Eddie

Every aircraft uses a unique LASER code which is assigned either in the ATO, or as part of the Sqn directives etc. No two aircraft operating in the airspace will have the same LASER code on their weapons. If the enemy managed to get hold of the LASER codes for a given flight, they'd have got their hands on the ATO itself and you (and every other aircraft in the sky) would have much bigger problems than someone maybe knowing your weapon LASER code. In short this is DCS "problem" stemming from poor procedures/preparation, it just isn't an issue in reality.

SUU-25 illumination flare dispenser.

Marking/Indicating targets/other points of interest. And yes use it in MP often.

In reality the A-10C is now at suite 7, which has many, many features that we do not have. HMSS (or whatever the American's are calling it, I forget) being one of them. The A-10C modelled in DCS is suite 3, quite a long way behind what out there now.

Don't do it Noodle, run away, it's not worth the frustration. ;)

IFF functionality in the A-10C is essentially the same to the transponders in civil aircraft, with the exception that being a military aircraft, the A-10C also has modes 1, 2, and 4 as well as mode 3 (A & C for civil aircraft). There are quite a few functions missing from the A-10C in DCS, most notably JTRS/SADL, with what we have in DCS having little in common with the real thing. For the time being however, adding IFF functionality in DCS would be pretty much pointless, as until things such as ATC, AWACS, GCI, and the general aircraft & air defence AI can make use of it (which would not be a trivial task to implement), nothing would be added.

No you didn't, nor did I state in my reply that you did claim it had a range finding ability. I suggest you need to read not only what others are writing, but also what you are writing yourself. You said.. And as I pointed out (below), the Maverick does not at any point know or need to know about it's range to a tracked object. That information is provided by the aircraft to you (the pilot) in the same way as LOS position and slant range are derived for the TGP, not the missile. The Maverick, and the targeting pod are very much tracking objects in a two dimensional plane, the third dimension (range) is not relevant to that action. It only becomes relevant when you want to derive coordinates and determine if you can employ a weapon on the object being tracked, and that information is produced by the aircraft's systems and presented to you (the pilot) in order that you can make that determination. As for the remainder of your post I've got better things to do than devote significant time to respond to insults and similar such things on the internet, so I'll simply say (in traditional internet fashion), you're new here aren't you?

I was really trying to resist jumping in, these kind of discussions and all the armchair experts that they attract are one of the main reasons behind my leaving the test team and becoming very tired of DCS in general of late. But alas I can't help at least trying to stop all the misinformation spreading.

The Maverick has no idea at all how far away its target is, and nor does it care. You as a pilot need to know and care so that you can launch within parameters, the missile doesn’t. This is why the range information is provided by the aircraft and not the missile. That information may be displayed on the same MFD as the maverick image but it is not coming from the missile, or being sent to the missile by the aircraft, just as the aircraft generated symbology on the TGP page is not sent to or coming from the TGP. The missile does not in any way rely on that information, it will come off the rail and guide toward any tracked target regardless of launch range, the range is only important to the tactical employment considerations of you (the pilot) and whether you should launch the missile. The same is true of the TGP’s optical tracking. And again, as has been pointed out to you, range as displayed by the TGP is derived from one of two sources. Either the LASER, when it is firing, or when the LASER is not firing (or no usable reflection is detected) from the DTSAS (Digital Terrain System Application Software). Now the fact that you seem to not get how that works in the context of the combat aircraft/TGP integration, yet claim to have studied GIS at degree level doesn't add up to me. No the LASER arm switch in the A-10C (or any military aircraft for that matter) entirely disables the LASER system within the pod. Oh and by the way, there is only ONE physical LASER in the LITENING AT (and Sniper). It operates at 1.06µm in combat mode and 1.57µm in eye-safe training mode. The rangefinder function is actually provided by the narrow FOV CCD camera (which also provides the laser spot search/track functionality) detecting the reflected LASER energy when the LASER is fired (both at combat and training power). I also suggest you learn how optical tracking actually works, the TGP does not need to know the range to a given point in order to track it it any mode, both area and point track are 100% optical tracking modes and as others have pointed out they work in a similar way to how the AGM-65 series track a target (with the TGP area track being similar to correlate, and point being similar to centroid). Good for you, I'll send you a medal. Congratulations you've spent 3 years at school, come back to me when you've been using, maintaining, or designing this stuff for 15 or 20 years. It does work as intended, you just don't understand how that is. Oh and if you're referencing that video for insight on how to fly the A-10C and use it's systems, that is your first mistake. That video has as near as makes no difference nothing in common with real world TTPs, and if that's how you're flying you have a lot to learn indeed. The problem here is that you have just enough knowledge to think that you actually know what you're talking about, without knowing enough to recognise what you don't know, and just enough arrogance to believe that you know more than anyone else on these forums. Something not helped by the fact that you're new and therefore are very unlikely to have seen or read the hundreds of discussions on these topics that have occurred over the years. People have so far been quite civil with you, which is quite a good reflection on those involved given your attitude. Don't expect that to last forever if you continue being so obnoxious.

