Payload Editor

[Psychobabble 0]

Does anyone know how to put 6 Maverick K's and 4 Maverick D's on a single A10? I've seen several people do it for coop A10 games, but I can't seem to add them on individually. It seems I can only select the payload combinations from the pull down menu for payload. Do you need a payload editor program or am I missing something obvious? Thanks in advance.

 

-Psychobabble

[JayJay 0]

There's a small utility that allows us to personalise our loadout.

I don't have it available here at work but I'll check it once I get home and give you a hint.

[JayJay 0]

Found it. :D

You may download it here.

[Psychobabble 0]

Thanks much JayJay!

[mightylink 0]

I really need this file but your link is wrong now. Its a spam site, pls find me another one.

[Ruggbutt 45]

Last time I checked, 6 K's and 4 D's on MER's was a stock option with Lock On.

[JediMaster 451]

Yes, but that's separately. If you want to carry more than 8 Mavs (either 8 Ks or 6Ks and 2Ds) you need to mess with the files out of the game.

 

Actually, it sounds like he needs to choose "new" from the drop down list so he can make his own loadout. Some loadouts are "locked" and don't allow alterations to the individual pylons, but choose new and you get to make your own.

[Ruggbutt 45]

Real life payload never exceed 4 Mavs. Sometimes 6 are carried on the MER's, but thats for ferrying extra weapons, not for firing. The drag is too great.

[JediMaster 451]

Yes, but in real life you never have 2 A-10s tasked with taking out 15 MBTs protected by a dozen ADA units and such with no support.

[Ruggbutt 45]

Rearm, refuel.

[Growler67 0]

The drag is too great.

 

No it's not. The problem IRL is with the most inboard Mav flaming the exposed tire on the landing gear when it comes off the rail, thus making the eventual landing much more risky than it needs to be. Ever see this picture of the YA-10 with the then less powerful engines than are modelled in game?

 

Just how much drag might this configuration have compared to 6 Mavs? That's 18 Mk82's. Are we gonna debate RL loads with those the airframe is capable of? Juxtaposed with fictional missions created by users that present fictional unit configurations and deployment? The facts are that in game, the landing gear is not at risk when configured with the triple rack is loaded next to it. If ED chose to model those aspects of the game, they would've done it a long time ago. Drag

[+Dave 2,322]

No it's not. The problem IRL is with the most inboard Mav flaming the exposed tire on the landing gear when it comes off the rail, thus making the eventual landing much more risky than it needs to be. Ever see this picture of the YA-10 with the then less powerful engines than are modelled in game?

 

Just how much drag might this configuration have compared to 6 Mavs? That's 18 Mk82's. Are we gonna debate RL loads with those the airframe is capable of? Juxtaposed with fictional missions created by users that present fictional unit configurations and deployment? The facts are that in game, the landing gear is not at risk when configured with the triple rack is loaded next to it. If ED chose to model those aspects of the game, they would've done it a long time ago. Drag

 

Actually you are both right. Yes 6 mavs the way they are slung create tremendous drag. But also you will never see them carry that unless they are ferrying. Growlers info was correct about the flaming would damage the gear. It wa something they found out in testing during the 70's. Also you will never see a war load of 18 Mk82's, that is all for show or exerscies ie Red Flag, Arctic Warrior etc. The A-10's are carrying more PGM's with the use of the lightening pod. The kids we were sending to be A-10 maint crews are getting there hands on the A-10C. That is thing is even more deadlier than the A model.

[Ruggbutt 45]

Well Growler, I prefer to fly with loads that are similar to what have been loaded and used IRL. With that in mind I took the info Dice has given over on the LOMAC forums as pretty much gospel. They ferry the planes with 3, they don't fire them that way. The pic you posted is a test bed. The a/c is capable of carrying that much ordnance, but it knocks down manueverability which is the Warthog's forte. By the looks of that pic it's taken in the early 70's and the mentality back then was that the A10 would be more of a bomber/tank killer. It performs those roles nicely but if a whole bunch of ordnance needs to be dropped there's better aircraft that can fill that role. The A10 only came into it's own in the Gulf War, which gave it renewed life because the Air Force was going to mothball the aircraft. If you don't believe me, ask Dice. I guarantee you he's never seen a combat operational A10 carry 18 of anything.

