Maverick damage at launch

[RodBorza]

For the wish list:

reading through the forums the developers and testers say that real A-10 pilots don't carry more than two Mavericks because at launch they can damage the tires and the TGP.

So carrying 6 Mavs as we do in the sim is out of question.

 

Then, there could be an option on the difficult settings where you could turn on or off the damage cause by a Maverick launch.

With this option "on" you could carry as any Mavs as you wanted, however at launch they would also cause damage. Something like "rifle" and then seeing your Master Caution panel going off crazy.

So, in this way, players would be forced to play it as real pilots: 2 Mavs, but lots of CBU's to compensate...:thumbup:

 

And with this option "off", everything stands as it is now.

 

It would add to realism.

[Heli Shed]

oh jesus! you not think we all have enough Master Cautions to deal with anyway?

 

50% of why we do what we do, is for fun. When you compromise the 'fun' element, we might aswell, all stop what we're doing, leave our lives where they are and go and be 'real' pilots, which of course 99% of us can't do. Either too stupid (i`m an infantryman, nuff said), not enough money (PPL), or just simply not good intellectually enough and would not pass selection.

 

I like 6 mav's. it's fun!

 

'T'

[Necroscope]

As far as I know - players are able to change ammount of Mavs in extended editor. So if you think that there should be 2 Mav istead of 6 - editor will helps.

Or you even can edit some .xmls and .lua and upload "Realistic Mav payload MOD" to DCS website then. :)

Just let EDs do not do that, what we can do by ourselfs. Let them fix Nevada map :)

 

sfme

[Eddie]

You would be very unlikely to see a master caution, or any in cockpit warnings anyway. The damage caused by the Mav in this case is not damage that would threaten the integrity of the airframe or vital systems. If it were the A-10 would never have been cleared for 4 or 6 Mavs at all.

 

It would be nice to have potential TGP problems, meaning people would have to put some thought and planning into their load outs rather than just filling the racks with weapons has they do now. But I think that will improve as people start to realise how much of an impact the WWIII loads have on aircraft handling and performance anyway.

 

As for wheel/tyre damage, again it would be very unlikely to destroy the wheel/tyre in the space of one flight, rather it's a an issue that would cause damage that would mean the ground crew would have to change the tyre/brake unit before the next mission. Such unnecessary maintenance tasks have an impact on sortie rate and the supply chain. So until these things are simulated, they are irrelevant, unless you like to fly as if they were there. The same goes for airframe damage, it's an issue of panels de-laminating/burning etc rather than actually having holes in them. Again this is a long term issue rather than something that would threaten the aircraft during a flight.

 

My views on these things are clear, but not everyone finds being 100% realistic wherever possible to be fun, with things as they are now those that want to fly in a less serious and realistic way can do. Those of us who like to go for total realism still can, just because not following procedures won't cause real problems in the sim, there is nothing stopping you flying as if it would. That's what I do. (Apart form the occasional public server incursion for fun/testing)

Edited March 5, 2011 by Eddie

[Heli Shed]

You would be very unlikely to see a master caution, or any in cockpit warnings anyway. The damage caused by the Mav in this case is not damage that would threaten the integrity of the airframe or vital systems. If it were the A-10 would never have been cleared for 4 or 6 Mavs at all.

 

It would be nice to have potential TGP problems, meaning people would have to put some thought and planning into their load outs rather than just filling the racks with weapons has they do now. But I think that will improve as people start to realise how much of an impact the WWIII loads have on aircraft handling and performance anyway.

 

As for wheel/tyre damage, again it would be very unlikely to destroy the wheel/tyre in the space of one flight, rather it's a an issue that would cause damage that would mean the ground crew would have to change the tyre/brake unit before the next mission. Such unnecessary maintenance tasks have an impact on sortie rate and the supply chain. So until these things are simulated, they are irrelevant, unless you like to fly as if they were there. The same goes for airframe damage, it's an issue of panels de-laminating/burning etc rather than actually having holes in them. Again this is a long term issue rather than something that would threaten the aircraft during a flight.

 

My views on these things are clear, but not everyone finds being 100% realistic wherever possible to be fun, with things as they are now those that want to fly in a less serious and realistic way can do. Those of us who like to go for total realism still can, just because not following procedures won't cause real problems in the sim, there is nothing stopping you flying as if it would. That's what I do. (Apart form the occasional public server incursion for fun/testing)

 

Thanks for the informative and as ever 'well put' reply Eddie. As you know, at the 74th, we try as closely as we can to follow RL procedures with regards to ground discipline, Brevity, basic tactics etc, and have a whole lot of fun doing it. Some people seems to forget the 'fun' element whilst still complying as close as is feasibly possible to that which they 'think' is RL or 'is' RL procedures. Take the fun element away, and well, we all might aswell go on an aerodynamic degree course in our spare time.

