IRIS A-10 pilot

[ST0RM]

Given the AN/AAQ-28 LITENING is a weapon, can you edit where it is placed by editing the TacPack.cfg file that is in every aircraft that is compatible? Or the TacPack-user.cfg file?

Just curious, as this is a gripe by the guys who fly it in the VA.

Jeff

[spins_vmfa321]

No sir, that object is part of the model, and uses a visibility condition to appear.

They'd have to modify the model in order for it to appear on another station.

Maybe they'll do that in a patch! I'm still waiting for ALQ-184.

[skyhawka4m]

No sir, that object is part of the model, and uses a visibility condition to appear.

They'd have to modify the model in order for it to appear on another station.

Maybe they'll do that in a patch! I'm still waiting for ALQ-184.

I've actually had comms with IRIS and they have said that they will not be moving the pod. I addressed it because in the real world the pod is on station 9. they said they have "early" development shots of the real thing on the centerline. Being BIG into the A-10......and having had the PA ANG A-10 until a couple years ago right outside my window......never saw this in the real world. Its a wiring issue and it was placed out there its my understanding for visibility away from the gun exausts. I personally was hoping they would move it and also update the maverick pylons to the current single rail.

[Smudge]

John's right. At this stage there are no plans to move the pod, it was placed there after wide discussions within the coding team and moving it isn't as simple as moving the object in the model. It requires massive changes to code across the entire aircraft and various systems if it gets moved to another pylon.

It was our opinion that its position, whilst it appears controversial, allowed the increased use of AGM-65s and freed up a vital station used by a number of stores.

[ST0RM]

John's right. At this stage there are no plans to move the pod, it was placed there after wide discussions within the coding team and moving it isn't as simple as moving the object in the model. It requires massive changes to code across the entire aircraft and various systems if it gets moved to another pylon.

It was our opinion that its position, whilst it appears controversial, allowed the increased use of AGM-65s and freed up a vital station used by a number of stores.

Its not controversial, it's wrong! Sadly we're seeing more releases from companies that have these mistakes and are called out, but never fixed. Who tested this? Obviously no one from an A-10 background. And to free up more space for Mavs, you could have placed it on Station 2, as it is also wired for a targeting pod on the A+ that you've modeled. That would have left Stations 3 & 9 for -65s.

See this pic of a Maryland Guard jet carrying LITENING on #2 and then a photo I took over Afghanistan of a pair of 81st FS A-10A+s, where it is on #3 with a typical CAS loadout.

http://image.geotorrents.com/images/...5734594709.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...A22022008C.jpg

We don't pick at products to poke fun at developers. We just want them to be accurate. Is this a big deal. Not really, but to say sorry "its too much work" tells me that you care more about selling products as fast as possible in order to make a buck, rather than keep long term customers. This should have been caught sooner and would have saved you some time having to model the TERs and triple LAU rails.

-Jeff

[spins_vmfa321]

Its not controversial, it's wrong! Sadly we're seeing more releases from companies that have these mistakes and are called out, but never fixed. Who tested this? Obviously no one from an A-10 background. And to free up more space for Mavs, you could have placed it on Station 2, as it is also wired for a targeting pod on the A+ that you've modeled. That would have left Stations 3 & 9 for -65s.

See this pic of a Maryland Guard jet carrying LITENING on #2 and then a photo I took over Afghanistan of a pair of 81st FS A-10A+s, where it is on #3 with a typical CAS loadout.

http://image.geotorrents.com/images/...5734594709.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...A22022008C.jpg

We don't pick at products to poke fun at developers. We just want them to be accurate. Is this a big deal. Not really, but to say sorry "its too much work" tells me that you care more about selling products as fast as possible in order to make a buck, rather than keep long term customers. This should have been caught sooner and would have saved you some time having to model the TERs and triple LAU rails.

-Jeff

Heya Jeff,
I'm going to defend Iris a bit here, and it's going to involve just a little inside baseball. But first, I want to make clear that I have no affiliation with Iris, but as a developer, I can understand predicaments one may encounter when trying to provide as much realism and flexibility to the end customer.

So, first, Tacpack is a bit of a pain to develop for (at absolutely no fault of VRS). It gives you tons of features and potential, but it has limitations. One has to do with how the masking works for displaying windowed scenes from the perspective of a camera source. So far as I know, and I may be wrong cause I haven't had a chance to experiment with it yet, but IRIS may have already... you can only have one windowed camera position that can work with Tackpack which you assign through the tacpack.ini. If they were to give the option of putting the pod out on STA2 or STA3, than why not STA9 or STA10 (did I get those numbers right on the left side?).

