This is just some gripes I have with how the A-10C modeled in game. The removal of the pylons when nothing is loaded to them is not how it’s done on active A-10s. The pylons can be removed but I’ve only ever seen all but stations 1, 4, 8, and 11 removed and that was for the demo team. Additionally, stations 1 and 11 house the aileron actuator so when it’s removed in game the actuator just floats there. Not sure why they wanted to go with this idea but I’m not a fan of it. If the model ever gets updated to what the most modernized A-10Cs look like then the penny pod should be removed, the radio antenna that looks like a handlebar should change to the new style which is 2 separate antenna that aren’t connected. I know this isn’t a super important discussion and its super nit-picky and doesn’t affect how the jet performs in game but from an A-10 crew chiefs’ perspective all this stuff just bugs me, and I would like to see it changed.
if you have documentation, this seems like good material for a bug report
All his documentation will probably be classified.
1- Then nothing is wrong with the pylons in-game. We’re not LARPing as real-life crews.
Realism > reenactment.
2- “Penny pod” is a fake name, and it’s on A-10Cs so no issue.
Look at this silly guy.
Alvis isn’t saying the Pave Penny didn’t exist. Just that it isn’t called “Penny Pod” and it exists on some older A-10C variants. That being said calling it a penny pod isn’t wrong. Troops will refer to things by unofficial names and it will be commonly known. Giving the person calling it a Penny pod is a Crew Chief it is probably referred commonly as that in the AF.
Pretty much what @Thenighthunter said.
When introducing a name to people, use the official name: AN/AAS-35(V)
You can add nicknames to it later in your post.
While we on here anyone of any documentation on the limits of the A-10C HMCS. I remember seeing a document that showed the HMCS can’t slave AIM-9s but i can’t find it anymore.
I hope you’re bringing that same energy to every other topic. No more talking about the M60, we now all have to refer to it as the Tank, Combat, Full Tracked, 105mm Gun M60. And we can’t discuss the Tiger II, but instead the Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung B. I’m sure we can all agree that this system is much better than using nicknames or other colloquially acceptable terms for things.
Is anyone else just really dissapointed with the a-10c or is it just me? Yea Aim9M’s cool but the air to ground is just weak and not exciting. two laser guided mavs… or two mav g’s… 5 jdam 500lbs… IDK just not having fun with the a-10c at all.
Totally not because the lower BR A-10As do the exact same job but at lower BRs so they face less BS.
The 10C is currently only really usable in a captive sim server, none of it’s kit is a tangible upgrade over the A-10A Late beyond the missiles and the TGP. Even then as well, 9Ms are really not impressive when you routinely face magic 2s and SARHs off of vastly superior airframes.
Heck, I’ve lost track at this point of the number of games at this point where I arrive to the battlefield with a dead team or with a ending game due to your abysmal speed at this BR.
I can already also hear the people going “good the A-10 has no place in game and you should suffer for playing it” meanwhile the SU-25SM3 is still puttering around unmolested ruining GRB games.