A-10C Screen Shots - 10 Sept 2010

[Xjikz]

Is it in plan to update graphics engine of DCS: Black Shark to standard of A-10C?:joystick:

 

I think yes, but ED should confirm this...?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

How is that? I'm all listening :)

 

60 nautical miles = 1 degree of longitude, or,

1 nautical mile = 1 minute of longitude.

 

Makes estimating distances much easier on charts with lat/long plotted:pilotfly:

[Bucic]

60 nautical miles = 1 degree of longitude, or,

1 nautical mile = 1 minute of longitude.

 

Makes estimating distances much easier on charts with lat/long plotted:pilotfly:

Oh please cut the marine mambling :) If someone is incapable of estimating map ranges using the scale line on the map (with cues all over the map) then he'd better stick to the ground (or water) :P

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Oh please cut the marine mambling :) If someone is incapable of estimating map ranges using the scale line on the map (with cues all over the map) then he'd better stick to the ground (or water) :P

 

It's not marine mambling. I don't want to have my head stuck down in the cockpit fiddling with a stupid rule if I don't have to.

[Bucic]

It's not marine mambling. I don't want to have my head stuck down in the cockpit fiddling with a stupid rule if I don't have to.

Fiddling? When you take a look at altimeter you are also fiddling with altimeter? :) I don't mean ruler like this one http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys301/lectures/age/ruler_small.jpg but scale drawn on every map like this one http://www.freewebs.com/eglintonarmycadets/PDF/MD1a.jpg.

 

AFAIK only US and less than 5 third world countries haven't switched to metric system yet. That's one. Two - metric system is incoherent. For example you have knots (speed) is not represented by proper distance and time units (feet, second). Even in aviation you can get a report than contains measurements in both Nautical and Status Miles.

 

Units inconsistency has been a contributing factor in numerous air disasters and incidents - a fact. Units unification in aviation would give an increased safety - no brainer. Now you don't expect that in that process (unification) the imperial units system will come out on top, do you? :D

 

If some countries would like to keep the imperial system for household use no one will oppose :D

[Yellonet]

Integer fractions of body parts rules :doh:

Indeed :D

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Fiddling? When you take a look at altimeter you are also fiddling with altimeter? :) I don't mean ruler like this one http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys301/lectures/age/ruler_small.jpg but scale drawn on every map like this one http://www.freewebs.com/eglintonarmycadets/PDF/MD1a.jpg.

 

AFAIK only US and less than 5 third world countries haven't switched to metric system yet. That's one. Two - metric system is incoherent. For example you have knots (speed) is not represented by proper distance and time units (feet, second). Even in aviation you can get a report than contains measurements in both Nautical and Status Miles.

 

Units inconsistency has been a contributing factor in numerous air disasters and incidents - a fact. Units unification in aviation would give an increased safety - no brainer. Now you don't expect that in that process (unification) the imperial units system will come out on top, do you? :D

 

If some countries would like to keep the imperial system for household use no one will oppose :D

 

We're not talking about countries that have gone fully metric though.

 

I've given you the reasons why certain units are, and probably will stay imperial. Take it or leave it.

[BlueRidgeDx]

AFAIK only US and less than 5 third world countries haven't switched to metric system yet.

 

Maybe, but thats a bit misleading when you consider that only two countries in the world use meters for altitude.

 

I'll concede that many more countries use meters to report visibility and RVR.

 

That's one. Two - metric system is incoherent. For example you have knots (speed) is not represented by proper distance and time units (feet, second).

 

I guess that all depends on what your perception of "proper" is.

 

I have absolutely no frame of reference to make sense of what a 5m/s wind looks or feels like, or how it relates to an airplane's crosswind limits on a wet/contaminated runway, to name just one.

 

Even in aviation you can get a report than contains measurements in both Nautical and Status Miles.

 

I think that requires a bit more nuance. While you're correct that both units are used, you won't find the two mixed in the same report.

 

In the US, prevailing visibility (as indicated in METAR/TAF reports) and flight visibility are always reported in SM.

 

Other declared distances such as airway widths, NAVAID service volumes, and other airspace related items are in NM.

 

Units inconsistency has been a contributing factor in numerous air disasters and incidents - a fact.

 

I've been in the business for more than 12 years, and I've never heard of an accident where such a percieved "inconsistency" led to a disaster. At least not as the probable cause.

 

Which one(s) do you have in mind?

 

Units unification in aviation would give an increased safety - no brainer. Now you don't expect that in that process (unification) the imperial units system will come out on top, do you? :D

 

I don't think forcing pilots, dispatchers and ATC'ers to switch to a system of measure for which they have no frame of reference, to be a safety enhancement.

