ASAP

real life it's basically the same brightness, just angled down more. They are absurdly bright LEDs now.

There are a couple of ways to do it, here are the most common ones >> TMS right short makes a mark, TMS right long makes last mark SPI, CHINA HAT Forward Long slaves all to it. Or you can hit the function 8 on the UFCP (does the same as moving the STEER switch on the AAP to mark) to use the mark point database as your steerpoints or you can take the mark, the CDU will automatically switch over to the markpoint page, you hit the line select key next to #? to dump the mark into the next mission waypoint, then make that your STPT If you steer to waypt 51 and then select down it will go to mark Z (if there is one) or to your last markpoint. If it goes to mark Z select rocker down again and it will go to your last markpoint. If you do that any new markpoint you make will automatically become your steerpoint. I like to do that if I'm following something thats moving on the pod. Leaves me a trail of breadcrumbs and I can Slave all to steerpoint real quick if I lose the lock.

I'm pretty sure the hop as you're describing it isn't an issue in real life, but... for the JDAM: take a mark and drop on last mark SPI, or pocket it into a steer point and drop on that steerpoint with Steerpoint SPI. Then the TGP can hop all it wants and it doesn't make a difference because the JDAM only cares about the coordinates of your SPI at release. LGBs don't really care either so long as the SPI is reasonably close to the target and you get the laser back on the target for its terminal phase. Same for the laser mavericks it guids to the laser energy, as long as it's on the target before impact, you're good. If you are ensuring you have a good lock with your maverick D/G/H/K model mavericks before rifling it off your TGP is irrelevant. the only weapon where I see it being a real deal breaker is the AGR-20s because their time of flight is so short. Get another A-10 to buddy lase it for you.

I'd bet its becasue no pilot ever bothered to write it up to maintenance because they never look at it. Who's looking at a compass during a guns pass (or any other time your not completley electric out) anyway?

I assume you are talking about when there's an overcast cloud layer above you? It would make a difference since the scene is not reflecting as much of the sunlight and the sun hasn't heated the surface up as much you'd get a bit less contrast but not as bad as DCS makes it out to be. In real life it would of course depend on how long the clouds have been there, if its been overcast all day and the sun never hit the target it wouldn't be radiating as much energy as if the cloud deck just rolled in. If its something like a tank though with really hot turbine engine it should still be lit up like a christmas tree. If you are looking down through clouds at a target you'll just see the top of a cloud. FLIR can't see through them at all. I've noticed in DCS that clouds have passed between me and the target and the TGP can still see a clear scene but the target just disappears. That is totally unrealistic.

Are you talking about not being able to laze the weapon in? If not, disregard everything below. In this instance, bank less. The SA cue (the little white dot on the right of your TGP) is burried in the mask zone and the L M at the bottom of the screen is telling you your laser is masked. use where that SA cue is to know how much you can and can't bank. Keep it in the middle 2/3rds of the screen and you shouldn't have an issue. It's not uncommon to have to level out, go slightly belly up to the target, or put in a boot of rudder to keep the TGP unmasked and looking at the target as you lase the weapon in. If you want to be in a stable wheel above the target, move in closer and you shouldn't have that issue. Also, make sure you don't have a weapon on station 11 because that could make your LMZ worse. If you notice in the video posted above, the eyeball just kept flying straight and level, so was able to avoid the LMZ.

This was something I was curious about. This is just jee whiz, I talked with someone I know who recently went through the B course and asked what the first flight profile is like: First off they get about four weeks of academics on all the different jet systems and local area procedures, then they get three simulator rides. The first simulator is for local area procedures and to get familiary with normal ops and how to fly instruments in the jet. The second two are full up emergency procedures sims. So the student should be full up on how to do all the non weapons related operation of the aircraft by the time they get to the flight line. His first ride in the A-10 the instructor stands on the ladder and is plugged into your comm cord until you get both engines started up (basically just watches to make sure they don't screw it up and answers questions, wasn't there to walk him through it), and then peels off to his own jet leaving the student to get everything set up on their own. After that the student leads the takeoff with the instructor in chase (much further out than what the AI pilot flies in IRON FLAG), flew out to a MOA did some aerobatics, practiced traffic pattern stalls, did some simulated single engine flying, did a couple of aircraft handling exercises to get a feel for the jet and then they did a lead change and the student practiced flying in route/fingertip of the instructors wing for a few minutes and did a couple of turning rejoins. After that they left the moa and went and did every kind of instrument approach the A-10 can do at one of their auxilliary fields (PAR, ILS, LOC, TACAN, and a simulated single engine approach). Then they go home and land out of a straight in. Apparently the A-10 isn't authorized to do touch and gos so the all the approaches are down to like 20 feet and then they go around. First time the wheels touch the ground are on their first full stop landing.

