Eddie

Not sure what you're getting at here, how is this discussion related to combat vs civil aviation?

Because the explosive and/or batteries etc. are life expired, or the airframe itself has reached its stress/fatigue limit and as such there could be unexpected and/or unpredictable consequences if they were used. Some weapons will be returned to the OEM for overhaul, others will be dismantled etc. Generally weapons used for live fire training are those closest to life ex. All down to flight safety etc. It would be nice to get the captive training missiles and a/g stores for the Mirage in DCS.

To add another perspective. Typhoon has a free spinning rotary on the throttle with no end stop or limits, and therefore no centre.

Cost, no. Using the most appropriate type available and number of weapons, yes.

I'm afraid your view is somewhat clouded by your own experience here. Offline players make up by far the vast majority of all DCS players, and I'd say there are more people in organised groups of various types than there are those like you. It's just that these forums have an over representation from the casual public server players which gives the impression it's a larger portion of the community than it is.

While true, those of us wishing to make use of realistic procedures find it very difficult to do so due to some of the limitations in DCS, this being one of them. Yes you can role play it, but as MBot has already mentioned, role play for the sake of it isn't very appealing when you know it really makes no difference to the outcome. Not to mention the training burden caused by having to spend hours correcting bad habits caused by the current status quo. Although I will say I do believe that if the sim did more to encourage and reward the use of realistic procedure (and the documentation and training taught it) I think even the more casual public server crowd would begin to embrace it, at least the basics. But hey, perhaps I'm too hopeful (influenced by my sim history). I can't speak for everyone of course, only those myself and those I have spoken to directly, but the reason we don't use the "birds" is that the implementation of the effect of a bird strike is unrealistic (catastrophic engine failure every time) as with many of the system failures. Anyway, that's another discussion.

While all your points regarding AI are valid, I have to say I very much disagree with this statement. I think that adding IFF functionality purely for aircraft that are human controlled would add a not insignificant amount to the sim. Yes the AI would continue as they are now, but at least the current "magic" IFF would be changed to a system that has potential ambiguity. As it is now, IFF is essentially confirming both friend and hostile and players can simply shoot at anything that isn't flagged as a friend. Now I wouldn't advocate removing the current implementation, but rather making it a difficulty/gameplay option such that those who want to play in a more relaxed arcade type style can continue to do so. Personally, I'd much prefer no IFF at all over what is currently in place. As the current functionality promotes poor procedures, and lack of communication and coordination.

Absolutely essential in my view. I'd like to see everything from SA-1 though to SA-23 (SA-24 is already in, albeit named wrongly) and the same for NATO. Heavy calibre AAA is also greatly missed (S60, KS-12, KS-19 etc.). We also need all the associated EWR and control RADARs. Older systems aren't only needed for the older aircraft, but also to create scenarios for modern stuff. The single digit Russain systems are still very prevelant accross the world, especially in the Middle East (Straight of Hormuz comes to mind).

With military aircraft, if you're airborne, it's on. Many aircraft don't have the option for the pilot to turn it on or off.

Unless ED or RAZBAM simulate the extra strain under G loading that NVGs cause, then they'd be a significant hindrance. ;) There is a reason NVGs aren't often used during A/A sorties by anyone, and why pilots can removing them from their helmets and stow them away. And as has already been mentioned, the cockpit isn't NVG compatible, so if you have cockpit lighting on it should bloom out your NVGs, and without the cockpit lighting you won't be able to read anything inside the cockpit either.

Yeah, it's just the way it's modelled in DCS. The visual cloud/fog effects are not in any way linked to icing.

80NM is more than possible, depending on the launch and target aircraft parameters. That's the point IASGATG is making, missiles don't have a single "max" range, it's a dynamic number based on parameters. Without knowing the parameters, giving a range number is meaningless.

Hmmm interestin, thanks. It I can ever find the time to wrap my head around lua I might make that a project.

That's all IFF is anyway really. It's really not a complex or "sneaky" as people have the impression it is. It is no different to civil aviation transponder functions, it just adds a few modes, and a layer of cryptographic security over the top, just like GPS, voice radios, and data link radios.

The idea you've outlined would be a good solution, at least until the AI could be programmed to work with IFF as well. Just implementing IFF between players in MP would drive a significant step change in game play and tactical fidelity of the simulation.

Gotcha, makes sense. Again out of curiosity, and because I keep being asked about it myself when explaining this script to people, is a similar script possible for guns/aaa etc? My instinct is no, but as I only just know enough to tweak parameters in other people's scripts I'm reluctant to say for sure.

Of course it's possible to employ the aircraft, you just can't use the targeting pod or Mavericks from above any cloud deck that's all. But that said, the A-10 is not an all weather aircraft, and almost all aircraft suffer limitations in poor weather.

That's correct it should not be able to see through cloud. Moisture very quickly absorbs and therefore blocks IR energy, it's just as hard for IR to pass through cloud as it is visible light.

Outstanding. The effort is massively appreciated. Out of curiosity, can you explain what the issue was (in simple terms if possible, preferably with crayons)?

Ah ok, I get your point now.

Does the radar not display cursor/target bulls-eye position?

It's not possible to simulate GPS jamming in DCS at present. However, GPS jamming wouldn't cause either of the things you suggest. JDAM is INS guided with GPS assistance, it'll work just fine without GPS (in fact the first 10-15 seconds of its flight don't use GPS anyway). The same goes for modern aircraft, GPS is only used to refine and update the INS, they'll work just fine without it, albeit with the potential for INS drift to be an issue.

The published optimum airspeed for refueling the M-2000C is 305KCAS / M0.80 at FL250.

It's certainly loaded, dcs.log confirms it. Initially tested with an A-10C vs SA-3/SA-6 and loading file a once>time more than 5>do script file trigger. I've switched it to your trigger format and the same occurs, it does however work vs SA-15/SA-8/SA-13 in both cases. So, it appears there may be something related to the missiles themselves (class/type issue perhaps)?13

Indeed, that alone would greatly increase options available when building scenarios, even if you only used such airfields for the AI. One of the things that has always niggled me in DCS is that there is nowhere in the Black Sea theatre where NATO aircraft would be operated from in any kind of realistic scenario involving a conflict in that area. "Simply" adding an airbase or two in Turkey would create that option, and many other options. The same goes for the Crimea of course.