[Druid_]

Light guns, perhaps.

sure. At least thats more realistic in a combat environment than constant ATC chatter. A military airfield engaged in close proximity to a conflict is not going to have your regular ATC. In fact comms are kept to an absolute minimum. Hence the 'its not FSX' comment.

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.

Nope but other aircraft modelled in DCS can e.g. F-15

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

Well if you're sure about that one because they have the su25 and I believe that has an arrester hook (well the naval version certainly does). Prior to the invasion they used several Russian aircraft fitted with arrester gear. Besides DCS has some airfields in Russia doesn't it?

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.

That was my point, I'd prefer to see more airfield modelling before airfield ATC.

I assume you mean Eastern Bloc?

Oops yes, my bad.

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.

Sorry I disagree. Most countries have their own set of regulations which are set by their own Aviation Authority. Europe has JARs , middle east has the GCAA regs, U.S. has FAARs. etc e.g. In U.S. visibility is given in statute miles whereas the majority of the rest of the world use Metres. Hardly conforming to ICAO standards. ICAO is in disarray when it comes to aviation I'm afraid. IATA has more success.

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.

 

ok. China, Mongolia, Russia and many CIS countries still use flight levels specified in metres. Since Russia is across the border from Georgia, I thought it a fair comment.

Don't get me wrong, if people want regular ATC with taxy, take-off and landing instructions .. fine. It just wouldn't be accurate thats all and DCS pride themselves on trying to be accurate.

[Druid_]

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

 

For real, you would have an airfield chart and possibly a parking chart. Take some screenshots and make some yourself. ALternatively, use keyboard F2 and zoom out. Cant be that hard at these simple airfields surely?

Edited September 12, 2010 by Druid_

[Yellonet]

Don't get me wrong, if people want regular ATC with taxy, take-off and landing instructions .. fine. It just wouldn't be accurate thats all and DCS pride themselves on trying to be accurate.

Then what would an accurately modeled air base be like?

[BlueRidgeDx]

A military airfield engaged in close proximity to a conflict is not going to have your regular ATC. In fact comms are kept to an absolute minimum. Hence the 'its not FSX' comment.

 

Maybe, maybe not. They have regular ATC in Kandahar and Kabul, but thats a stretch since it's a relatively low-intensity conflict.

 

Nonetheless, anywhere aircraft are operating at an airfield, there will be a controlling agency. It might be a pair of Air Force Combat Controllers riding around the airfield on ATV's with a portable TACAN set up, but there will be ATC.

 

Nope but other aircraft modelled in DCS can e.g. F-15

 

Fair point. I would be very pleased if DCS were to simulate such things. I'm just not sure we'll ever see AI airplanes taking the barrier.

 

Well if you're sure about that one because they have the su25 and I believe that has an arrester hook (well the naval version certainly does). Prior to the invasion they used several Russian aircraft fitted with arrester gear. Besides DCS has some airfields in Russia doesn't it?

 

I know very little about the SU-25, so I'll take your word for it. I've never seen any pics of Russian airplanes taking the barrier, but then I was never looking for them.

 

That was my point, I'd prefer to see more airfield modelling before airfield ATC.

 

The more detailed the airfield, the better. I agree.

 

Sorry I disagree. Most countries have their own set of regulations which are set by their own Aviation Authority.

 

True, but most of those countries don't take the time and resources to write their own rules from scratch. Hence they adopt another system, then make specific changes to suit their own regulatory needs.

 

Not all of the countries I mentioned have the EXACT same rules, but they have all adopted the basic ICAO structure. And all have an ICAO compliant AIP available online.

 

ok. China, Mongolia, Russia and many CIS countries still use flight levels specified in metres. Since Russia is across the border from Georgia, I thought it a fair comment.

 

Sure, its fair enough. You're right about China and Russia, but most everyone agrees that the Chinese Flight Level system is horrendous.

 

As far as the CIS countries, I only checked the Ukraine and Maldova, but both use standard flight levels referenced to feet.

 

http://www.ecacnav.com/downloads/RVSM%20Airspace%20-%20October%202008%28Screen%29.pdf

 

Don't get me wrong, if people want regular ATC with taxy, take-off and landing instructions .. fine. It just wouldn't be accurate thats all and DCS pride themselves on trying to be accurate.

 

It would certainly be accurate (and necessary) for the new Nevada terrain, and that's where I'll be spending a lot of my time.

