Targeting pod slew out of allignment with spi

[PFunk1606688187]

Filtering as in "by pilot choice" as opposed to "not even available to the pilot at all". And no, it must not be to goal to show as little as possible. It must be to goal to show as much as possible of the relevant information.

Your corrected version of my sentence says exactly what I intended. I was never talking about hiding information against a pilot's will, merely that subdividing information into more categories doesn't necessarily improve situational awareness. The F-16 HUD being a prime example. The HUD mode is a pilot choice. Its existence however suggests that a logical pilot choice is to hide information that is not relevant and only hinders a WVR fight.

 

Choice is always relevant, and I have seen people comment on Rafale HUD videos saying they have no idea how the French fight with so much symbology cluttering their views.

 

 

But then, when you see the red video game "X" ... what about the green video game "X" that we actually have in the A-10C for marking friendlies (equipped by EPRLS)?

HUDs and as far as I know HMDs present symbology monochromatically. This has not changed for a reason I imagine, not the least of which would be for compatibility with night vision equipment.

 

Actually, I don't get it why you seem to be so opposed to the idea of providing the pilot more relevant information that is easier to understand than text - which needs to be read and it's meaning to be interpreted and the consequences considered. If you consequentely follow your own idea, you would end in a plane without a HUD and perhaps a Head Down Display that lists flight plan, threat warnings, engine status, etc. all in a huge text display?

 

Using different visualisation methods to present information - when done right and carefully - reduces information overload. This way not only one part of the brain is forced to deal with all the information (i.e. when reading only text), but also the part that deals with "picture recocnition" for i.e. icons and hearing for audio cues (think RWR!).

 

Red icons vs. green icons are much easier to distinguish than for example "F" for friend and "E" for enemy. :o) And you don't even have to care if the green "X" is a friendly and a green square is a flight plan nav point. When you get shot at, a quick look for anything red will provide you SA in an instant.

 

Part of our disagreement would appear to be misunderstanding. Your point about how apparently my logic taken to its conclusion would see the elimination of the HUD entirely suggests you're approaching my argument very differently than I mean to present it, and while I might be willing to admit a possibility of being poor at writing it, I'm going to suggest the bulk is you interpreting it incorrectly. I don't know how you take my argument against overclutter and information overload to the point that I don't believe in HUDs.

 

Here's the thing about Red Xs and recognizing threats. How is a Red X going to help you when someone shoots and you have a split second to react? Its not, you're going to check the RWR for a red flashing light and if you're lucky you can catch the azimuth of a missile launch, then immediately Jink. If your wingman is correctly providing mutual support he should then be able to spot the launch point of the missile and direct you through the correct evasion, if thats at all relevant. If not he could be able to spot the launch point of the missile. With an HMD you can make it into a Mark point or SPI right away, share information, and attack or pass it on to other aircraft who are able to attack it if you're not.

 

A perfect example of the simplicity I'm talking about is in fact the RWR. It is as basic a tool as it is effective. Azimuth, threat level, priority. Add more complexity to the displayed information and its overload. It already overloads us with useless info about search radars (I bet those are prioritized out automatically by some setting in real life). I have to waste time pressing PRI or SEP to see whats hiding under them. 2 more button presses I don't want to make.

 

Like I said above, red symbols in the HUD/HMD aren't likely to be something we'd ever have for real. But even if we could, or we can scheme together some new symbol that works in green, what is its actual value? What situation does it improve? It can't help us with unknown threats. Before we even had green stuff to stare at pilots were sorting out the battlefield by looking at terrain and being aware of where they were in relation to it. I think a lot of people's issues with SA in DCS come from the fact that with the limitations of PC hardware and DCS' quality(lack thereof?) of terrain/etc rendering we're basically looking through a glass darkly.

[Flagrum]

Your corrected version of my sentence says exactly what I intended. I was never talking about hiding information against a pilot's will, merely that subdividing information into more categories doesn't necessarily improve situational awareness. The F-16 HUD being a prime example. The HUD mode is a pilot choice. Its existence however suggests that a logical pilot choice is to hide information that is not relevant and only hinders a WVR fight.

 

Choice is always relevant, and I have seen people comment on Rafale HUD videos saying they have no idea how the French fight with so much symbology cluttering their views.

 

 

 

HUDs and as far as I know HMDs present symbology monochromatically. This has not changed for a reason I imagine, not the least of which would be for compatibility with night vision equipment.

 

 

 

Part of our disagreement would appear to be misunderstanding. Your point about how apparently my logic taken to its conclusion would see the elimination of the HUD entirely suggests you're approaching my argument very differently than I mean to present it, and while I might be willing to admit a possibility of being poor at writing it, I'm going to suggest the bulk is you interpreting it incorrectly. I don't know how you take my argument against overclutter and information overload to the point that I don't believe in HUDs.

