Eddie

These are test firings. The video streaming is done by instrumentation specifically added to support the tests, it does not exist in operational missiles.

Indeed. I still think the current theatre is too damn small in the A-10C, let alone a fighter. But others do and can think differently, it's allowed people.

Well the missiles need to be boresighted on the ground prior to takeoff to ensure thing are correctly aligned/calibrated. One of many, many things not modelled in DCS (although the function works, the reason to use it isn't there). You can also change the boresight in flight so the "caged" position is something other than the normal if you want. Although there is little reason to.

It adjusts the missile boresight.

The only way to "restore" mission progress at the moment is to make use of Combined Arms. If we need to restart our server due to a crash etc, then the admins tend to just jump in a CA role (on the Red side) and spend some time killing all the units that were previously destroyed (by using red unit to kill red units). Not ideal, but it's the only real workaround for large missions with 1000+ units like ours.

Yes absolutely. In the 476th we commonly have missions that use almost the entire theatre running for 100 hours and beyond of actual mission time. The server itself can be running for a couple of weeks including the time it is paused when empty.

TMS Left Long will space stailise the seeker head. There is no "ground stabilise" IRL (at least as far as those who have played previous sims will think of it), except for as part of the Force Correlate track functionality.

Then I suggest you practice a lot more. Because not only is it quite easy, it is also the "normal" method of employing Mavericks. Even the A-10Cs spend more time training to operate without a TGP than they do with one. In fact, as with just about all military aircraft, there is a specific qualification/training required to actually fly with a TGP. Every pilot first learns, and masters, how to operate without one. And why on earth would you need a software upgrade, all the functionality is already there, and always has been? From suite 3.1 and even in the A model.

Huh? Why would you want a Maverick to hit a fighter, or any aircraft for that matter? They are an air to surface weapon. No, you only need to know where to release the weapon. That can be determined via a multitude of means, from precision coordinates provided by another party of onboard sensors to simply visual release on the right area. In the case of air to air weapons yes. But as this discussion is primarily catering for air to surface weapons, no. Again, huh? Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're referencing, but the Maverick has no INS, it is simply Optically guided. It does not know or care where is it pre-launch. There are also no RADAR guided Maverick models, only Optical (both visual light and IR) and LASER. Even JDAM doesn't need to be have target data sent to it in flight, that can be (and often is) uploaded on the ground. The only thing it needs is a starting position to be provided at release by the launch aircraft to start it's INS on the right track, but even the accuracy of that isn't vital provided the weapon time of flight is greater than 10 seconds (the time needed for JDAM to acquire GPS).

A few of those aircraft can't carry any ARMs. Actually, depending on the aircraft and the weapon system in question, your friend is absolutely correct. The Viper "can" use the HTS, it does not "have" to. Nope, targeting pods are not "required" for any of them. Most modern RADAR guided weapons require no support from the launch platform (especially true in the case of air-surface weapons), and even LASER guided weapons do not need the launch platform to provide a LASER spot, any aircraft or ground unit can do it. SNIPER or any other targeting pod is not required for Maverick, in fact Maverick itself can be(and has been) used as a makeshift targeting pod in the days before such pods were common . And nor is the HTS required for HARM. In fact of all the aircraft capable of carrying HARM, only the F-16 can carry the HTS. All other aircraft use the HARM in the "HARM as sensor" modes.

SUU-25.

Well, to be pedantic, a hyd reservoir won't typically store pressure only increase the systems fluid capacity. The accumulators however do store pressure, using nitrogen bladders which are compressed as fluid is pumped into the system.

Yep, one of several long running bugs/inaccuracies with the A-10C that have long been reported.

Still WiP. It takes a long time to turn out the approach and departure charts.], especially when they have to be made from scratch in most cases as there are no real world charts to use as a base. This means that the procedure has to be developed in line with real world IFR rules etc, before it can be charted. Although the charts for the current theatres might not be released as we've had to make a few modifications to the sim (TACAN, ILS, and ATC frequencies) to allow for realistic charts and procedures. So without those mods (which would likely prevent people flying on public servers) the current charts would not be valid. Hopefully that'll change with future theatres and we'll be able to release our charts, and much faster as well. Nevada should be quite easy as we have the real world charts to start with.

The Missile approach Warning System also acts as a laser warner.

Third party modules may never be on Steam. Although it may be possible to install them into a Steam DCS install It is up to each third party team how they sell and distribute their products. Not ED.

Even the DTS for the USANG didn't have any 'classified' stuff in it. But that goes back to the USAF not allowing ED to use the same implementation in the DCS product. Yeah, I saw your PM, but didn't have time to reply at the time, and then forgot all about it. I'll send you a reply when I have chance to sit at my sim PC and give you a decent answer.

A bit of both really. As with RADAR, ECM, and other things, while a lot of things do fall under the "classified" umbrella those things aren't neccesarily relevant to replicating the function of a system in a sim. For example, what flares do, and how they do it is not at all classified. There are plently of scientific paper online to allow very detailed modelling of expendable countermeasures. The things that are protected are specifics such as how effective a given system is against a specific threat, or the exact method is employs to counter a given threat. We don't need to know either of those things to simulate it. However, as was the case with A-10C, it may be the case that when an operator is providing information etc to help develop a product, they may also ask/require that some aspects are changed. Even if they are not really sensitive. And of course development resources are a very big factor. If ED had the same resources as the like of EA we'd likely already have the electronic battlefield and more realistic countermeasures etc. There is also a case for some simplification. While people like me would happily see everything modelled as accuratly as possible, the majority may not be too keen on 20 odd layers of menus to play with just for the RWR or MWS.

Daily Mail. LOL. Apparently, Argentine Hercs were used to attack ships during the Falklands War. Oh really?!

Yep. Defensive aids are much more complicated, and clever, than we see in our sims. Some aircraft can even give the pilot directions to perform the correct defensive manoeuvre at the optimum time. Again, another area of DCS (and every other sim) where simplification actually gives far less capability than seen in reality.

You mean like, TARS. Because all that stuff is in Headspace's plan. But unless he starts charging for TARS (honestly I think he should if it brings faster development) and it formally becomes a 3rd party plugin, it's going to take time.

Well, we in the 476th use TARS for 100% of flights, and have done since the beginning. And it works fine for us. More than fine in fact. The only problems we ever see are with people new to MP and/or less computer literate people having setup issues, but they are very quickly solved. Most issues are down to people never having flown MP in an environment where realistic comms procedures are applied struggling to keep track of which radio they should be using. As far as ED developing their own comms system, I do see arguments in favour, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a long way down the list. I'd much, much rather see the missing aspect of aerial warfare such as the electronic battlefield, more realistic weapon modelling, FLIR that is more than a basic texture filter, a realistic weather and atmospheric model, realistic ATC & AWACS, the list goes on. Also things such as the dedicated server are far more important. And of course the fundamental fact is that as the vast majority of people who play the game (and therefore the bills) do not play online and therefore have no interest in features such an online comms. So all the things I mention above, and many more besides would be a much more effective use of developer time and resources.

You can. But if you do that you can't hook anything else. Hooking is fine for rejoining, but using it to maintain formation means you loose the ability to hook anything else, such as target assignment.

There are many areas where DCS does not match reality. Knowing how it really works, or wanting to do things as realistically as possible has little to do with it, you have to work with what can be done in the sim, and also in such a way that people without real world experience and access can learn and understand the material. And frankly 100% accurate AA TACAN procedures isn't high on the list, when compared to weapon delivery and tactics amongst other things.

It's a known bug.