 

And as I mentioned before, in the real world, there will be basic ATC services for US/Coalition even at forward operating locations.

[Yellonet]

And as I mentioned before, in the real world, there will be basic ATC services for US/Coalition even at forward operating locations.

Exactly, a free for all "system" would not be a very safe way to manage the air field...

[Druid_]

Then what would an accurately modeled air base be like?

 

Umm .. ok. One that is a true representation of the airfield geographically and physically during a time of conflict, manned by the military and quite possibly during the time the scenario/conflict is set (e.g. a 1940s airfield is prob quite different to a 1990s one).

 

That do you? (I really hope you didnt want a picture or sketch). DCS could do with a few more static vehicles, personnel, airfield support eqpt and airfield defences and .. arrester gear. Unfortunately they have frame rates to think of.

[Wags]

For A-10C, virtually all of our programming resources for radio comms went into JTAC and AI Flight Comms. ATC will be about the same as BS/FC2 minus a few minor changes.

 

Improved ATC is certainly near the top of the list for the next DCS module.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Wags

[amalahama]

Understandable, thanks Wags!

 

Regards!

[Yellonet]

Umm .. ok. One that is a true representation of the airfield geographically and physically during a time of conflict, manned by the military and quite possibly during the time the scenario/conflict is set (e.g. a 1940s airfield is prob quite different to a 1990s one).

 

That do you? (I really hope you didnt want a picture or sketch). DCS could do with a few more static vehicles, personnel, airfield support eqpt and airfield defences and .. arrester gear. Unfortunately they have frame rates to think of.

I was really interested in a comment about this statement:

 

Don't get me wrong, if people want regular ATC with taxy, take-off and landing instructions .. fine. It just wouldn't be accurate thats all and DCS pride themselves on trying to be accurate.

So, how would control of air traffic and ground traffic for that matter be modeled accurately in your opinion?

I doubt that it's all left to the pilots themselves so there ought to be some kind of ATC, right?

 

Oh, and I think we can all do without the condescending tone, OK?

[Bucic]

(*) 'The coexistence of two unit system should be eliminated' AND 'metric system is superior to imperial' AND => there should be only one unit system introduced to aviation.

 

(**) People incapable of learning another unit system should not be in aviation, however harsh it may sound, sorry.

 

 

Maybe, but thats a bit misleading when you consider that only two countries in the world use meters for altitude.

The fact that you mentioned has no relevance to (*).

 

 

I guess that all depends on what your perception of "proper" is.

Due to my poor vocabulary I misused the term 'proper' :) I meant something rather closer to 'associated' i.e. there's another case of two units - speed is not given in the same units as distance and altitude and time.

 

 

I have absolutely no frame of reference to make sense of what a 5m/s wind looks or feels like, or how it relates to an airplane's crosswind limits on a wet/contaminated runway, to name just one.

See (**). Same case as with software users rioting because the new software version features improved UI, based on usability studies, which is different to the previous one they got used to.

 

 

I think that requires a bit more nuance. While you're correct that both units are used, you won't find the two mixed in the same report.

 

In the US, prevailing visibility (as indicated in METAR/TAF reports) and flight visibility are always reported in SM.

The fact that in one country you have more than two units of measurement is a mockery, if you ask me ;) and here we have aviation, if you know what I mean.

 

 

Other declared distances such as airway widths, NAVAID service volumes, and other airspace related items are in NM.

That still makes it coexist with feet, doesn't it? :)

Funny to see that wind New-York is given in Nautical Miles per hour (knots), and visibility in Status Miles.

http://www.plasticpilot.net/blog/2008/06/30/should-aviation-switch-to-the-metric-system/

 

 

I've been in the business for more than 12 years, and I've never heard of an accident where such a percieved "inconsistency" led to a disaster. At least not as the probable cause.

 

Which one(s) do you have in mind?

I don't mean accidents caused by inconsistencies in imperial system. I mean the ones caused by coexistence of both systems. Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirosławiec_air_accident (CASA C295)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

 

and most probably countless incidents I'm unable to refer to.

 

 

I don't think forcing pilots, dispatchers and ATC'ers to switch to a system of measure for which they have no frame of reference, to be a safety enhancement.

See (**). Decreased safety of nationals who have no reference of feet or kts is not being recognized by FAA apparently so I think we should not take into account an opposite situation neither. (*) Still applies.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Bucic

[BlueRidgeDx]

For A-10C, virtually all of our programming resources for radio comms went into JTAC and AI Flight Comms.

 

Sounds like a winning move to me.

