[Fly On] DCS A-10C / DCS Black Shark / LOMAC: FC2 - Combat Flight Simulation!

Two Headed Boy

I didn't realize there was a thread for this game.

Hot damn, the first time you successfully start up, take off, acquired a target, designate it, and take it out... probably the most satisfying thing I've ever done in anything resembling a game ever.

Sir Carcass

Yeah, it's very satisfying. Probably the best sim experience I've had.

It's pretty awesome to know that if something terrible happens and the president yells out, "Does anyone know how to fly an A-10?", I can step up, chest puffed up, and say, "Yes, Mr President. I believe I can."

Two Headed Boy

Yep, absolutely. Then I black out the moment I enter a turn, crash, and die.

striderjg

Two Headed Boy wrote:

Yep, absolutely. Then I black out the moment I enter a turn, crash, and die.

The hog isn't really a turn and burner, and you don't have to bank and yank:) I don't think you'd black out:)

Two Headed Boy

You overestimate me greatly, sir!

Spoiler:

I'd probably be fine.

Sir Carcass

Uh, did anyone know about the new IL-2 1946 patch? http://simhq.com/_air14/air_513a.html

It looks pretty awesome. I wonder if it works with the Steam version (if it's not already there).

JerikTelorian

How many of you guys play IL-2 regularly?

I play with a group of gents from SA and they'd love to have more people join up.

Sir Carcass wrote:

Uh, did anyone know about the new IL-2 1946 patch? http://simhq.com/_air14/air_513a.html

It looks pretty awesome. I wonder if it works with the Steam version (if it's not already there).

Also, this patch comes with native 6DOF if you do head tracking.

Sir Carcass

Yeah, the 6DOF upgrade was the big thing that got my attention.

I haven't played IL-2 in a while, but did the beginner course at Joint Ops about a year ago. Outstanding Student Award. Awwww, yeah. Still planning on doing their other courses, but I haven't had a spare $50 in a while.

I don't know how regularly I could play (online play is hard with a toddler and another baby on the way), but I'd definitely be down for something. I just still kind of suck at dogfighting because my aim is terrible, but would like to learn.

Lord Yod

Talking about this yet? http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/23/dcs-p-51d-mustang-sallies-forth/

SkannerJAT

Heh, I actually saw this in person not too long ago. A P-51, A-10, and a F-4 flying in formation at the last airshow we had.

Sir Carcass

Yeah, last page.

Sir Carcass

Welp, been reading Falcon 4 BMS stuff and watching videos today. Guess I know what I'm playing after work.

http://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?5822-Krause-s-BMS-Tutorials

striderjg

What does BMS require? AF or the original game? I really should re-install f4 but only have the original at the moment.

FightTest

Well after getting pretty good at landing in Black Shark I decided it was finally time to learn to use the weapons.

I have no fucking idea how that's supposed to work. Trying to use the slew camera is next to impossible if you're not in perfectly stable flight/hover. And since trim and I still aren't sure if we're cool or if we want to fight all day long this is not a good situation. I guess maybe I have to learn to use the autopilot first.

Sir Carcass

striderjg wrote:

What does BMS require? AF or the original game? I really should re-install f4 but only have the original at the moment.

It just requires the original Falcon 4.0 exe. If you have the CD, it'll check it during installation.

Headspace

Huh. I didn't know there were so many DCS players in this community. Do you regularly play MP?

Sir Carcass

Not really, though that's mainly through lack of interest. The few times we have gotten a game together, it was just me and krylon, but I'd definitely love to get something more regular going. There are some really fun missions.

Headspace

There's a handful of people that I have interested in rescheduling our semi-regular session, the issue is that it's a 50/50 split between US/Europe. Most of us play A-10 but a handful have both of the games (BS2/A10).

krylon666

I've been having some problems with my computer lately, but once I get that sorted I'd like to start flying again. Carcass and I had some good times, and the MP worked surprisingly well.

Synthesis

They're still updating Il-2? Shit.

I do hope DCS: Mustang won't detract too much from the next actual thing they were doing...the WWII simulation genre is still carrying on, from 1C and Maddox, the modern (comparatively) aircraft genre is what needs help. I'll pick up DCS A-10 in the meantime, not interested in this so much as reading about crazy experiments conducted in the engine with it.

