A-10 in ArmA way unrealistic

Ok i am no pilot but i know what the A-10 can do, in ArmA it takes a whole runway or more to takeoff when in real life it doesn't take that much... it is way faster and more agile than in arma and has much more lift which equals a lower stall speed. when you turn with the A-10 in ArmA it drops speed so rapid you basically crash! This is not true in real life, you can turn fast in the A-10 without losing much speed at all in the A-10. It is also very fast, not quite as fast as the Harrier but it is still almost as fast.

Please fix it...

Yep, it's been mentioned often enough, the A10 basically has no thrust in game. Guess if they fix it, they fix it. Other than that it's an outstanding vehicle in game, especially with AAW sounds and 6thSense Tracers.  

I noticed this too. You basically need to be accelerating constantly in order to keep it in the air. If you get preoccupied with shooting and forget to keep accelerating, you lose too much speed and drop like a rock.

Well, almost.

Agreed Layne_suhr, though I would extend that to all the fixed wing aircraft - their thrust ratios need a re-check. Also the speed-bleeding-in-turn problem has also been mentioned, but still needs an address.

just a small note however, I'd be careful about saying "it needs a whole runway to take off" in real life, runways do not have to be any set length, and it should be noted that Paraiso's runway is VERY short for an international airport at 1160m, which is only just over a third of Nellis AFB's runway 03L/21R (3085m).

That being said though, the A-10's takeoff performance on any of Sahrani's grass airstrips is unjustly atrocious!

Is there any difference with the MAPfact A-10s in how they handle? I've not used them much, but generally found them to be reasonably controllable (trust me, if I can hit something with guns then they must quite easy to handle).

The ability of the aircaft to hit targets is fine. It's the take-off performance and the loss of speed in turns/inability to recover speed that's being disupted.

Regardless if the MAPfact version has an edited config, it will still inherit these issues with the BIS flight model.

The stall speed of the a10 in arma is around 250 km/h. The stall speed of the real a10 without flaps at a weight of 30,000 lbs all inclusive (???) is about 222 km/h. To test the take off roll, you can probably find that information easily and then measure the length of the runway needed in ArmA. The runway in ArmA is very short, though. The rest would be more difficult to measure, though. My point is that your subjective feelings may be more wrong than you think. I'm not saying that the values in ArmA are absolutely correct, but I think all of them may not be so out of range as you think.

Hmm, maybe. Although the inabilty of the aircraft to accelerate out of the stall seems pretty undeniable.

EDIT:

Although I guess I could be talking bull there too.

The Harrier has quite a lot of punch in the engines compared to the A10.

Daniel @ May 03 2008,05:56)]Hmm, maybe. Although the inabilty of the aircraft to accelerate out of the stall seems pretty undeniable.

EDIT:

Although I guess I could be talking bull there too.

The Harrier has quite a lot of punch in the engines compared to the A10.

nope, not bull at all - most aircraft should be able to gun the engines and accelerate get out of a stall pretty easily. it's the first thing you learn in flight school.

also the constant speed bleed dosen't exist in real life, either.

In my opinion a big part of the problem is you have no idea where your absolute speed is half the time so you're sitting there holding Q praying it'll speed up and really just straining yourself and it's really rather annoying.

I've mentioned it before and I think we really need something similar to this somewhere in our hud:

(link)

Preferably for both planes and helicopters.

Discuss

I totally agree with you.

In ArmA when you are flying without doing any moves your thrust is at 70%, with Q is 100% and with Z is 0%, and that, in my opinion, HAS to be changed.

Yeah the throttle control is a bit lousy. With a HOTAS set up, I can at least not get RSI prodding the Q key but the fine control over speed just isn't there. I find it damn near impossible to be a wingman...just overshoot all the time cos I can't slow down without shedding too much speed and having to gun the throttle or stall. Damned if I can tell where the '70%' or default speed mark is on my throttle's axis either.

Strikes me that you don't ever actually go that fast anyway. Can't say in ArmA I've ever got the sensation of actually going 750 (mph? Kph? er...what?). Now I love Franze's F-18s and Footmunch's F-16 for example but they just seem as slow as the A-10 in flight.

