Eddie

It's a long running bug/incorrect modelling in DCS. The to pressure should bleed off within a few seconds of engine shutdown to well below a usable pressure. Windmilling engines should not be able to supply enough pressure for normal flight controls etc. As it is in DCS now, you never actually need MRFCS or other backup systems. Even with half a wing shot off and/or control surfaces missing you still get full hydraulics operation as well.

Indeed. If they could cause "catastrophic" damage they'd never have been cleared for carriage in that configuration in the first place.

FC3 "game" avionics vs real avionics. The real A-10A didn't have those warning either, nor do any of the other aircraft featured in FC3.

They never carry more than two on operational flights in reality today, in fact last I heard most Squadrons don't have LAU-88s readily available. Aside from a theoretical Cold War Fulda Gap scenario where chances are you'd be shot down anyway, A-10s would never be carrying 6 Mavericks. And if you were doing so, it'd almost certainly be all you were carrying. These days 4 would be highly unlikely as well as , as Grand says, if you take LAU-88s you can't carry a TGP.

That is because most people miss the fact that we have both the SA-18 Grouse (Igla) and SA-24 Grinch (Igla-S) in DCS. Although for some reason ED has given both the SA-18 NATO reporting name while they have the correct Russian designations, that I think is the source of the confusion. While the SA-18 has around a 12000 ft ceiling, the SA-24 is closer to 18000 feet.

Not only could it be used for such, it was designed to be able to outrange and kill the Zeus. It does so in DCS as well. Something often forgotten/unrealised by many DCS players is that the GAU-8 is the second best stand off weapon you have in the A-10, second only to the Maverick. Of course, the limitations of the sim damage modelling and AI mean it's less effective than in reality (no mobility kills etc. in DCS and suppression only sort of works if you use scripting), but the tactics are still valid and work to some degree.

In some situations, i.e. if you're instructing the very basics of button pushing to a simulator newbie then yes that would be the perfect situation. However once you move onto the tactical/procedural subjects, no it wouldn't. In fact in some cases it'd make life more difficult as you'd be stuck looking at the exact same cockpit config as the student without the ability to manipulate display pages/settings etc to suit what you need/want as the instructor. Remember, many twin seat training variants have specific systems setups and tweaks in the back seat designed to give the instructor certain capabilities. But even in jets that don't you often want to be looking at different things than the student. Personally I'm not talking about teaching newbies how to ramp start a jet, I'm looking at teaching everything from basic manoeuvring and airfield operations to complex real world tactics, techniques, and procedures. Besides, this is a simulator, the simulation of the real world capabilities and limitations and the challenges they bring is where much of the enjoyment comes from. Well for me anyway.

You don't say, yeah I'm very much aware of that having spent a reasonable portion of my life in Afghanistan. ;) However, a small detail that you're missing. We don't use Javelin or other similar weapons to engage "soldiers" per se. They are used to engage enemy "positions", that is buildings and/or terrain features being used as firing points. Might seem like semantics, but it is a subtle and important distinction. You could certainly employ E/G/K model Mavericks in that manner, but you're still not going to be flying around trying to pick off MANPADS operators, even if by sheer luck you could spot them. You're going to engage your fragged target and get the hell out of dodge, or you're going to abort and go home. In an on-call CAS TIC situation, you're just going to have to suck it up even more, in that situation you certainly don't have the time to be picking off any air defences, the guys on the ground will not thank you for that while they're dying. This is why there are TTPs air to ground operations that make constant use of suppression/cover/shooter roles, and why aircraft always operate in flights of two or more. Again, this is one of those "solutions to problems that don't actually exist" situations that stem from simmers without knowledge/understanding of real world TTPs trying to apply their experience of a game to real world operations, I'm afraid it just doesn't work that way around. Remember in reality time on target is normally measured in seconds or a few minutes, not tens of minutes or hours.

As above. The skeets have what is essentially a LASER range finder to help separate vehicles from the underlying terrain in combination with the IR sensor. They are not "guided" or "homing" in any way.

I imagine that SDsc0rch has simply trimmed down the detent as I have, and as show in the pic below. Simple case of shaving of a small amount of material with a scalpel/file until you get the desired "push through" effect. I only had to remove a few mm of plastic to end up with a nice solid stop that you can push through by adding just a bit more force than you'd normally use to move the throttles.

The DCS CEM has less than half the submunitions it should do (202 in reality). That combined with the damage modelling in DCS is the issue. In order to give the weapon half a chance of performing properly against soft skinned and light armour, the blast damage power would have to be cranked up so much I think it would then be far too powerful vs heavy armour. Classic catch 22 resulting from the current modelling of weapons in general. Oh and Strongharm, it's ordnance, not ordinance. Two very different things there fella.

As someone who has spent much of the last 10 years of my simming life teaching others as part of MP groups, I strongly disagree. No a mistake won't kill you in a sim, but so many things would be exponentially easier (and more enjoyable/cooler) if you could be sat in the same jet seeing what the student sees, and vice versa. I'd like to see the twin seat variants of jets just as AI jets/only flyable from the front if nothing else. It was always a nice detail to have trainees flying training jets back in previous sims, and also have them as "scenery" at airfields.