Headspace

Synthesis wrote:

They're still updating Il-2? Shit.

I do hope DCS: Mustang won't detract too much from the next actual thing they were doing...the WWII simulation genre is still carrying on, from 1C and Maddox, the modern (comparatively) aircraft genre is what needs help. I'll pick up DCS A-10 in the meantime, not interested in this so much as reading about crazy experiments conducted in the engine with it.

I think you'll find that the DCS version is significantly more in-depth than IL-2's. IL-2 is a survey sim after all; it doesn't focus on a single aircraft.

Sir Carcass

Man, the F-16 has a much better ILS system than the A-10.

striderjg

The viper has a lot of systems that are nicer then the a-10:) Since I was a very young child i have loved the F-16. I gotta get some dcs in tonight. Been really tired and consequently playing easy games to sink a hour or 2 into. Also thanks for the further info on BMS. Will definitely pick it up. Been forever and only very lightly toyed with some of the better mods for it as I wasn't playing flight sims by the time they were out.

Sir Carcass

Ahhhhh, the F-16 is so much fun to fly. And it's incredibly easy to land, even compared to the A-10. Just simple things like a HUD indicator for what angle your nose should be at when you touch down.

krylon666

I downloaded BMS but haven't tried it out yet. But when I tried out FF 5.5 I remember thinking it felt way too stable. Is the aircraft really supposed to feel like it's on rails? Is that the case in BMS, or do you have that similar "bob" you feel in A-10 (and other sims) where you have to correct your course gently now and then?

That said, I started watching some of those videos and I definitely want to check this out. Getting some long-range A2A combat going and SEAD will be a nice addition to the A-10 mix.

striderjg

Having not flown a f-16 I have no idea how accurate the FM is;) but keep in mind the F-16 was one (or the) of the first planes to have a fly-by-wire system. It has a onboard "HAL" that actually controls the control surfaces. The pilot just tells what attitude he would like to have the plane. So.... rails might be accurate.

Sir Carcass

One of the complaints I've read about other Falcon sims is the fact that it feels like it's on rails, but BMS is praised for not being that way. It definitely doesn't fly itself, that's for sure. But it's so damn fast and agile that it's tons of fun. This is a pretty good write-up that goes into detail about BMS.

Beyond the amazing graphics facelift the area that stands out the most to me is the incredible improvements to the flight model. I'll preface this section as 99.99% of us have to (except *Panther*!) by saying I've never flown a real F-16, so my observations come from interpolation of my real life flying career. That said, I always felt that the F-16 in previous iterations of Falcon felt too stiff and linear in their controllability. By that I mean they felt like they had little inertia and seemed to trace a line through the sky as opposed to being part of the airmass around them. I realize the F-16 is fly-by-wire/computer and that certainly is worth considering, but the updated BMS flight model just feels so much more dynamic and realistic than previous versions. The airframe doesn't sit rock solid at all times and turns and banks feel like they have a little bit of variability and fluidity to them now. All of this is reflected in the very dynamic nature of the HUD flight path marker which now seems to more accurately match up to the HUD videos we've all watched in the past. Landings are more dynamic and improved and even though it appears the landing gear has been beefed up a bit, the landing gear still seems a touch weak (they still break rather easily). High G maneuvers, stalls, and loss of control are more dynamic and realistic feeling. Basically, the overall flight model feels more believable to me and is infinitely more entertaining.

We'll definitely have to do some multiplayer when we get up to speed. I'm pretty sure you can do the campaign co-op, and Falcon 4.0 still has one of the best campaigns out there. Would be a ton of fun, I think.

This video right here is what made me get off my ass and start trying to learn a new plane:



So awesome.

striderjg

ok, it's official. I have to learn how to control my wingman better. Just got him killed AGAIN, this time in hideout. Don't know what the f he was doing when I told him to engage with mavs as I was loitering right over the bloody target area without a care in the world and he somehow gets himself shot down. Arg.

Two Headed Boy

Damn, what are those guys even SAYING?

