Eddie

The 4 MELs are stations 3C, 4C, 6C, & 7C. These are not modelled in DCS at present. The real F-15E has 23 weapon stations, the DCS F-15E only has 19. So the only way to load AAM on the CFT stations at present is for them to be loaded on the AG ERUs, which is physically impossible, hence the change.

With the aircraft configured for the air to air role, yes. The DCS Strike Eagle is configured in its air to ground configuration. In which it is not possible to load weapons on the LAU-106 missile ejector launchers. In A/G role config the forward LAU-106 is stowed aft of the forward ERU, and the rear cannot be loaded while the forward ERU is loaded. DCS does not currently support differing role configurations for the aircraft featured. When that changes I'm sure it'll be possible to load weapons on the MELs.

Indeed it would be nice to finally have them modelled. The LUU-19 and M278 have been absent from the A-10C for all too long. The same goes for IR aircraft lighting. Hopefully when EDGE eventually comes along we might see some progress in these areas.

Use of the word edge in a sentence is hardly link to the "EDGE" engine being developed by ED.

The Russians. mmHG is not an appropriate unit for the A-10C, but then nor is QFE, and we're stuck with both in DCS. The fact that DCS doesn't use a uniform system of units depending on the user settings and the aircraft in use has long been a source of frustration for many. Maybe one day it'll change, who knows.

And that's why we released the range targets pack.

That's a good analogy, I might have to steal that one.

Essentially it's all done by measuring time delays between signal pulses and in somewhat similar in principle to RADAR, only unlike RADAR is doesn't rely on reflected energy. The TACAN and aircraft don't actually "know" any of the things you assume they do, and they don't need to either. There is no triangulation involved. A TACAN antenna transmits two separate signals, one which travels in all directions and is "pulsed", and another that is rotated. An aircraft set to the correct TACAN channel sends a pulse the the TACAN and then the TACAN station sends back a reply to the aircraft with the time delays being used to calculate range. This is also the same for air to air TACAN. Bearing works by having the TACAN station modulate the signal amplitude it sends differently across the antenna by rotating a reflector around the antenna. This gives a rotating signal where one point has a higher amplitude and the opposite side a lower amplitude. As the antenna rotates a fixed reference signal is also transmitted, as both happen at a fixed speed, the amplitude of the modulated signal at the point the reference signal is received is used by the aircraft's TACAN set to determine it's bearing from the station. All pretty simple really. ;) (Although I'm probably terrible at explaining it).

In DCS, yes.

Not that simple actually. Both are effective, depending on the threats in question. The same goes for the long/short and shallow/deep variations of the pods. It's not that one is better, or newer, than the other. Just different pods for different missions and/or threat systems.

I wouldn't be surprised at all, dealt with plenty of the buggers over the years. And they only find out the things they are told about, or at least ours do. It's somewhat difficult for them to hear about thing that happen at bases and Sqn they only visit once or twice a year at best. If yours find out about everything it means you're clearly doing something wrong somewhere. Besides, given that senior officers over here are essentially all aircrew anyway they tend to agree with what they do.

Actually, it isn't, all you have to do is look. :book:

As GG has said, all the defence manoeuvres are far from "random" or "unpredictable". They are all pre-determined and heavily practiced during training. There are specific manoeuvres to counter AAA (even different ones for different AAA systems), and specific manoeuvres to counter SAMs and AAMs. It may look random to the layman, but it is far from the case. There are documents longer than the DCS A-10C manual that contain just tactics & techniques to defeat and/or counter specific threats. If there is a potential threat out there, there are pre determined TTPs to counter it.

Not only can you fire fixed or unguided weapons with a moving sight, a moving sight is required in order to employ them accurately. It makes no difference whatsoever if you are projecting the "sight" onto a small piece of glass that is fixed in place, or to the visor of a helmet.

Helmet mounted sights are still pretty new and still evolving. In most cases they are additions/upgrades to older aircraft that already had a fixed HUD. The F-35 does exactly what you are asking, it has no fixed HUD with all the functionality given to the HMS.

They are a little bit more advanced than 'a keg'. ;) Newer Typhoon drop tanks each have two electically powered fuel pumps which pump fuel under pressure, rather than relying on bleed air and/or suction feed as in most (older) aircraft. They are also much lower drag than traditional drop tanks, especially at transonic and supersonic speeds. They're only 1000 litre though.

Well I wouldn't go that far. For example the drop tanks for Typhoon (at least the newest standard tanks) are £125,000 each. But yeah, still not exactly expensive in comparion. The Tornado's left 6 tanks in the Libyan desert back in 2011 and another set on the runway threshold. IRL the first sign on the RWR of something tracking you and the tanks are gone, and any sign of enigne issues and they are gone as well. No hesitation whatsoever. That doesn't mean they are dropped just because they are empty of course.

If the hoc mic switch is pulled up, as it is by default, you don't need to do anything to talk to ground crew as hot mic is enabled.

"General's" wouldn't give a damn, even if they actually found out, they have important things to worry about. If drop tanks need to be dropped, you drop them.

Apart from the acceleration, climb rate, max speed, turn rate, HARM Targeting System, one piece bubble canopy. Oh and the fact it's not a Navy plane. ;)

The about cue and MRC logic in DCS isn't quite right. This shows up with lower altitude deliveries with the IFFCC giving about cues for a perfectly safe and valid deliver. As for being low/shallow, something is off with either your you base distance/alt or your base turn. Hard to tell without actually seeing it either in person or via TacView.

He's referring to the lighting as seen in the pic below, which isn't modelled in DCS sadly. http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/KC-135-Stratotanker-105_0.jpg

No, you won't. What you're thinking of is a zoom climb, ie climbing as fast as possible by exchanging energy (airspeed) for altitude. Climbing in such a way is not very efficient and will not allow you to get to your operational ceiling. It's your vertical velocity that determines the speed of your climb, not your forward velocity. If you've got a high forward velocity then you're using fuel to push you forwards, not up. All aircraft have best climb profiles. The A-10s is very simple and easy to remember. Most fighters use combinations of IAS and Mach, start with a given IAS for your weight & drag and transition to Mach as you get higher. The best/optimum climb is rarely the fastest climb, but it is the most fuel efficient. In the case of the A-10 however it is both the optimum, and when climbing to higher altitudes the fastest. In fact it's the only way you'll get to the aircrafts ceiling.

Howie is spot on on all counts. As one of his IPs I should know ;). And you do indeed adjust 1 knot per 1000 feet, it's actually pretty damn easy. Anything else isn't "best climb".

DCS doesn't have a realistic LITENING pod yet. Best to get that fully modelled first before adding something else I think. And that's aside from the fact that the suite 3 A-10C which we have in DCS can't (couldn't) carry SNIPER.