 

Now if only we could get a grease pencil so we could make a proper "canopy plan" while flying as FAC(A). A guy can dream, can't he?

[Druid_]

I was really interested in a comment about this statement:

 

 

So, how would control of air traffic and ground traffic for that matter be modeled accurately in your opinion?

I doubt that it's all left to the pilots themselves so there ought to be some kind of ATC, right?

 

Oh, and I think we can all do without the condescending tone, OK?

 

Sorry wasn't meant to be condescending, just thought it a strange question to ask. and.. I cant draw full stop.

 

Landline comms are used prior to taxi. ATC are usually aware of aircraft movements in advance through flight ops. QRA - quick Reaction Alerts obviously have priority over all other traffic and again ATC are made aware of a scramble. Red and green lights and occasionally flares are used from the main tower or a mobile atc unit which is placed near the operating runway threshold. Prior to taxi each aircraft in a formation use hand signals, or flight control movement to indicate intentions. Also think of ground movements by aircraft occuring on a slot basis i.e. A Sqn C flt 1525Z, B Sqn A Flt 1535Z etc. For arriving aircraft - aircraft land off a green signal or go around on a red.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Druid_

[Yellonet]

Sorry wasn't meant to be condescending, just thought it a strange question to ask. and.. I cant draw full stop.

 

Landline comms are used prior to taxi. ATC are usually aware of aircraft movements in advance through flight ops. QRA - quick Reaction Alerts obviously have priority over all other traffic and again ATC are made aware of a scramble. Red and green lights and occasionally flares are used from the main tower or a mobile atc unit which is placed near the operating runway threshold. Prior to taxi each aircraft in a formation use hand signals, or flight control movement to indicate intentions.

Thanks!

[BlueRidgeDx]

(**) People incapable of learning another unit system should not be in aviation, however harsh it may sound, sorry.

 

I'd delve further into the human factors of it, but my guess is that I'd be wasting your time.

 

We'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

I don't mean accidents caused by inconsistencies in imperial system. I mean the ones caused by coexistence of both systems. Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirosławiec_air_accident (CASA C295)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

 

and most probably countless incidents I'm unable to refer to.

 

I do have to comment on this though. The Gimli Glider incident was a direct result of the implementation of the metric system and the conversion from gallons/pounds to liters/kilos. Thats hardly a case for why the metric system is "superior", and actually provies my point: Bad things happen when you ask people to throw away what they know and adopt a completely different system.

 

And for the CASA accident, again, the accident was at least partially due to the imposition of the metric system on an aircraft and crew that was not designed/trained for it. How does that inspire one to claim that the metric system is better.

 

Anyway, this has drifted way out into left field, so I'm going to bow out while I still can.

Edited September 12, 2010 by BlueRidgeDx

[Bucic]

I'd delve further into the human factors of it, but my guess is that I'd be wasting your time.

 

We'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

 

 

I do have to comment on this though. The Gimli Glider incident was a direct result of the implementation of the metric system and the conversion from gallons/pounds to liters/kilos. Thats hardly a case for why the metric system is "superior", and actually provies my point: Bad things happen when you ask people to throw away what they know and adopt a completely different system.

 

And for the CASA accident, again, the accident was at least partially due to the imposition of the metric system on an aircraft and crew that was not designed/trained for it. How does that inspire one to claim that the metric system is better.

 

Anyway, this has drifted way out into left field, so I'm going to bow out while I still can.

 

I agree to 'bow out'. I also do acknowledge that the example cases I referred to were only so-so examples...

[amalahama]

And for the CASA accident, again, the accident was at least partially due to the imposition of the metric system on an aircraft and crew that was not designed/trained for it

 

I don't know how polish C295M are equipped, but at least spanish C295M use standard imperial metrics in every instrument.

 

Regards!

[Druid_]

It would certainly be accurate (and necessary) for the new Nevada terrain, and that's where I'll be spending a lot of my time.

 

And as I mentioned before, in the real world, there will be basic ATC services for US/Coalition even at forward operating locations.

 

Fair enough. If people want atc to fully immerse themselves then that's fine and in the Nevada theatre I agree. Nellis has a complete ATC system in operation. My initial point though, was that for me it was low priority (ATC speech that is). DCS does have some basic ATC comms.

Given that there are going to be very few movements when you play then is ATC really necessary. If you play with a large number of other simmers then an alternative is for someone (maybe the last to depart) to play the Part of ATC. Now there's realism!

 

ATC and/or ATC comms are not imperative. Check out remote airfield procedures in Australia. Admittedly, low movement airfields, but it works.