Daniel @ May 03 2008,06:09)]The ability of the aircaft to hit targets is fine. It's the take-off performance and the loss of speed in turns/inability to recover speed that's being disupted.

Regardless if the MAPfact version has an edited config, it will still inherit these issues with the BIS flight model.

I have to disagree with you there as the method of which you use for weapons delivery is quite inaccurate. IRL you can pick tgts off with the mavericks from much further away. And also if you were to use iron bombs or CBUs you can use those from much higher altitude. As for straffing I think the FPS and draw distance and the low axis sensitivity mean that its quite inaccurate for straffing. To make things more realistic you would want a working TV display to properly use the mavericks.

Daniel @ May 03 2008,03:00)]Yep, it's been mentioned often enough, the A10 basically has no thrust in game. Guess if they fix it, they fix it. Other than that it's an outstanding vehicle in game, especially with AAW sounds and 6thSense Tracers.  

Yeah the most ideal setup would be an aircraft setup like lockons A-10 with the simplified flight model and that level of avioincs pity ED couldn't work with BIS to make a simplified yet more authentic looking A-10 performance.

nope, not bull at all - most aircraft should be able to gun the engines and accelerate get out of a stall pretty easily. it's the first thing you learn in flight school.

Dunno what flight school you went to, but "gunning the engines" is NOT proper stall recovery technique...

Proper Stall recovery for an A-10 is:

Reduce AoA to below stall warning by relaxing back stick pressure will produce an immediate recovery. Retract speed brake and apply maximum power will decrease altitude loss. Hogs got some funny stall charcteristics like if the gear is down and you stall they have a nose right yaw.

The reason why the A10 has obscene thrust problems is because it is made using the flight model of a helicopter.

Thats what i heard at any rate.

The reason why the A10 has obscene thrust problems is because it is made using the flight model of a helicopter.

Thats what i heard at any rate.

Dont be daft!

Its got problems because its got a duff mass distribution and not enough lift.

The reason why the A10 has obscene thrust problems is because it is made using the flight model of a helicopter.

Thats what i heard at any rate.

yeah, that's nonsense. It's plain to see that the fixed and rotor wing fm's are quite different.

The reason why the A10 has obscene thrust problems is because it is made using the flight model of a helicopter.

Thats what i heard at any rate.

Dont be daft!

Its got problems because its got a duff mass distribution and not enough lift.

...and to add to my esteemed colleagues reply ArmA is not a flight sim.

Thats right its not a flight sim it is a Battle simulator which incorporates everything. And yes improvements in that area should be encouraged if you wish to make the Battlefield more realistic.

There is little point in wasting time on fixing the fixed wing issues in ArmA.

Sure, it tries to simulate everything but the viewdistance is much too short to do any real air combat with the fixed wing aircraft.

I'd say BI should concentrate on making 10000m viewdistance possible first after that fixed wing might be worth fixing.

The reason why the A10 has obscene thrust problems is because it is made using the flight model of a helicopter.

Thats what i heard at any rate.

Dont be daft!

Its got problems because its got a duff mass distribution and not enough lift.

...and to add to my esteemed colleagues reply ArmA is not a flight sim.

it doesnt have to be, its probably a model or config issue.

Just to add my peny's worth, alhough the A10 as many shortcomins, its still a very potentweapon in ArmA. Like Sub im a big lockon fan, and the A10 i that is amazing (as you would expect). I play with my viwdistance up around 8k, this really opens up the A10 as a standoff platform. Key is altitude, get high identify target area, then make run from a distance, the speed you will gain during the run, can be used then to regain altitude and start the process again. I would def have someone doing an FAC role on the ground tho, as being talked into the target is a big help.

There is little point in wasting time on fixing the fixed wing issues in ArmA.

Sure, it tries to simulate everything but the viewdistance is much too short to do any real air combat with the fixed wing aircraft.

I'd say BI should concentrate on making 10000m viewdistance possible first after that fixed wing might be worth fixing.

In a way I agree - in that it may not be in anyone's interest if balance is lost. If the A10 was boosted to real values it might be too much. However at this time the power of the engines are rather low and you are fighting a bit to keep the plane in the air so maybe some ajustments would be ok.

We can't forget that certain elements in the FM are offsetting the issue - mainly that of tab-locking targets.