 

like i said, i like 6 mav's, and respect the reasons why in RL that it is not a long term feasible management solution, or why some other simmers prefer not to adopt it as a loadout. But, this aint RL and if it was deemed to be completely a no show, then it wouldn't be in the ME.

 

saying that though, and not to 'backtrack', but i dont remember it being the case in the A-10A in FC2. You can't carry 6 mav's then can you?

 

 

 

( a serious simmer is only really a serious simmer, if he punches himself in the face as hard as he can, when he crashes or is taken out by that bloody Tor on Switchblade!)

Edited March 5, 2011 by Tyger

[winz]

I'm all for it, if the missions included in the retail version would be playable with such restriction without you needing to do several trips to home plate and back. I'm speaking about the Georgian Hammer campaign, where you are ofte required to take out 12+ T80.

 

Such conditions force the player to use unrealistic payloads.

[Eddie]

I'm all for it, if the missions included in the retail version would be playable with such restriction without you needing to do several trips to home plate and back. I'm speaking about the Georgian Hammer campaign, where you are ofte required to take out 12+ T80.

 

Such conditions force the player to use unrealistic payloads.

 

Indeed, but that's partly because of the AI limitations, the limitations on mission completion and pilot's obsession that mission objectives must be completed to the letter every time.

 

To put it another way, if you have to take out more targets than you and your wingman can accomplish with 2 AGM-65s and LGB/JDAM/CBU/Dumb bombs loaded in keeping with RL loading restrictions, then rather than adding more weapons, you need more aircraft.

 

Of course, with the current campaign engine being nothing more than a chain of single missions and therefore having no supply system limiting the availability of aircraft and ordnance there is no incentive to ensure you return to base with your aircraft. And those that have entered the sim community via the lockon series are used to this way of working.

 

However those of us who flew falcon seriously are used to having to worry about not having aircraft available to task for the next target/mission objective should we not make it back to base. Therefore, while some people are happy and comfortable with using respawn/rearm and having several goes at accomplishing an objective, some of us are used to doing things differently, and continue to do it because we enjoy it, and that variety is what makes this community so good, there is something for everyone.

 

Those who like to take off, fly, kill stuff and end the mission can do so in DCS. And those who wish to do things to the letter can do that as well. Personally, for me doing things to the letter IS fun, and flying in the takeoff/kill stuff/re arm/respawn way is a bit boring.

 

Of course as the DCS series progresses, the campaign engine will be improved and perhaps things like limited airframes and weapons over the course of a campaign will be possible. But things like that are going to take a long time, there are many other things to do first.

[RodBorza]

50% of why we do what we do, is for fun. When you compromise the 'fun' element, we might aswell, all stop what we're doing, leave our lives where they are and go and be 'real' pilots, which of course 99% of us can't do. Either too stupid (i`m an infantryman, nuff said), not enough money (PPL), or just simply not good intellectually enough and would not pass selection.

 

I like 6 mav's. it's fun!

 

'T'

 

Tyger,

I understand what you are saying, that's way I stress the fact that it SHOULD be an option, not compulsory in any way. For those of us who like it to be to the letter. Not that I want to take the 'fun' out of it, but I agree with Eddie when he says that "some of us are used to doing things differently, and continue to do it because we enjoy it".

I also play the Silent Hunter series of games, which are simulations from WWII submarines.

In those games you have the ability to change the level of realism that you want/need to make the game more fun. You can play totally arcadey or up to 105%(!) realism.

No need to punch oneself to the face or crash out of the chair, but adding limitations to your boat/plane makes me be more aware of tactics, infiltration and exfiltration routes and weapons usage. For me this adds to the fun, makes me better and better at sailing or flying.

 

So if you think that there should be 2 Mav istead of 6 - editor will helps.

Or you even can edit some .xmls and .lua and upload "Realistic Mav payload MOD" to DCS website then. :)

Just let EDs do not do that, what we can do by ourselfs. Let them fix Nevada map :)

 

sfme

That's a good idea. Never made a mod before, but for those who want it, they could grab it.