I'm actually running into a similar dilemma with my Hornet. You should be able to put a pod on the centerline in addition to the left waist station, but I cannot add another camera position.

So... that's kinda how I see it. It's a bit trickier than you think. And also, the limitations may just be complete conjecture on my part... maybe there is a way to get it to work that I just haven't figured out yet. But, if this is the case, perhaps this explanation may shed some light on some of the hardships they may be encountering.

Jamal

[ST0RM]

Thanks Jamal,

I do understand it would take additional work. And now understanding the limited views with multiple stations. But when devs come back and basically tell people that the info they are providing isn't true because they saw a one off photo and based their project off that, tells me they didn't research very well. But they did have the time to add a fictional RAAF repaint?

In the end, I welcome the new addition to use with TacPack, but just don't like it when they say its too much work to change it, when it should have been caught by their QA.

Good hearing from you. Looking forward to your future work.

-Jeff

[Smudge]

Hi Jeff,

Thank you for your feedback, should we decide to make a update to the A-10 in the future, we will seriously consider altering the position of the pod as requested. At this stage though, the volume of code to re-write makes it impractical for something which was essentially a free update.

Our new Open Beta programs are in place so those with real world experience can in fact provide feedback to create a better product, we've seen this with both the PC-21 and more recently the new Raptor Driver. In addition, I have on many occasions invited those with real world knowledge of a particular aircraft in development to join the development team, though it does rely on people with knowledge to come forward and approach us during development.

I apologise if you feel that we inferred that the information you had stated was untrue, that was not the case. Whilst it may not the 'standard' station for the A-10 as picked up by our QA team during development, based of photographic evidence we had to hand, we chose to place the pod on the center station.

The Australian repaint was added by myself on request from a number of Australian customers.

Whilst our A-10 may not be a 100% faithful replication of the aircraft, based on feedback from our customers we feel it's no less enjoyable to fly, even with the pod on a different station.

Regards

David

[ST0RM]

David,

No worries. I'll continue to support IRIS's products. I appreciate the replies and open communication. And I do understand the length of work to redo it.

And I'll keep an ear out for the next time you need testers for a future project. Sadly that doesn't get too much spread.

Cheers,
Jeff

[Scandinavian]

Since we have IRIS developers on here. Is there anyway to disable the automatic radio callouts when passing 10 000 feet, switching to ARM and so forth?
The F-22 has the same, and it's just annoying I think.

Is the F-22 Driver a new product, or as the A-10 a free update to current users?
Isn't it also a C-27J update in progress in the works?

Sorry for the last off topic questions.

[Ferry_vO]

Is there a manual included with the download..?

[skyhawka4m]

Since we have IRIS developers on here. Is there anyway to disable the automatic radio callouts when passing 10 000 feet, switching to ARM and so forth?
The F-22 has the same, and it's just annoying I think.

I believe there is......knob red4 will take care of that for you

[Scandinavian]

Thank you Skyhawka4m. It looks like I haven't read the manual well enough. Shame on me.

[skyhawka4m]

Thank you Skyhawka4m. It looks like I haven't read the manual well enough. Shame on me.

Its all good...not a problem. thankfully the A-10 is one of the best lanes I have on FPS and is flown a bunch....especially my repaint for the PA ANG....

[ST0RM]

A couple of problems I'm having. Could be me, so I wanted to ask first.

When placing a SAM site, they launch, but I get no indication on the RWR in the jet.

Secondly, I flew it last night and when I switched on the NVGs, I got only a solid green screen. It almost looked like there was no clear alpha channel. Like having a dark pea green soup visor.

Any help? Thanks!
Jeff

[Chris Sykes]

Jeff you need to turn the RWR on, heres a vid on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-3xKcmMAho

If your getting a full green screen, which i had as i used to have the NVG ENB. Removed that and NVG on Tacpack worked OK.

[ST0RM]

Thanks for the reply Chris. Pretty sure I had the RWR on and tuned, but I'll go back through and compare to ensure it wasnt operator error.

As for the NVG/EMB. Yep, I run a EMB mod. I'll be sure to pull it prior to a night go to prevent it from conflicting.

Cheers!
Jeff