Sir Carcass

Two Headed Boy wrote:

Damn, what are those guys even SAYING?

http://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?7714-Basic-Air-to-Air-Combat-Tactics-Guide&p=93827

Spoiler:

Brevity (using the below terminology) is extremely important, if you don't you will not be able to communicate complex information quick enough. You shouldn't have to say "I don't think I see that on my RWR", it should be "falcon 12 naked." If you think its stupid or just role playing time yourself trying to say the same amount of information using everyday language - you will find its impossible.

Terminology
This is an ultra-minimal list, representing the most common stuff you will hear and should use. For an exhaustive list see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brevity_code

Bogey: Unknown contact, treat as hostile but do not fire on it until you get visual or FCR interrogation PID.
Outlaw: Suspected hostile - treat as hostile and fire on it when you are sure its not friendly.
Bandit: Confirmed hostile.
Positive Identification (PID): You can confirm that the target is hostile by means other than AWACS, the best method is visual, but is also the most dangerous. The FCR can also interrogate (scan and classify) targets if you are close enough, in which case the top middle of your FCR will display the class of aircraft. This can be considered PID. PID is EXTREMLY important and required when friendly aircraft are within 20 miles of a target. Do not try to declare a target with AWACS when you are closer than 20 miles to it. Rely on your eyes, RWR or FCR.
(Nose) Hot: Target is turning into you on intercept.
(Nose) Cold: Target is turning away from you and (usually) running.
Beam(ing): Somewhat tricky to explain. When you are beaming a target it means it is on the gimbal limits of your radar just so you can keep it on your FCR but keeping it as far away from you as possible. This is ideal when you want to give some space from a target while still guiding a missile on it. You will see enemy AI doing this as well. You will always want to beam modern russian or chinese jets because you need as much space as possible to defend contemporary air to air missiles.
Notching left/right: Moving on beam away from a target, usually done after you fire a missile at a dangerous threat.
Stripping left/right/up/low: You are breaking formation to engage a target or pursue.
Visual/Blind: You see (visual) or do not see (blind) a friendly contact.
Tally/no joy(or tally): You see (tally) or do not see (no joy/no tally) a enemy or unknown contact.
Offensive: The contact in question is attacking
Defensive: The contact in question is defending a threat
Nails: I see a RWR contact, usually followed by direction "Nails 29, left 10" (I have a mig-29 on my RWR, from my nose left, 10 o'clock)
Naked: I don't see the RWR nail you are talking about
Low: Below 10,000 feet "scan low" means look at shit 10,000 feet or lower
Fox 1: AIM 7 or radar guided missile launch.
Fox 2: AIM9 or infrared missile launch
Fox 3: AIM120 or AIM-54 launch.
" " Inbound: Enemy missile detected on rwr or visually seen and incoming, as in "Adder inbound" or "fox 3 inbound"
Commit/committing: Contact is intent to engage a target. Usually this is called when you report a group and then are going to attack it, you let the rest of the package know.
Supporting: I am covering you while you attack.
High Cover: A common way of supporting a wingman, means you are breaking high and covering them from behind as they attack a target.
Tumbleweed: I have no idea what is going on and need help, implies you don't have good situational awareness
Raygun (bullseye/BRA): Requesting on broadcast if a contact is friendly after you lock them up. If no one replies, suspect it as being hostile.
Buddy Spike (bullseye, altitude): A friendly is locking onto me, stop that.
BRA (pronounced "brah"): Bearing range altitude (attitude). "Bogey Dope" is another brevity code which basically means give a BRA to the bogey you are talking about. Example: 040, 10 miles, 8000, hot.
Angels: Thousands of feet "angels 10" = 10,000 feet
Hound Dog: I see something I want to shoot/ I see the target you are referring to.
Furball: A dogfight involving multiple aircraft. Never fire a AIM-120 into a furball, you can easily kill friendlies.
Pitbull: AIM-120 has gone active, meaning it's going to lock onto the nearest target and kill it.

Betsuni

Thanks for posting that, I've always wondered what some of those terms were (but never remembered to look them up). My friend got me using "no joy" years ago but I never really understood it. Also had no clue what the "Fox #" term was either.

Sir Carcass

To be honest, I didn't know most of those either. I need to start memorizing them. I'm sure it would feel kind of dorky to use them at first, but I can definitely see the usefulness of them.