 

In fact, if you read the captions closely, that's a YA-10 which is a testbed. I can see how you'd be confused by thinking that it might carry all that ordnance. A good tip for you to remember is when you see the long probe on the nose of aircraft like the one you see on the A10, it's being tested and developed. It's not been put into production. I hope that clears a few things up for you.

[Growler67 0]

Well Growler, I prefer to fly with loads that are similar to what have been loaded and used IRL.

 

That's fine, but the original question was in regards to the payload editor not providing the loadout requested. No debates on the IRL things as I've had corespondence with Diceman before myself. You mentioned that it was not possible due to "drag" and I totally disagree. Yes they do use the configuration IRL to "ferry", but the reason they don't fire that inboard Mav is because of the newer rocket motors on the currently inventoried Mavs will damage the exposed portion of the tire on the landing gear.....NOT "drag" as you stated. Damage to the exposed wheel is NOT modeled in LOMAC and so debating it with someone who posted a question wasn't in order, IMO, and it wasn't cited as the fact as to why it isn't done IRL. "Drag" was and that is incorrect. Your preference to flying with loads that match IRL situations is your personal choice. The person asking the original question didn't seem, IMO, to be asking about IRL applications.

 

The picture I posted was to show that "drag" was not a completely valid arguement in your reply. The airframe is capable. Any airframe will trade manuverability with increased drag regardless of what it is. F-16, F-15, F-14, Toronado, Jaguar and so on. Even the next generations of airframes including but not limited to SU-33, F-22, F-35, or Rafale. Yes the A-10 is exceptionally manuverable and all without the advantages of carbon fiber and thrust vectoring. It's "forte" is actually it's lower speed handling and loiter capabilities whereas aircraft like the F-16 and such can DO the mission of CAS, the best aircraft for the job currently in the USAF inventory is the A-10.

[+Dave 2,322]

It's "forte" is actually it's lower speed handling and loiter capabilities whereas aircraft like the F-16 and such can DO the mission of CAS, the best aircraft for the job currently in the USAF inventory is the A-10.

 

Amen!

[Ruggbutt 45]

Yes they do use the configuration IRL to "ferry", but the reason they don't fire that inboard Mav is because of the newer rocket motors on the currently inventoried Mavs will damage the exposed portion of the tire on the landing gear.....NOT "drag" as you stated.

Actually, Dice has stated that drag is also part of the reason. Same with CBU's. MER's can be mounted and more cannisters can be loaded, but there is a huge drag penalty. In fact, rarely is more than one Mav loaded per station. You can argue with me all you like Growler, but Dice loads these aircraft (as well as a bud of USAFMTL's). In fact, Dave's bud said he's never seen that many Mk. 82's. He's seen twelve. One on each pylon and TER's on 3 and 9. But that's the total loadout. Dice stated that some changes were made to the racks and that the tires being scorched wasn't as much of a problem as the flaps being toasted.

 

The picture I posted was to show that "drag" was not a completely valid arguement in your reply.

So it's partially valid? But you didn't include my statement in yours so doesn't that make your response partially valid as well? Cold busted.

 

Getting back to how this affects LOMAC, you can load 3 Mavs (or CBU or Mk.82) on 3 and 9 in the stock game. I've seen these guys start using the pylon editor then they come back and ask someone to e-mail them a stock ME INIT because the editor fuxored it. I'm just confused as to how someone who doesn't fly the game has the answers.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

I really need this file but your link is wrong now. Its a spam site, pls find me another one.

 

Hey, back on topic fo a moment, you might be able to do it with LOPE which you can get from here:

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...mp;showfile=619

 

It's been a while since I played, so I may be completely wrong. I'm sure it allowed you to add MER types to individual hardpoints.

 

If not, my apologies for wasting your time.

 

Carry on.

[Ruggbutt 45]

Backup your ME INIT file before you play around with the payload editor. You'll thank me later.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Backup your ME INIT file before you play around with the payload editor. You'll thank me later.

 

True dat, double true! I got burnt by that. Important to back it up as if you don't, you edit it and it goes south,LOMAC has a huge hissy fit. I practically had to re-install just for a single file!