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Ivan, Your analysis is spot-on, however the source you quoted is out of date.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?

The white triangle you speak of is a bug that has gone uncorrected for more than a year. It is an extraneous piece of geometry that has no function in the game, and does not exist in the real airplane.

Eight seconds of track time is a super-fantastic way to get yourself shot down by a Zeus or MANPADS. The description given in the quoted text does not match the real-world system behavior or tactics. The wording used isn't technical and doesn't match the phraseology used in -1 and -34 manuals. I think the quoted text is likely someone's interpretation of how the system works, and even then, it sounds like pre-IFFCC description.

So do you have any comments that relate to the help you say you're seeking? Eddie offered you a checklist along with a good explanation of why you should use it. I told you about the Best Available True Heading alignment and explained that it takes far less time than an In-Flight alignment. I also mentioned that the idiosyncrasies of the In-Flight alignment are not modeled in DCS. Others have given you additional information. But you haven't acknowledged anything I've said, except to give me the wrong names of some regional jets that you say you're engine run and taxi qualified on. I have no idea what an "EMB-141" is, nor an "EMB-147"; I assume that you mean the ERJ-135/140/145/Legacy family. Its hard to talk about the details of aircraft systems with you when you keep referring to things in incorrect context. Are you a mechanic? You mention GPS in the context of aligning the EGI, but the alignment process deals exlusively with the INS. You mention uncaging the standby attitude indicator in the context of EAC engagement, but these two systems are not even connected. I really, really think its a good idea to forget about commenting on the driving characteristics and controls of Leopard tanks, and focus instead on asking questions and reading the plethora of information offered on these forums. I know for a fact that there are threads that explain - in great depth - the EGI system, HARS, EAC (PAC/LAAP), and just about anything else you can think of. No need to be unsure of things...its all here.

If you download the checklist that Eddie posted, then you will be doing it the right way. It doesn't really matter what the ED supplied training mission says or does. Thats the takeaway here. Nobody is trying to piss you off.

The checklist is the right way to do it. What is ambiguous about that? Eddie's point is correct, you shouldn't be telling other people how to do things if you dont know what you're doing. You're right about the way things are generally done in an RJ, but you seem to have trouble accepting that it's not the same in the A-10. The EGI alignment is for the INS and is independent of the GPS, so your point about older airplanes not using GPS isn't applicable. If you want to expedite the EGI alignment, you should use a BATH or SH alignment under the ALT ALIGN page. An In-Flight alignment is by far the slowest method. Not to mention that it's not really simulated properly in DCS.

Uhhhhhhh, ok...

You probably mean EMB-145, but I digress. The A-10 is not an ERJ, and it does not operate like an ERJ. In the A-10, its perfectly normal to have the engine generator switches on prior to engine start. The electrical system logic prevents the generator line contactors from closing until the IDG/CSD is operating within limits during engine start. About the alignment, moving the aircraft prior to acheiving a full gyrocompass alignment automatically transitions the EGI into NAV mode, which is exactly the same as pressing the NAV button on the CDU repeater.

I dont think you can counter so-called "propaganda" with a slide that uses the phrase "...aerospace version of herpes", and be taken seriously. Just sayin'.

Haters gonna hate. You guys act like you could have searched DTIC 3 years ago and come up with white papers and avionics manuals for the A-10C with sufficient detail to allow a sim to be made. Obviously, that wasnt the case, so how do you explain the existence of DCS:A-10C? If the developer has a relationship with LM and or DoD, and was responsible for avionics integration on the jet, why would anyone assume that they are limited to existing open-source material? And as an aside, people are way too caught up with the idea of "classification". There is a big difference between "not publically available", and "classified". There is plenty of unclassified information available, you just dont have access to it. I'll reserve judgement and let the developer's work speak for itself. I have a hard time understanding why people are so eager trash a product that they know nothing about. People bitch incessantly for more better/cooler/faster jets, then when something is announced, it's a race to see who can take the biggest crap on the developer. I honestly think parents and schools have stopped teaching people manners.

850 hours on NVGs, you dolt. I thought you were supposd to be smarter than the rest of us?