Power problems?

Everyone knows, the A-10 is severely under powered and it's been stated that it likely isn't even accurate to the real life model.

That being said, is there even any game hacks that can be done to change the power?

When I fully load out my A-10 I can barely get off the ground and keep the thing in the air.

''Everybody knows'' no they don't. I've seen debated ad infinitum and last I saw it was within a few percent. And ''fully load'' you mean TERs on ever hardpoint or something? You know they don't fly like that in real life because... you know...loading things to capacity tends to adversely affect performance.

I'll agree with zhukov032186 here. Most Hog pilot Q&A sessions on the forums , or reddit, always seem point to it being very very closely simulated in DCS (some do mention AoA discrepencis).

And like he asked are you overloading the jet and expecting to use half the runway for a vertical takeoff???

To more practical info, bear in mind altitude and temperature affect performance as well. A hot day at Nellis yields less power than a cold day at Batumi. Logically, this will also affect max takeoff weight, takeoff run, power settings, etc. All ''specs'' you read will generally be for ideal conditions.

And again... without a very specific reason, you would NEVER fly near max anyway. As you correctly observe, they barely fly. That's the whole point of the word ''max''. Much more than that and it WON'T fly, or more likely you'll overrun the runway and/or overload your tires. Ihave Su-25s to the point they were incapable of achieving takeoff speed.

As a rule, if you want anything resembling good performance, you should only load to 50% capacity (preferably less), ideally focused on ONE task + a little self defense and you make more than one trip. Otherwise, don't be surprised a bombtruck flies like a bombtruck.

op let me tell you what everyone should really know: the community at large consists of ignoramuses who select for misinformation to push their larp fantasies

Do you reduce fuel quantity? Unless you're flying from one end of map to the other you wont need 100% fuel.

Do you reduce fuel quantity? Unless you're flying from one end of map to the other you wont need 100% fuel.

That is sound advice Sir.

Everyone knows, the A-10 is severely under powered and it's been stated that it likely isn't even accurate to the real life model.

Uhm, no? :huh:

It has been well stated that the DCS A-10C performance is very close to the real one.

Uhm, no? :huh:

It has been well stated that the DCS A-10C performance is very close to the real one.

Yup. From the real hog drivers we have on the forum, really the only thing I've seen them mention in regards to performance is drag and AoA being off.

It just comes down to knowing how to load your jet for the expected mission conditions. If you have to stay low in valleys to keep SAMs on the other side of the ridge from shooting you down, you're going to want to stay light so you can maneuver. If you're going to be plinking tanks and bunkers from high altitude because the SAM and air threats are low, you can load more heavily, and you should just expect that you're going to have to handle the hog a lot more carefully.

Fact 1: DCS engine is ~4% under target at any OAT when doing full throttle checks.

Fact 2: Real world limit is 2%. That is a hard limit.

What does that mean in pounds of thrust? I'm not going to sit here and say I know for sure. But, attempting to deduce from the provided performance tables, when you check max power at the same OAT "ideal conditions" the DCS engine puts out metrics in the Max Continuous line where the real thing at similar OAT is closer to the Max 30 Min line. Imagine that, it is ~4% difference in RPM. Take 80% of the total thrust at each line and that is in the ballpark of a 550lb difference. In total that figures to be ~1100lb shortfall between what DCS indicates and what the real metrics are at similar OAT. Pretty much flying around with a pair of Mk82s permanently attached.

It is entirely possible perhaps the core makes up a little, I don't know. But it keeps being said this is A1 NASA level coding and just like the TF-34 so why wouldn't I treat it as such and expect reasonable results?

Those that say close enough ought to recalibrate what "close" is. Aregiously bad? Matter of perspective I guess. It is not unusable, but it could be better.

What has been said above in terms of weight management still apply. The A-10 doesn't have a lot of thrust to play with to begin with. That is why I'm more of a proponent of squeezing every little bit out that ought to be.

Is it worth the effort to get more RPMs? It was said it is a million dollar problem. If it truly is I respect that. I don't think so but I'm not the coder. I would offer this: If the T5 system is at all modeled or the ITT is proportionately tied to fan speed you could do as we do real world and crank up the ITT until Fan comes up at least ~3%. Right now you are at 799, you have a lot of headroom.

Everyone knows, the A-10 is severely under powered and it's been stated that it likely isn't even accurate to the real life model.

Is it really severely underpowered?

Even those who are forensic about its flight model...suggest that its only slightly underperforming at the edges of its flight envelope...

The point is the A10C in RL is underpowered...

Which isn't really a massive problem given its usage doctrine except in high/hot environments

Not sure what changed (Thrust? Drag?) but flying on the Syria map, we felt that the A-10 (and the Viper) seemed to be performing better.

Higher IAS and GS in both jets for the given loadouts we were carrying compared to pre-patch.

I dunno...

Not sure what changed (Thrust? Drag?) but flying on the Syria map, we felt that the A-10 (and the Viper) seemed to be performing better.

 

Higher IAS and GS in both jets for the given loadouts we were carrying compared to pre-patch.

 

I dunno...

I'd like to hear ED explain that one.

Me Too...