What formation are you flying? Fly in wedge, its much easier to do when your a mile + away from the FL

Isn't that the way it worked in Falcon 4.0 BMS? I didn't a play it a whole lot but I remember being able to set up DTC like options like what screens would load up on the MFCDs, radio presets and stuff like that. I would love this. I think in general the flight plan that mission designers develop should get saved as a flight plan so the mission waypoint database can be used by the player for target area stuff, which I understand would be more realistic. I also can't see how having another tab or two in the mission editor to set up HMCS and HUD settings and weapons profiles to the users liking would break the mission any more than the player having to spend 10 minutes on the ground pressing virtual buttons to get the exact same result (and miss take off time).

Fighter pilot rule #1: Sound cool on the radios. If the flight lead needs to know he can always say "2, say rounds remaining" or something to that effect. The old joke is there's only 4 things a wingman is allowed to say unless directly asked a question: "2" "Mayday" "Lead you appear to be on fire" "Next rounds on me" < there are other variations of that last one but I'll keep it PC That's a bit outdated and now the "thinking wingman" is a thing, but there's definity a time to speak up and a time to STFU as #2. Of course that only works in the AF because each squadron and MDS has its published standards which spells out what all the assumptions are and that's the way they train day in and day out, so everyone has a common mental model of what's happening (for example: off target it's assumed the wingman was successful in the attack and is visual on his flight lead so he doesn't need to call "2's visual, successfull", he could just flow back to his briefed formation position automatically). Flight leads could also brief something as non-standard and say the flight will do something different. End of the day this is a game for peoples enjoyment so there's no wrong answer as long as it works for your group. Just throwing it out there for the people that want the extra realism

100% correct about the fuel and the indicator. For the comm, fighter pilots talk as little as possible to keep the radios clear for important stuff. Real world during ops checks the only thing verbalized is fuel so the flight lead can keep track. It sounds like: FL: "Hawg ops check, 1's 7.2" 2: "2's 7.3" when either jet gets to the point where they have empty wing tanks they would give an advisory call 2: "2's 6.9, wings dry" If the flight lead gets there first he'd just do an ops check and add wings dry to his fuel. Flight leads can change up what they want to throw into their ops check calls of course, but it's an accepted standard that most people follow. The only other thing that sometimes gets thrown in with ops checks is "good pressure" after the initial climb above 13,000 feet to verify all jets are pressurizing correctly. Wingmen strive to immitate flight lead for all the checks so if FL says "Hawg ops check, 1's 7 thousand 5 hundred, good pressure", 2 would say "2's 7 thousand 3 hundred, good pressure" as opposed to "2's 7.3, good pressure". Anything else is stated in an ops check is by exception.

Everything other than the GBU-31/38/54 would be useable as normal. TGP would still work but it'd give you bad coordinate data, and punching good coordinates into the jet would send the TGP to the wrong spot. Also any mark points or steerpoints you make would drift with the INS. There's a way to correct the drifting symbology by updating based off of known locations, but I don't know if that's simulated. The JDAMs wouldn't necessarily be completley off the table, but I'm not sure to what level CDO stuff is simulated in DCS if at all and that gets into a lot of beeps and squeaks. Suffice to say you'd have to be careful about how you use them and if you knew you wouldn't have GPS at all on a sortie it'd probably be better to pick different weapons for your loadout.

