A10 Flight control issue

[Babite]

Running an A10 in a training mission of my creation and once initial positive climb is established I can’t fly it hands off. I checked my stick-calibrated fine. Checked my keys for trim - they register. Tried pushing the “trim” buttons in the pit - nothing. Began thinking it was the aircraft itself so I tried jumping back into my F-16 and trim that - works fine. Then I thought maybe it was the mission so I created another one to test - weapons loads are balanced but it won’t trim out. It yaws AND rolls without my input. Tried changing the rpm of the engines-no luck. Ive been playing with other dual engines but they aren’t spaced out as far - the f-15, 14, 18 and 22. I’m stumped, anyone else have this issue or a fix?

[molnibalage]

A-10 does not have any auto trim. It is perfectly flyable just after years of F-16 you need lot more skills…

[weaselone]

AMEN, but still, the HOG RULES!!!

[Babite]

@molnibalage:

A-10 does not have any auto trim. It is perfectly flyable just after years of F-16 you need lot more skills…

So it isn’t modeled correctly then? Im not saying I can’t control it…

[Cik]

my advice is just not to fly the a-10.

or, well you know there’s another simulator out there that specializes in it, but i might be called a heretic for suggesting it.

falcon is for falcons, and the mirage. i wouldn’t really try anything else.

[TAC-1]

Its is modeled correctly, flaps are not automatic. manually operated by hitting Ctrl+9-No flaps, Ctrl+10-Full Flaps. Report back after your flight.

[molnibalage]

@Babite:

So it isn’t modeled correctly then? Im not saying I can’t control it…

I do not understand your question. I do not know how accurate the non FBW control code part and (A)FM data but they are functional.

[Metalhead]

I have the same issue. I do use the auto pilot to hold the aircraft, and it works.
Regards Metalhead

[TAC-1]

Manually control flaps, then trim while in flight.

[TAC-1]

Everything works, let me know if you want to go for a ride we’ll hop on the server.

[smg13]

I am having the same issue… the A-10 seems to be incapable most of the time to be trimmed properly. I write “most of the time”, because sometimes it trims properly a bit. Now, this has nothing to do with how realistic or fine everything works. You should be able to release the stick (on a properly trimmed plane) and the aircraft should fly straight and leveled. The A-10 can not do so in F BMS. (And I have checked my stick and key setup, and it is all working fine with other planes, for example the F16 and the Mirage. And I have also tried balancing the load-outs).

If someone can trim this plane, please, tell us how to do it. Because I can’t…
I think the A-10 in Falcon BMs looks great and it would be amazing to be able to fly it without it going all over the pace like a drunken sailor. And I don’t want to fly the “other sim either”, since I prefer BMS. Anyone has any suggestions?

[Dee-Jay]

… A-10 is not to be considered a flyable a/c (understand: not fully implemented for human use like for our F-16).

[smg13]

I understand it is not fully implemented… except for the F-16, is there any other plane in a shape to be considered fully implemented?

It is a shame, it has a 3D cockpit already (which most plane don’t have), and seems to have a resonable FM… except for the trim/woobly control issue. It would be very nice if it could be made more stable? Any ideas why it is so “shaky”?

[Mav-jp]

@smg13:

I understand it is not fully implemented… except for the F-16, is there any other plane in a shape to be considered fully implemented?

It is a shame, it has a 3D cockpit already (which most plane don’t have), and seems to have a resonable FM… except for the trim/woobly control issue. It would be very nice if it could be made more stable? Any ideas why it is so “shaky”?

yes, because the A10 was used to test an experimental NFBW modeling.

read FM articles

[Dee-Jay]

@smg13:

except for the F-16, is there any other plane in a shape to be considered fully implemented?

M2000

[Red Dog]

M2000 is not fully implemented either, so according to Dj logic can’t be considered flyable either
just the F-16 is

personaly i believe that if a aircraft had a 3D pit model by default in BMS then it’s considered flyable, otherwise why would it have a 3D pit
sure enough BMS is a F-16 sim and whenever you fly another aircraft you will have to accept compromises. M2000 included

That’s a less harsh logic than DJ’s

[l3crusader]

@Red:

personaly i believe that if a aircraft had a 3D pit model by default in BMS then it’s considered flyable, otherwise why would it have a 3D pit
sure enough BMS is a F-16 sim and whenever you fly another aircraft you will have to accept compromises. M2000 included

That’s a less harsh logic than DJ’s

IMHO, three things to consider about other ACs :

• the fact that the war environment is really good in Falcon and does not, per se, depends on the F-16, makes the idea of flying other AC nice ;

• the flight model of other AC will never be as good as the F-16, except if out of the blue, NASA decides to redo another simulator and publishes on it with an equivalent paper as the TP 1538, somebody also gets the EM diagram and is willing to reformat all this into an AFM file, and the FLCS (for FBW ACs) is implemented. That’s a lot of ifs.

• the avionics are and will remain heavily F-16 dependent, simply because coding different avionics and maintaining them would be demanding a lot more time of coding, beta testing, and bugfixing.

All in all, I stick to the F-16, personnally.

[TommyGun]

@l3crusader:

IMHO, three things to consider about other ACs :

• the fact that the war environment is really good in Falcon and does not, per se, depends on the F-16, makes the idea of flying other AC nice ;

• the flight model of other AC will never be as good as the F-16, except if out of the blue, NASA decides to redo another simulator and publishes on it with an equivalent paper as the TP 1538, somebody also gets the EM diagram and is willing to reformat all this into an AFM file, and the FLCS (for FBW ACs) is implemented. That’s a lot of ifs.

• the avionics are and will remain heavily F-16 dependent, simply because coding different avionics and maintaining them would be demanding a lot more time of coding, beta testing, and bugfixing.

All in all, I stick to the F-16, personnally.

Right, I do, too, but putting aside all the (otherwise well grounded) reservations, isn’t the idea of carrying 10 AMRAAM’s tempting? Heck, even if the cockpit doesn’t show properly… (you certainly know what I mean)

[smg13]

And was the NFBW experiment sucessful (besides the woobliness)???

Is it possible to make an alternate “not-as-real”, “still-basically-F-16” FM for the A-10?

Of course, it is obvious, that BMS’ FMs are just modifications to the F-16’s FM. All the other planes are just F-16 in different costumes. Is there really anyone with the skills and time and resources to make new, F-16 free, FMs for BMS? Probably not.

But even within this limitation, an A-10 FM would come out good enought in comparition to 90% of other combat flight simulators (I can only think of one that is probably better for the A-10’s FM…). The combat enviroment of BMS is a great opportunity to fly A-10 type of missions.

The only issue I see with the A-10 (besides the experimental NFBW FM) is the fact that wingmen can not use the Avenger gun against ground targets. And even then, I still would love to fly the A-10 in BMS if it could be made a bit more stable.

[Dee-Jay]

The combat enviroment of BMS is a great opportunity to fly A-10 type of missions.

Yep sure … but I just wonder (?) what is the benefit of working on A-10 and flying A-10 instead of the regular F-16 which is able to do the same task int this environment.

The only issue I see with the A-10 (besides the experimental NFBW FM) is the fact that wingmen can not use the Avenger gun against ground targets. And even then, I still would love to fly the A-10 in BMS if it could be made a bit more stable.

AIs can’t do ground straff. Not only A-10 wingman but all other a/c type also.

“Everything” is possible … but the question is: Do you really want the 3 - 4 week becomes 6 - 8 weeks? This is a question of resources and risks of new bug, more fixes … more Btest, more delays …

In any case … you will be to be patient. Maybe the A-10 will (perhaps someday) fly better, but A-10 is not the priority.