Just curious, what did the tool include?
It was a Windows application that expanded the weapon delivery planner functionality of DAPS and added the ability to create and save DCS compatible DTC files. It provided a GUI interface from which it was possible to create, edit, and save DSMS/TAD/CMS profiles, set IFFCC/HUD/CDU/SADL/MFCD/AAS/TGP preferences, manage radio presets, calculate aircraft performance and TOLD, etc.
There were a few things not saving correctly in DCS, a few things need to be exported (like the weapon data capture pages), and we needed ED to provide the ability for DCS to look first for an AWE DTC before falling back to the settings provided with the mission. But we never recieved the support we needed. Without that ability, AWE could only be used for single player, which defeated the purpose. So I stopped development.
Neck (10Jan15)
That sucks! It seems this software package pretty much included everything ED should have delivered alongside their module. Pre-setting such settings would save us vpilots quite some time.
Last edited by JayPee; 10Jan15 at 17:17.
So true! Having such tool we could really feel having a virtual cartridge in our hands... I am curious what were (are ?) the reasons behind this lack of support from ED side (product release is rather poor argument, at least for me). Nevertheless I hope eventually such a tool will be possible to implement one way or another as well as that most of the A10C bugs will be tackled.
Getting back on topic.
Yesterday I created a mission and set the temperature in the mission editor to -15C. This should create a noticeable difference in feet between cockpit altimeter and true MSL readings, right?
In flight manual we can read:
Questions - is LASTE corrected altitude equal to true MSL and is G ALT on second page of POS INFO the aforementioned LASTE corrected altitude?In NAV and Air-to-Air modes, the display is the uncorrected CADC barometric altitude. The displayed altitude in these modes should be the same as the cockpit altimeter. In GUNS, CCIP, and CCRP Modes, the displayed altitude is corrected by LASTE for installation errors, non-standard temperatures, and non-standard pressures.
Apart the answers when I switch Master Mode to GUNS,CCIP or CCRP the displayed altitude does not change. Is this a known bug or am I doing sth wrong/not understand how it works?
And there is this section Delta Radar/EGI GPS Altitude Numerics in the flight manual which says:
The reason I asking all those question is this sentence:The first value is the difference between the true MSL altitude and the CADC pressure altitude. It is displayed as a signed 4-digit numeric followed by a “D.” Valid range is -9999 to 9999 in 1-foot increments.
The second value is the true MSL altitude computed by either adding radar altimeter altitude to steerpoint elevation or using GPS altitude. It is displayed below the delta value as a signed 5-digit numeric followed by an “R” or “G.” Valid range is -1000 to 32767 in 1- foot increments.
Noodle - this is all your faultIt's always better to use HOT elevation with the actual target elevation than to rely on the DTSAS Auto Elevation function (often referred to as "DTS").
End questions are:
-when higher than 5k feet, what is the best way to calculate/read true height above the target (including non standard atmosphere conditions)?
- are all the systems mentioned above correctly implemented in DCS?
- is such accuracy needed in the RL?
Last edited by IronHog; 10Jan15 at 20:47.
I wonder if you put in for a 3rd party license you could sign up to sell AWE for like a dollar or of course whatever your time is worth Noodle maybe more. Everyone that owns the A10 would probably buy it. Just a thought to take it from a different direction.
Maybe you could get some more support...or maybe this has already been attempted...but if they are doing paid for missions surely they would help with paid for utilities. JUST a thought
Last edited by Baxter; 10Jan15 at 21:29.
I had this thought for a while as well. Still the biggest issue if understand correctly is that there is no API or rather some kind of interface which is required to get all needed data for the tool, so whatever the approach is it requires ED to make needed changes on their side first. As recently they opened up for third parties with API for modules and new maps development so maybe if approached in a formal way it could make a difference.
I would happily pay for it aswell! And I think many in the DCS community would!