Yurgon, I always enjoy these discussions, I feel like we've done this a couple of times now. LOL I'm just going to throw out that I agree with everything you said here ^^^ and you are absolutley correct. This whole topic exploded more than I expected. All I was saying is that doctrinally the JTAC is trying to get effects and the pilot should do weaponeering to meet those effects. I'd venture a guess that 95% of the time if the JTAC says I want a GBU-38 on this target the pilot is going to say, here it comes. If they say, hey this weapon would work better to get you what you need, the JTAC would probably say cool, use that then. War is chaotic and dynamic and people have their own techniques. Ultimatley its a CAS team and CAS pilots are going to do everything they can to help the guy on the ground. For the purposes of DCS I ignore what the computer JTACS tell me to use and use the weapon that makes the most sense. When playing with a live JTAC, its a team effort. Happy new year!

I've heard it done both ways IRL, most commonly I've heard the GCI passed in remarks and restrictions, or even a generic GCI passed in the situation update. If you have a copy of the JP3-09.3 look at the paragraph labeled DEVELOP GAMEPLAN in the execution chapter. It clearly states GCI can be included there. examples provided in the JP are not all inclusive of every scenario and a lot of that comes down to JTAC technique. Talking JTAC instructors I know, they say that they train JTACS not to request a specific weapon but to request effects instead. Sometimes its obvious, if you request a BOC attack from an A-10 they pretty much have to use a 38 or a 54. If the aircraft checking in is a viper with 4xMk-82s and you want to blow something up then sure request Mk-82s. The big point I'm making is that weaponeering is primarily (not solely) the responsibility of the pilot. The ground commander could be saying he only wants certain weapons used for certain targets, that's not really the JTAC making that decision though. There's a really good chance the ground commander is also not an expert on air to surface munitions or the tactics used to employ them. I 100% agree, it was just an example. Situation dependent though, in a vacuum, yes type 3 is probably the way to go. If it's a 4-ship of A-10s doing two target strafe every pass and they can quickly mass firepower with one pass each a type 2 could work just fine. After 9-line passage a the pilot could also request type-3 control. Maybe the JTAC has a good reason for it needing to be type-2, maybe he hadn't thought about it. Its a team effort to get the GCI met Pilots already know the REDs for all their weapons. The line 8 shouldn't be rougher than what the JTAC knows, it should be to the absolute best knowledge of the JTAC, and both parties should be working off the same number. Both the JTAC and the pilots are looking at REDs to make sure danger close requirements are met and if friendlies are close to the target the pilots should be talley the target and visual the friendlies before attacking. If it's a pre planned 9-line then the JTAC would probably have already doped all that out. If its a troops in contact (when danger close is most likely to be a factor) its a lot more dynamic.

Either in the attack brief prior to the 9-line they can say "Type 2, bomb on target, ground commanders intent is to attrit 50% of enemy tanks in the area" or in the remarks in restrictions after the 9-line is read they could say something like "Ground commander's intent is to level the building." The pilot could then come back with their weaponeering solution "You can get 2xCBU-87 from my -2 on those tanks" or "We'll need to use all of our GBU-38's to level the building" or something like that. The JTAC can then either agree with the plan or give them a restriction. Like the example you gave in your first post, if the JTAC could ask for AGR-20's on a tank, the pilot would tell them there is absolutley no way that would give them DWE and probably recommend somethign like mavericks or guns. You are correct he could say "no its AGR-20's or nothing" and simply not clear them to attack, but that makes a pretty ineffective CAS team. Again, doctrinally speaking, it's the flight leads job to do the weaponeering. but its a conversation and they come to a conclusion together.

"Aircrews retain the primary responsibility for developing weaponeering recommendations and aircraft employment tactics, while the JTAC or FAC(A) focuses on target effects." ^ The only mention of weaponeering I found in the JP3-09.3. I googled that and found it immediatley it was not marked FOUO or CUI. Hopefully that doesn't break forum rules. This is a chicken or the egg argument. We are all basically saying the same thing in the end. Which is: the CAS team has to agree on what they are doing. The JTACs WANT to clear the aircraft to strike because they need the effects. The pilots WANT to give the ground commander the best weapons effects possible, but according to joint force doctrine the JTAC is asking for an EFFECT not a specific weapon. It might be that of the weapons available there is only one specific weapon that meets the restrictions, and gives the desired effect in which case the JTAC can say it has to be that specific weapon (AGR-20s come to mind). Obviously the JTAC is the one who owns the hammer on the cleared hot call, so he does have the ability to just overide the pilot. But its not doctrinally what is supposed to happen. The JTACs are not experts on all the different aircraft tactics and it's not their job to dictate them.