Yeah, the default HOF/RPM for the CEM is not good at all (it's also wrong for the SFW). In DCS you need much lower HOF/RPM settings than in reality to get reasonable effects on target, the big downside is that you therefore get a vastly smaller footprint than in reality as well.

Specifics like that vary a lot, besides such details are not the kind of thing that should be made available in the public domain. It's never (incredibly rarely) possible, apart from in specific circumstances such as display pilots flying dedicated display aircraft. In short, pilots fly what is available/they are told to fly.

Missile reject steps to the next missile where one is available.

There are minor variations from unit to unit etc. but, Startup/Taxy Nav - Flash Anti Col - Off Takeoff (before entering active) Nav - Steady Anti Col - On Landing/Taxy Light - On/Landing Formation lights are as required, i.e. on at night off during the day. Taxy lights are the same when taxying, on when required, i.e when you need it to see where you're going. In flight Nav - Steady Anti Col - On unless in close formation at night (all off but the last man in the formation) And obviously, in combat (fenced in), all off.

pee-toe

This kind of thing varies from aircraft to aircraft, and even different types of tyre for each aircraft (temperate or hot&high for example). There's no way to give a single answer, other than to say nothing out of the ordinary..

The latter, reflections from the CRT tube/projection system.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2315372#post2315372 Post 27 on, but you can read the rest of the thread for full context. In short, no DCS doesn't model Force Correlate, or the Maverick in general, all that accurately.

Not even a little bit. No. You don't. What you do is assume their presence and plan your attacks accordingly. A typical Russian Tank Brigade will have between 40 and 60 MANPADS available (although any number from none to all of them could be deployed at any given moment). Remember a MANPADS is a weapon that can be operated by a soldier, just like any other weapon at a unit's disposal. They can be, and generally are, carried in the units vehicles until required. SEAD/DEAD couldn't care less about MANPADS/AAA generally speaking. They have bigger fish to fry, and can't detect MANPADS anyway. In DCS, yes, for now. In reality no, you can't, it doesn't work that way.

You don't need to edit anything, any weapon will cause units to be suppressed if it does damage to them.

Nope, it's not even close to that simple. If you're running a Link-16 based net then there is a significant distribution of information, "locking" something is largely irrelevant however. And of course as DCS has many aircraft that don't have that standard of DL (in fact none of them currently do as modelled at present), it's not going to happen that way. Of course any ground forces can provide intel reports, but air assets generally don't/won't, at least not until they reach the debrief phase of the mission. Unless they are flying specific recce tasks for various tactical reasons(and even then it may not be until after RTB when pods etc. are downloaded and the data analysed). Only specific ISTAR assets can provide (near) real time intel on enemy forces, either through active means (AWACS/JSTARS) or passive means (ELINT/photo recce). As far as an "icon" moving away from it's reported location, that doesn't make any sense. If you write down a grid ref, do the numbers magically chance over time? Mine sure don't. What does happen however is that the forces at that position may move, and if nobody is watching to provide an updated position then it doesn't get updated as they do so. As for units being tracked/within LOS of any player's TGP or other sensor's FOV, I don't think that's the way to go. Position reporting for human players should be accomplished manually, preferably by actually marking the map and/or datalink info being visible to CA players etc. Any automatic system like that which we have now just leads to being able to magically detect units that haven't actually been seen by anyone just by flying close enough. A good FOW/detection system is a big task, but if done right can a very significant impact to the simulation. Plenty of other games have done a very good job of implementing a FOW system that worked well for them. The way it has been done in the ArmA series for example, which uses some of the elements I've mentioned, while not perfect is still a good example and nicely blends spotting by AI with manual map marking by players.

Interesting idea, but personally I think the whole FOW system needs reworking from the ground up, the current implementation is both worse than real world ISTAR/Recce asset can provide, and unrealistically beyond what they can provide both at the same time. We need something that report positions of groups (platoon/battalion/regiment) using the appropriate NATO/WARPAC map symbology, rather than show each individual unit. And having the accuracy and timeline of reported positions vary based on the asset supplying the intel. Also, once a units position is reported it should remain on the map permanently, even if there is no longer an asset detecting it. In such cases an age of info figure should be shown to indicate how old that intel is. And the big thing that needs changing is that only the appropriate ISTAR/recce assets and ground unit with LOS should be reporting enemy forces in (near) real time. Fighters, for example, should never be reporting the position of enemy ground forces. and something where non recce assets don't feed intel into the system until after they've landed back at home plate would be nice as well. Such a system would actually give a purpose to recce aircraft/missions and ISTAR assets such as AWACS, JSTARs, and ELINT platforms.

No Correlate track is tracking the entire image and giving guidance commands to ensure the image expands out equally in all directions, it is the weapon's terminal guidance phase with is used when the weapon gets too close to the target for a centroid track to be held. All force correlate does is quite literally force the use of correlate track at launch. Depending on launch distance the Maverick has CEP of over 100 metres when employed in force correlate (1 mil in fact, you can do the angle maths to calculate the distance based on a given range). In short, it will not hit a small point target, and it flat out should not work the way most DCS players employ it.