FSX like ATC, I am asking if the ATC will be more complete since would help finding the way to the runway. I feel the actual ATC clearances a little rubbish in some aspects. I don't understand your priorities but again it's not a priority that I am asking rather I am asking for an update to the actual ATC commands already available.

 

Also, I don't know since when Georgia conform to ICAO but according to the list of 20 of June of 2002 Georgia is listed in the contracting states of ICAO, so I think Georgia conforms with standards and recommend practices. Also you can see Georgia's AIP a few pages above this reply.

 

Best regards.

 

EDIT: Also read the reply of BlueRidgeDx in page 7. ;)

Edited September 12, 2010 by Focha

[Yellonet]

That would cost a fortune and cause all sorts of issues.

 

It makes sense in, for example, engineering where metric units make calculations simpler, but in aviation units are primarily used for reference so changing would bring very little in the way of benefits.

Well there are some calculations needed to be done when flying too with all the feet and miles and knots and all that... Edited September 12, 2010 by Yellonet

[Bucic]

Well there are some calculations needed to be done when flying too with all the feet and miles and knots and all that...

Integer fractions of body parts rules :doh:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Well there are some calculations needed to be done when flying too with all the feet and miles and knots and all that...

 

Sure, but with altitude you're likely to use a chart, so it doesn't matter what unit you use, and the knot is the most sensible unit for distance/speed in flight anyway.

 

Metric units are being adopted where appropriate, such as distnaces on aerodrome charts.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Flamin_Squirrel

[Bucic]

the knot is the most sensible unit for distance/speed in flight anyway.

How is that? I'm all listening :)

 

Edit:

Something I've found on FaceBook:

Sure, the metric system is easy to convert.

 

But real people almost never need to convert what they're measuring.

 

That's mainly the job of bureaucats and scientists (who, today, are mostly bureaucrats).

And they say 21st century is a century of education...

Edited September 12, 2010 by Bucic