The text book answer is that it is that weaponeering and tactics are primarily the aircrews responsibility. JTACS don't dictate what ordinance they want, they dictate what the ground commander's intent is for the target. JTACS ask the aircraft for a specific effect (complete destruction, suppression, destroy an artillery piece vs the people using it, etc...). They might recommend or request a specific ordinance, but the pilot is the one who decides the best way to get that effect with what they are carrying. The JTAC can make restrictions like "save at least 1xGBU-54 for follow on targets", "No cluster bombs", or "Don't use any cratering munitions on the runway" or something like that. In theory at least, the pilot has a much better understanding of the weapons they are carrying, and their aircrafts specific tactics and ability to deliver it considering accuracy, probability of destruction, threat exposure, etc... While picking that weapon though they have to come to an agreement with the JTAC because of issues like theater ROE, special intructions (SPINS), run in restrictions, danger close considerations and collateral damage, just to name a few. If the JTAC doesn't like the plan they wont clear the aircraft to release, but they shouldn't be dictating specific weapons. Generally speaking though, as long as the ground commander is getting the desired effect it should all be the same to them. I'm sure there are probably plenty of real world examples where it has happened before, but that's a different topic.

Not so much a systems functionality question, but what is your normal dwell state regarding what screen you have called up and what mode its in during each phase of flight if its not being needed for anything specific at the moment. There's a ton of different screens and options to get lost in.

As far as I know there were two ever built. One is in the boneyard at DM, the other is in an air museum somewhere. The A-10 community decided there was no need for a back seater to assist the pilot executing the FAC-A role, and it wasn't any value added for training so it was determined to be a big waist of money and they scrapped it. And the Air Force has never been overly enthusiastic about throwing money at the A-10 anyway...

Yeah the seeker biting off specifically on runway lights for some reason is a bug, especially if you can't slew off of it and lock onto the target or it always insists on only locking onto the light. I meant in the bigger context of maverick behaviour this would actually be pretty realistic. The seeker looks for points of contrast in an image and bounds on them so small objects like bushes, trees, fences, and especially shadows, even the targets shadow are things the maverick could lock onto. It would be far more realistic if DCS players have to contend with those issues like in the real world (as opposed to slave all to SPI, TMS forward short = lock on exactly what your TGP was looking at with no issues).

I'd also like to point out that a maverick locking onto fences, shadows, bushes near the target is not a bug at all. Thats a realistic problem that has to be accounted for by real pilots. The seeker is just looking for points of contrast on the video. The pilot has to verify that it is indeed locked onto the correct target and if not, they need to not rifle/slew the seeker onto the correct target. Its only a bug if it does have a good lock w/ the good lock logic talked about by everyone else above, and then bites off on the wrong thing after being rifled... Although from my understanding that's not entirely unheard of in real life either.

My first guess would be that you don't have a good lock on what you are trying to shoot at. How are you locking the target up? You need to slew the tracking gates onto the target to get the maverick seeker to get a lock. DMS UP & HOLD to space stabilize the seeker helps a lot, you have to release the DMS switch once you've slewed the tracking gates in order for it to lock. If done correctly you should see the tracking gates close in on the target indicating a good lock on the thing that's in the center of the crosshairs. Its up to you to determine if that thing is what you are trying to shoot. Also at least with a real maverick you'd want to ensure that the cross symbol floating around the screen isn't flashing because that indicates the missile wont be able to keep its lock during the launch transients. BUT I don't think it's accurately moddeled in DCS because the cross never stops flashing for me and it doesn't seem to care, the missile still hits the target.

Thats the exact opposite of what you should get. In the A-10 you should get DME but no bearing to the tanker.

This made my day