I've been trying to stay away from these forums recently lest I go totally mad, but by god it's a long time since I read as much rubbish in one thread, so I can't not get involved. No, you are NOT correct. You have some serious and fundamental misunderstandings and misconceptions regarding not only the LITENING ATP but also weapons and aircraft systems and their operation in general. Yurgon and others are, mostly, correct. You need to go back and actually learn how this stuff works rather than making assumptions. I know this will come across quite harshly, but frankly I can't think of a more pink and fluffy way to say it.

It determines if friendly groups sending their position via EPLRS through JTRS/SADL will have the green cross superimposed over them when in the TGP FOV.

Not possible. Kill boxes, pre-planned threats, airspace zones, etc. are done via TAD layers created in the mission planning phase and loaded from the DTC in reality, which is not modelled in DCS.

It's not "funny" at all. There is a reason military pilots spend 6 months learning to "fly", but it takes another 2 years or more of training before they are considered anything close to ready to fly a fighter/attack aircraft in combat. Flying an aeroplane is easy, fighting in one is a whole other matter.

It makes a great deal of sense in reality where thing such as blast patterns, frag patterns, and impact angles have to be considered. So much so that 45 degree high angle dive bomb is one of the standard delivery profiles loaded to the DSMS for GBU-12s when flying CAS ops.

Well GG is, for the most part, correct. You are not correct at all. SPJs are just one more countermeasure available to defeat a threat, just like chaff, flare, and AIRCM. The reason SPJ don't generally attempt to counter a non tracking emmiter is simple, when you can only counter a small number of emitters at once (I mean single digits, maybe even just a single threat, depends on the system in question) within a specific elevation and azimuth range you don't try to counter emitters that do not represent a direct threat to the aircraft being defended. Not to mention the fact that keeping an ESCM suite in a fighter cool is bloody hard work and they can, and often do, overheat pretty quickly if active for extended periods. But then you'd know all that as you're so sure you're correct you must have all the facts at your disposal. ;) More modern systems are pretty damn clever, and can take measures against emitters not in STT, but only in very specific circumstances as determined by the software, config, and threat libraries loaded at the time. But hey, what do I know?

Those are the functions of china hat aft, not TMS. Do yourself a favour, forget whatever chart you're using and just look in the DCS manual.

It'll work fine, if the server has export enabled. If the server has export disabled, as many open servers do I believe then no, TARS will not work.

TMS Aft Long = Set SPI as steerpoint The function of TMS Aft Short will depend on the current SOI. There is no "reset SPI" or "cancel SPI".

As I said, I tested it briefly during the open beta of 1.2.7, and haven't since, so something could well have changed and/or been broken. If you've tested in to current release your results will probably be more reliable and current.

In my very brief testing the ECM does actually do "something" now, but that something is still pretty useless and not what ECM is for. It simply reduces the distance as which the AI SAMs will lock you, there is still the magical "burn through" at a set distance, and in most cases the "burn through" range is still outside the effective range of the SAM system anyway. It does give you an extra mile or two against some systems, such as the Geko, but overall nothing of note has changed. Once you're locked up ECM is of no use, which of course is exactly when it should come into play. My advice, don't hold your breath waiting for a reasonable countermeasures simulation in DCS (either ECM, AIRCM, chaff, or flare). It might happen, one day, in the distant future, maybe, just like everything else.

Some can, but it's done smartly, and is based on the selected threat library, and in cockpit/mission planning options selected by the pilot. But they don't simply fail to display "friendly" emitters, they just indicate they are friendly and/or use that data as part of the prioritisation process. Threat prioritisation also being incorrect/flat out dangerous in DCS.

It's a long present bug.

Yes. No weapon is simply dropped under gravity from any aircraft. In the case of an ERU pyrotechnic cartridges in the pylon fire generating gas pressure, the gas pressure simultaneously releases the hook holding the store in place and drives two rams down forcing the store away from the aircraft. The same process takes place for a normal release, selective jettison, and emergency jettison. There are other types or rack and launcher that use different types of ejection system (missile ejector launchers being one). Some light reading: http://www.marvingroup.com/index.php/companies/mec/products/ejector_racks/