Helmet Mounted Displays are a reality on the A-10C

Suite 7B!

Why do people seem so excited about Suite 7 when 8 (?) is the current?

Surely if you're going to lobby for a new version... :)

Why do people seem so excited about Suite 7 when 8 (?) is the current?

 

Surely if you're going to lobby for a new version... :)

I'm just being humble, Suite 8 would be asking too much if you know what I mean... Having the Suite 7B would be enough for me.

Why do people seem so excited about Suite 7 when 8 (?) is the current?

 

Surely if you're going to lobby for a new version... :)

Probably because suite 7 introduced HMCS and removed the pave penny. Other that that most wouldn't know what suite 8 introduced.

An ILS-certified HUD would be sweet with AoA indexer. HMCS would be really cool for SPI broadcast or slaving sensors to.

Air Forces Monthly

FWIW, I'll add my +1 to this, I know it's unlikely we'll get an updated Hawg, but I'd love to know if the conversation has even been had around getting an updated suite modeled.

I also highly doubt that it would be possible, but just to help ED gauge interest, I will also add my +1. And a upgrade fee would be 100% justified :)

+1

+1

+1 but not hopeful

Again, don't update the A-10C module, but simply add a additional upgrade for it that costs extra.... If it would ever come at all.

Meaning you need to buy a A-10C module, and then you need to pay for the upgrade to get newer Suit version. So you can't just buy (or receive) a updated model.

Same thing would allow third party developers to get additional incomes.

Example make a Mig-23ML, add a MLD as optional upgrade. Or Mig-21Bis and optional upgrade to Mig-21-93 or so.

And nothing would deny to go to backwards as well, like offer a MiG-21R.

Of course lots of work would be needed to have documents and such, but when flight model wouldn't change in aircraft itself (other than different weaponloads etc) and main work be in the cockpit changes, it should be cheaper than making a totally new module. Yet many likely would be ready to pay fair price for the alternative versions as addition to the basemodel.

Again, don't update the A-10C module, but simply add a additional upgrade for it that costs extra.... If it would ever come at all.

 

Meaning you need to buy a A-10C module, and then you need to pay for the upgrade to get newer Suit version. So you can't just buy (or receive) a updated model.

 

Same thing would allow third party developers to get additional incomes.

Example make a Mig-23ML, add a MLD as optional upgrade. Or Mig-21Bis and optional upgrade to Mig-21-93 or so.

 

And nothing would deny to go to backwards as well, like offer a MiG-21R.

 

Of course lots of work would be needed to have documents and such, but when flight model wouldn't change in aircraft itself (other than different weaponloads etc) and main work be in the cockpit changes, it should be cheaper than making a totally new module. Yet many likely would be ready to pay fair price for the alternative versions as addition to the basemodel.

First of all ED would need to get a license/cleareance to develop a more modern A-10C variant and that might be a problem.

First of all ED would need to get a license/cleareance to develop a more modern A-10C variant and that might be a problem.

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

That all is logically required before anything, by anyone.

I'm not sure if this is the case. I don't think that is the case for (some of) the WW2 aircraft. I'm also not sure if RAZBAM has a license for the Mirage 2000, which is why they only refer to it as the M2000.

But yeah, usally it should indeed be a requirement, but it sometimes seems to me that people on the forums forget about that when they demand new stuff.

Again, don't update the A-10C module, but simply add a additional upgrade for it that costs extra.... If it would ever come at all.

 

Meaning you need to buy a A-10C module, and then you need to pay for the upgrade to get newer Suit version. So you can't just buy (or receive) a updated model.

 

Same thing would allow third party developers to get additional incomes.

Example make a Mig-23ML, add a MLD as optional upgrade. Or Mig-21Bis and optional upgrade to Mig-21-93 or so.

 

And nothing would deny to go to backwards as well, like offer a MiG-21R.

 

Of course lots of work would be needed to have documents and such, but when flight model wouldn't change in aircraft itself (other than different weaponloads etc) and main work be in the cockpit changes, it should be cheaper than making a totally new module. Yet many likely would be ready to pay fair price for the alternative versions as addition to the basemodel.

If my memory is right, ED did this in the past. Upgrading a specific module and you would have to pay extra bucks for this feature. As much as I love the A-10C, in fact it's my fav module, I don't think it's going to happen. Which makes me kinda sad but that's life.

I love how this thread evolves. Quite at the very start there are precise reasons listed why it wont happen, as also clearly stating it's not a matter of code update but legal and procedural formalities, not even mentioning if military would agree to provide data on latest and advanced equipment.

But the thread moves on with a wishies rolling like a snowball... :music_whistling:

I love how this thread evolves. Quite at the very start there are precise reasons listed why it wont happen, as also clearly stating it's not a matter of code update but legal and procedural formalities, not even mentioning if military would agree to provide data on latest and advanced equipment.

But the thread moves on with a wishies rolling like a snowball... :music_whistling:

:megalol: Yep!

+1

They have been a reality on the A-10C for years, but that doesn't mean its going to happen. Honestly we should just be happy that we have something as modern as an A-10C in this game! If you think about it we are quite fortunate we got such a modern technological suite. Of course I want it, but I'm sorry I don't think it will ever happen in the next decade or so. Suite 7 is quite new for a module of DCS standards.

While fancy it is, it ain't so much better considering that you can so easily point HUD at the target and get SPI via that way. Or make a mark point to your location when flying over and/or use a TAD to get SPI wanted place and then just use TGP to fine tune things.

My problem is that TAD map is so ugly, low resolution and inaccurate that you can't use it so effectively like needed in fast situations like a ABRIS allows in urban areas.

Sure it would speed things up but not so considerably if you are fluent with TAD and HUD.

Yes it is great in KA-50 to use HMS for target search, navigation, datalink and most importantly to aim with an cannon, but it is an helicopter with moving cannon instead a airplane that needs to be constantly moving.

Actually now I need to go to try how to guide laser guided rockets/missiles with a monocular.

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....