 

 

It would be nice to have potential TGP problems, meaning people would have to put some thought and planning into their load outs rather than just filling the racks with weapons has they do now.

Well, TGP problems would be just nice. Fire one Mav, and you would get that not very welcomed warning saying: "TGP fail"

 

As for wheel/tyre damage, again it would be very unlikely to destroy the wheel/tyre in the space of one flight, rather it's a an issue that would cause damage that would mean the ground crew would have to change the tyre/brake unit before the next mission.

 

Per the forums I had misunterstood what kind of tire damage there it would be. I thought that once you fired the MAV, the tires would instantaneously blow. If that's not the case, then my virtual crew chief will not be too happy, but

I can shut him down anytime.

 

My views on these things are clear, but not everyone finds being 100% realistic wherever possible to be fun, with things as they are now those that want to fly in a less serious and realistic way can do. Those of us who like to go for total realism still can, just because not following procedures won't cause real problems in the sim, there is nothing stopping you flying as if it would. That's what I do. (Apart form the occasional public server incursion for fun/testing)

Yep, I agree. I like to have fun, but realistic is the way to go for me.

 

Those who like to take off, fly, kill stuff and end the mission can do so in DCS. And those who wish to do things to the letter can do that as well. Personally, for me doing things to the letter IS fun, and flying in the takeoff/kill stuff/re arm/respawn way is a bit boring.

 

Of course as the DCS series progresses, the campaign engine will be improved and perhaps things like limited airframes and weapons over the course of a campaign will be possible. But things like that are going to take a long time, there are many other things to do first.

I don't like the magic "respawn"/rearm thing. And I was used too to the campaigns limitations on Jane's F-15 and Falcon: AF. On JF-15, in Iran campaign, there were missions that you had to fly without a LANTIRN pod. Very limited indeed. So, you had to learn creative new ways to use radar and the Mk I Eyeballs.

Edited March 5, 2011 by RodBorza

[Heli Shed]

ok, out of context i think.

 

heres my final point.

 

I DO things by the letter. I make SURE my sqn does to. I DON'T do the spawn die spawn die thing, Falcon 4 or any other tripe. But given the option of 4 or 6 mavs? i`ll take 6 thanks.

 

//walks off, looks for pub, rolls eyes.

[Insanatrix]

Don't know why you would want 6 mav's anyways when you can have 16 GBU-12's :megalol: . Eddie can attest to the effectiveness of that :).

[Eddie]

Don't know why you would want 6 mav's anyways when you can have 16 GBU-12's :megalol: . Eddie can attest to the effectiveness of that :).

 

Indeed, I'm still shocked your wings didn't fall off though.

[EtherealN]

Hm.

 

16 GBU-12's...

16 targets.

16 lasers...

Set laser code...

 

16 pinpoint deliveries with only one plane within 20 miles of the targets? AWESOME! :D

[Insanatrix]

Indeed, I'm still shocked your wings didn't fall off though.

 

It actually flew really smooth and didn't feel all the heavy.

[GGTharos]

The biggest reason is drag.

 

For the wish list:

reading through the forums the developers and testers say that real A-10 pilots don't carry more than two Mavericks because at launch they can damage the tires and the TGP.

So carrying 6 Mavs as we do in the sim is out of question.

[Heli Shed]

Don't know why you would want 6 mav's anyways when you can have 16 GBU-12's :megalol: . Eddie can attest to the effectiveness of that :).

 

fairpoint.

[Mugenjin]

Why settle for 16 when you can actually strap 17 GBU-12s on? :D

[RodBorza]

Hm.

16 pinpoint deliveries with only one plane within 20 miles of the targets? AWESOME! :D

 

That's a whole lot a load you gotta there. But once air dominance is established, then I think it's feasible.

[effte]

Where can I read more about these problems with large Maverick loads? Searching tends to give a tad too many hits... :)

 

Cheers,

Fred

[Eddie]

Have a look for posts by Weaponz248, A-10C active duty weapons tech (or whatever the USAF call them ;)). He's mentioned several loading restrictions in his posts including the Mavericks.

 

This isn't something unique to the A-10 though, pretty much every military aircraft out there has cases where although they may be cleared to carry a given load, there are limitations and/or conditions to it's use.

[Jona33]

Because if you try bombing a Shilka it will take you out.

[genbrien]

Because if you try bombing a Shilka it will take you out.

You can easyly bomb it with a GBU12 over 10000':huh:(or maybe 12000 :music_whistling:)