IdleBoards

Since Paul hasn't answered yet, those buttons are used to control various functions of the new ARC-210 radios that replaced the old ARC-186 VHF radios. The ARC-210 isn't modeled in DCS.

From the descriptions given here, it sounds like there is a legitimate issue with the IFFCC wind calculations - especially if you're not seeing any difference when entering winds vs. not entering winds. However, I wonder if you might be expecting too much. A miss distance of 100ft when releasing at 9, 000ft is perfectly normal...especially when you're testing with 40-60 knots of wind. I don't mean to be condescending, but they're called dumb bombs for a reason. You can't expect to hit point targets with dumb bombs when using a medium altitude delivery. I'd be careful which test cases you use when trying to quantify the error. The pics posted by Angel are compelling.

That doesn't seem to make sense. If you recorded a track in one version and play it back in another the bombs should hit in the same place regardless of any changes to CCIP/IFFCC/LASTE. The aircraft is still at the same airspeed, altitude, and dive angle at weapon release in both tracks, so the bomb MUST hit in the same place. The only way there could be a difference in impact point, is if there were changes to the weapon's ballistic characteristics or to the weather itself. ED has some 'splainin to do. ;)

Ivan, Your analysis is spot-on, however the source you quoted is out of date. LASTE v6.00 derived current winds using CADC and INS inputs, and used the resulting values to "correct" the pipper. Of course, that's fine at low altitude during pop-up attacks because the winds at platform altitude and the surface aren't very different and even if they were, bomb TOF was so short that it didn't make a huge difference. With the introduction of IFFCC and its subsequent upgrades, the CCIP solution is corrected using the winds entered in the WNDEDIT page (assuming the pilot has selected either "WIND" or "BOTH" as the model mode on the WIND page). IFFCC will first compute the current wind at aircraft altitude using the same process used by LASTE. The current wind is compared to the wind table data entered by the pilot, and a correction factor is generated. The wind table values are then multiplied by the correction factor. The resulting blended values are used in the ballistic algorithms.

The "R" stands for release, and the zeros are the minutes to go. The ":24" is seconds to go. When it changes to "I", it stands for impact.

EEGS has five levels, the first two of which do not require radar.

I don't see any differences between the one in DCS and the one in the real jet, and the one in the jet is described as a Level II EEGS, so I'd say so, yes. You disagree?

Actually, good sir, the A-10's Air-to-Air gun sight is a Level II EEGS with a stadiametric LCOS funnel, MRGS, FEDS, and AMIL.

Use the HOTAS "DMS" switch when the HUD is SOI in A-A Mode to change the threat. It defaults to "MAN-FXD" which is why you dont see the EEGS or MRGS.

^^^^ this. MAN-FXD defaults to a zero dimension/zero airspeed target upon initial power-up in DCS. If you want the EEGS funnel to function properly, use DMS to select another aircraft from the rotary, or change the MAN-FXD wingspan/length/airspeed in the IFFCC menu.

IAM LAR isn't modeled.

DCS doesn't simulate changing magnetic variation. While it does indeed vary from one end of the map to the other, at any given point it is static. The fact that some runways in the game world are aligned correctly with respect to magnetic north, while others have an orientation equal to double magvar (or inverse magvar) is indeed a bug in DCS.

True. Unfortunately, this is a known DCS issue that will (likely) never be corrected. Although the magnetic variation is simulated reasonably accurately across the map, the airport models are often physically misaligned. Tweaking the variation could fix the issue for some airfields, but would make others worse. It's a no-win situation. Let's hope that Nevada and future maps are built correctly from the start, and avoid the issue completely. I agree. However, if I began an approach in IMC knowing full well that the course I spun into the HSI was only an approximation, I would adjust my scan accordingly. Quoted for truth. And I take your point as well; I oversimplified the comparison. A great amount of planning goes into any airline flight, especially an LROPS/ETOPS flight like you described. Further, I concede that the requirements of NAT/NOPAC/other crossing necessitates a higher than normal degree of SA and coordination. When I made the comparison, I was thinking of the all-too-common, "We're headed to ATL...we've been there twice already today. This'll be a max thrust, flaps 8 takeoff on 22L. Runway heading to three thousand then radar vectors to SNOOZ. Clear left. Any questions?" type of briefing. I'm exaggerating again, but you know what I mean. :thumbup:

Oh, I see...Its weird that I've never heard anyone call it that before, especially with as many international students as I've had. Here in 'Merica we just say Approach Course. Its exceedingly rare for anyone to use a Q-code for anything over here (especially the QNE/QNH/QFE buffoonery). Learn something new every day.. Anyway, there are some gaps in capability between the A-10's CDU and other modern FMSs. You might also notice that the A-10 has no provision for measured or predictive fuel consumption; aircraft performance; weight & balance; conditional waypoints; etc... So I'd hesitate to compare it directly to another box (giggety). More directly, the DIVERT page is there to save your ass with a bearing and distance to an emergency piece of concrete in day/VMC when NORDO. Everything else is just gravy. Knowing the runway ID is sufficient to set the approximate course on the HSI. Also, dont forget that fighter sorties are briefed to far more rigorous standards than your typical airline flight. The planning is meticulous, and besides all the tactical stuff, also covers divert fields (runway length, approaches, barriers, live/hung ordnance procedures, transient alert supoort, etc.), divert profiles (snap bearing and distance to the divert field from the target/training area, climb profile, ITT/RPM setting, descent profile, bingo fuel, etc.), as well as weather recall and route abort criteria, and so on. Its far more detailed than simply having an alternate listed on the flightplan, and then relying on the FMS to get you there in the event of an emergency. There is little doubt in a fighter pilot's head where he would go in the event of an emergency, and the details of the airfield would have been thoroughly reviewed and briefed.

What is QDM?