DirtySanchez

An Ohio ANG Block 30 FTD.

The barber pole is displayed as long as the speed brake switch is out of OFF and the boards are moving. It is an "in transit" indicator.

Maverick boresight is already implemented in A-10C, so... However, since every missile rail and every Maverick GCS has "perfect" alignment by default in DCS, there's no need to boresight the missiles unless you want to have them bore sighted to 150 mils for medium-altitude work, vice low-altitude work. It sounds more like the OP is talking about slaving, not boresighting.

A-10C has had the same bug for years. Steering cue should be wind-corrected but isn't. It was correct at one point, but like many things--the flashing Maverick pointing cross, for instance--it got messed up one day and was never fixed.

A-10C can see everything any Link16 player can see, as long as their is a gateway and the desired donors are added to the donor list. ED left out 75% of the real TAD capabilities.

I was going to post a rant about the dangers of taking the word of people who get all their knowledge from PC games, but I decided against it.

I'm not able to fly DCS for the time being, so I can't say for sure. But based on the comments in this thread and the graph showing no difference between anti-skid on or off, something isn't right. It could be the anti-skid simulation. But it could also be the ground friction simulation, or the physical simulation of the brakes themselves (i.e., not the computer that controls the anti-skid function). It's difficult to say. Nevertheless, the end result is presently incorrect.

What I like about simmers is how they "think", "guess", "suspect", and are "sure" of things they've never experienced, and their willingness to tell actual pilots how they must be wrong because the answer doesnt fit their limited academic understanding of a topic. I could show you dozens of cases across dozens of aircraft types which prove that your average anti-skid braking system has PLENTY of power to lock the mains even on a dry, grooved, porous friction overlayed runway. From fighters to 747s. But unless someone is an F-18 pilot (and sometimes even if he is), the answer isn't good enough. Amazing. This is not a debate. No human being can max-perform the braking system as well as the anti-skid does, hence with an operative anti-skid system all the pilot has to do is literally stand on the brakes until reaching taxi speed and he will have achieved the shortest landing distance possible...regardless of runway condition. With anti-skid inoperative, that technique will result in locked wheels, loss of directional control, blown tires, outrageous stopping distance, and probably a runway excursion. The takeaway is obvious: while anti-skid doesn't change physics, a human pilot lacks tactile feedback regarding wheel speed and MUST use more conservative braking to prevent locking wheels, resulting in longer stopping distance compared to using anti-skid to threshold brake. This is just fundamental knowledge possessed by anyone who operates airplanes with these types of systems. One look at the performance charts for any jet will depict separate "actual landing distance" penalties for wet/contaminated runways and for anti-skid inoperative.

SADL understands J-series (TADIL J/Link 16) and K-series (SADL VMF) messages. Anything shared on the Link 16 network can be shared and understood by a SADL terminal through the gateway.

To whomever deleted my post above (Rule 1.15) can you PM me please?

That's not correct. SADL players (A-10C and some F-16C) can see and share all J-series messages with all other Link 16 players through a gateway. A-10s can see fighter radar lock lines, AWACS/RJ/JSTARS surveillance tracks, donor SPI/LOS, etc. And vice versa. MIDS LVT, MIDS JTRS, EPLRS, etc, are just network terminals. The gateway acts as a router and forwarder between Link 16 and SADL networks. EPLRS is fully capable of sending and receiving numerous J-series messages, not just PPLI.

Disagree with the OP almost entirely. Although I do agree that some of the settings shown arent realistic, such as presetting the altimeter and such. Real fighters have the ability to preset dozens and dozens of avionics options that, realistically, vary from sortie to sortie and some that vary from pilot to pilot. The problem is that currently, what settings one jet gets from the .miz, they ALL get. And for reasons that are too complex to type right now, that's not realistic at all. We NEED to be able to individually setup our avionics independent of what the mission designer does. In fact, the ME and any sort of flight planner should actually be totally detached. Why is the mission designer deciding what route I take to the target? Why is the mission designer forcing my TAD display settings? The concept of creating a battle space with targets and assets should be totally divorced from the mission planning which decides how to attack those targets and what weapon profiles are loaded in my SMS/DSMS.

For far too long this community has lacked meaningful interaction with real fighter pilots, relying instead on a few maintainers and herbivore drivers to give flight sim nerds perspective. I for one welcome our new single-seat overlords! Also, this thread now reads like 50% of BaseOps threads, and I love it. All we need now is a finance guy to represent the shoe clerks!

Nah, that's not right. The Dash-34 actually says: "Up to three missiles, live or training may be loaded on a LAU-88" The statement about G-model Mavericks is correct, but is also true for G2s and Ks. A TGM-65G/K can be loaded though, because missile weight doesn't include the warhead. And, "Launching Maverick missiles from the inboard rail of a LAU-88 should be avoided to minimize paint and rain erosion coating deterioration."

Yeah, because you pulled it out of the depths of your vast AGM-65 systems knowledge all on your own? I "asked" which launcher not because I wasnt sure, but because it follows logically that using the LAU-88 would cause the problem being described. I was merely confirming that fact. But whatever. I guess it's too difficult to just say thank you.

Haha. You're welcome, since I'm the one who figured it out.

Cool, thanks for the correction. Confirmed in the Hornet stores loading manual. The ALE-47 in Air Force aircraft uses buckets with rectangular slots and DCS: A-10C suffered from the issue I mentioned.

Some flares are "single" profile; some are "double" profile. There are many flare variants with different characteristics, but ED only models one type. They chose one that's double-size, hence we get half the number of flares possible.

The graphic is ambiguous for mixed carriage. The explicit answer is in the NTIP manual, which is not available publically. Reading between the lines, stores carried on BRU-32 parent racks would follow the same initial pattern as the BRU-33 sequence, starting with the centerline.

SEL JETT is supposed to launch HARMs, one per press, in the anti-compromise mode, according to the NATOPS. Seems like correct behavior.

Yeah, that's why was asking. The shoulder stations on the LAU-88s are canted. On older model Mavericks (A-G), the GCS actually had to be physically rotated on the missile to account for that. Modern variants (H/K) can account for the rotation in the internal software. At the moment missile track is commanded, the missile sets the current roll attitude as the local vertical reference. The vertical reference is used by the autopilot to perform the g-bias (loft) maneuver. This is the reason for the 30/30/30 rule. I speculate that ED updated the missile autopilot, but failed to account for LAU-88 shoulder station rotation. Hence the oblique loft trajectory. It's the same as if you locked up a target in a 30 degree left bank, then rolled to wings-level and pickled: the missile would actually roll 30 degrees left before lofting. H/K models shouldn't suffer any issues due to station orientation, although the 30/30/30 rule still applies.

Ramsay, When you noted that the missiles veer left/right depending on station, were the missiles loaded on the single-rail LAU-117s or on the triple-rail LAU-88s?

Can't view them, which is why I asked.

Are you respecting the 30/30/30 rule for Mav employment? The missile assumes the wings are level at lock on, so if you're banked steeply when you lock on, the missile g-bias will be oblique instead of vertical. The g-bias maneuver would result in a turn in this case.

Going from memory, but that painting looks an awful lot like the one used as box art for the Falcon 3.0 Hornet addon circa mid-90s.