I'm kind of developing a bit of a mancrush on that dude that does those videos. He's just so knowledgeable and his voice is so... confident.

krylon666

Can you fly any other aircraft in BMS? I've only seen F-16 cockpits, so I'm guessing no. Some F-16 vs MiG dog fights would be cool for MP.

I want Flaming Cliffs DCS so I can fly all of those aircraft in super-detailed mode.

Sir Carcass

You can fly F-18's, F-15's, F-14's and A-10's (that I know of), but they're not as detailed as the F-16. I think they have 3D cockpits but they're not clickable. I don't know, this is all going off of the SimHQ review. I do know you can do carrier operations in the campaign.

Headspace

ok, it's official. I have to learn how to control my wingman better. Just got him killed AGAIN, this time in hideout.

The last time we played hideout (and this was awhile back) we decided to try to make an emergency landing on the Russian side. I'm assuming you know the mission and can guess what happened. Probably the worst planning ever on our part so of course I publicly posted it on youtube.

Sir Carcass

Is that the one where they say in the briefing, "DON'T UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ENTER RUSSIAN AIRSPACE"?

Headspace

Yes, that would be the one. It's only happened twice, one time I had a friend who had taken off without aligning his INS. He showed up on my datalink as being next to me but he wasn't--his A/C was transmitting its location incorrectly. The other time was when we forgot about it since my wingman's plane was shot up.

Sir Carcass

Headspace wrote:

Yes, that would be the one. It's only happened twice, one time I had a friend who had taken off without aligning his INS. He showed up on my datalink as being next to me but he wasn't--his A/C was transmitting its location incorrectly.

Haha, oh man. That would be crazy. Glad to know they simulate it in that much detail, though.

Once when krylon and I were playing together, I had gotten shot down and when I took off again, something went wrong with my front landing gear where it wouldn't raise. I finished that mission with guns only (since it wouldn't let me use anything else) and the warning beeping in my ears the whole time. I wasn't sure what the hell was wrong until about 10 minutes into it. Next time that happens, I'm just crashing and taking off again.

Synthesis

Headspace wrote:

Synthesis wrote:

They're still updating Il-2? Shit.

I do hope DCS: Mustang won't detract too much from the next actual thing they were doing...the WWII simulation genre is still carrying on, from 1C and Maddox, the modern (comparatively) aircraft genre is what needs help. I'll pick up DCS A-10 in the meantime, not interested in this so much as reading about crazy experiments conducted in the engine with it.

I think you'll find that the DCS version is significantly more in-depth than IL-2's. IL-2 is a survey sim after all; it doesn't focus on a single aircraft.

You're absolutely right I'd wager--hell, toggable switches!--but even then, that has no attraction to me. 1C/Maddox's version is more than enough detail for a Mustang for what I need.

Now, if this was DCS: Focke-Wulf Anton or DCS: Kawazaki 100--maybe a different story. Maybe. What I really want, like most people, is another modern follow up, in the vein of a Falcon, an Eagle, or a MiG-29 or MiG-31--with variants of it to go around. Guess we'll just have to wait to see what Eagle Dynamics is up to next. I'm a little afraid that DCS A-10 doing much better than DCS Black Shark (totally guessing, I have no sense of numbers) will give them the idea to chase Hollywood-famed US aircraft while ignoring similiarly distinguished but less famous in the west Mil, MiG, or Sukhoi models. Not a fear I expect everyone to share.

EDIT: And I have to say, hearing you guys talking about BMS really leaves me wondering if I still have my old Falcon 4 disc somewhere--the last time I gave it much thought it was still in earlier stages of development, I think.

striderjg

Just a fyi I gathered when reading the eagle forums that the next modern fighter is still under development and they claim the stang has not changed there schedule for that aircraft. I believe it's confirmed that it will be a american fast mover. I'm betting on F-18 of some variant. I really think the 'stang was largely due to engine development for prop simulation. Possibly they want to push their software to civilian flight companies on the none game end of there business and needed prop simulating functionality in the engine. They used developing the stang for that purpose and then polished it up as a release for the gaming end of things. All conjecture obviously I have no idea actually. It feels right to me though. It really should not be a full priced release though as it's just a plane, no combat environment, no campaign, no enemies. We'll see.