 

Here's the thing about Red Xs and recognizing threats. How is a Red X going to help you when someone shoots and you have a split second to react? Its not, you're going to check the RWR for a red flashing light and if you're lucky you can catch the azimuth of a missile launch, then immediately Jink. If your wingman is correctly providing mutual support he should then be able to spot the launch point of the missile and direct you through the correct evasion, if thats at all relevant. If not he could be able to spot the launch point of the missile. With an HMD you can make it into a Mark point or SPI right away, share information, and attack or pass it on to other aircraft who are able to attack it if you're not.

 

A perfect example of the simplicity I'm talking about is in fact the RWR. It is as basic a tool as it is effective. Azimuth, threat level, priority. Add more complexity to the displayed information and its overload. It already overloads us with useless info about search radars (I bet those are prioritized out automatically by some setting in real life). I have to waste time pressing PRI or SEP to see whats hiding under them. 2 more button presses I don't want to make.

 

Like I said above, red symbols in the HUD/HMD aren't likely to be something we'd ever have for real. But even if we could, or we can scheme together some new symbol that works in green, what is its actual value? What situation does it improve? It can't help us with unknown threats. Before we even had green stuff to stare at pilots were sorting out the battlefield by looking at terrain and being aware of where they were in relation to it. I think a lot of people's issues with SA in DCS come from the fact that with the limitations of PC hardware and DCS' quality(lack thereof?) of terrain/etc rendering we're basically looking through a glass darkly.

Allright, we agree, that too much and/or unnecessary information is counter productive. I guess, we also agree that presenting the pilot the important information for a given situation is better than not presenting it - do you agree? And what information is how important at a given time, depends on the circumstances and thus needs to be configurable somehow (automatically or manually).

 

The question is now, how to present the pilot the information. I believe it is better to have several methods that can be used. The more distinctive the better. I revise my previous statement about red and green "X". I now say, make it red "X" and green triangles instead. The more distinctive, the lesser the chance for mistakes.

 

"Aw! Missile plume at 9 o'clock! ... glad I just had a glance at my MFD half a second ago ... to my left were all red Xes ... so I better assume, that is no friendly launch!"

Isn't that better than

"Aw! Missile plume at 9 o'clock! ... there were so many rectangles on the MFD, lets see what is what ... hrm, ok a platoon of bradleys, some ... no, that is my flight plan, ... and there a SA... *BOOOOOOM*"

 

;o)

 

And no, just because "in the old days" pilots used to fly without all that stuff does not mean that it has no use today. It is good if you don't have to rely on it all the time, but it is even better to have it when things get hairy.

 

edit:

and about the HUD ... I am not talking just about HUDs. I am talking about all means of providing information to the pilot. Perhaps more precise the MFDs. (I agree you don't really need all kind of ground positions in your field of view, cluttering and obstructing the other information ... current HUDs are small enough already...)

My Text-instead-of-HUD was just an exaggeration of my understanding of your position (if that sentence makes any sense ...). You don't like different icons, different colors, etc. You are happy with labeling waypoints in text form. So, projecting that further, you would be happy if there was just a list of status messages in text form that inform you of enemy positions, friendlie aircrafts, engine status, etc. ... or am I wrong? ;o)

Edited June 22, 2014 by Flagrum

[PFunk1606688187]

Allright, we agree, that too much and/or unnecessary information is counter productive. I guess, we also agree that presenting the pilot the important information for a given situation is better than not presenting it - do you agree? And what information is how important at a given time, depends on the circumstances and thus needs to be configurable somehow (automatically or manually).

Yep. :thumbup:

 

"Aw! Missile plume at 9 o'clock! ... glad I just had a glance at my MFD half a second ago ... to my left were all red Xes ... so I better assume, that is no friendly launch!"

Isn't that better than

"Aw! Missile plume at 9 o'clock! ... there were so many rectangles on the MFD, lets see what is what ... hrm, ok a platoon of bradleys, some ... no, that is my flight plan, ... and there a SA... *BOOOOOOM*"

To me this situation seems very unlikely. At any given moment the pilot should know where everything is. He will absolutely know where friendlies are and if he is fighting a CAS mission he will have some ground controller or a FAC giving him up to date threat info. Basically if its in the database and could be displayed by an icon he should already have an innate awareness of where it is around his aircraft and I think the existing tools do a good enough job.

 

Its really not that they shouldn't use the new technology, its that having clear cut definitions of whats enemy, whats friendly, where everything is at all times, its a perfect idea that doesn't fully apply to the inevitably imperfect battlefield awareness you have. If there is a threat that will be able to shoot at an American aircraft in a combat zone its almost definitely going to be coming from someplace they aren't expecting or haven't logged. If you get launched on by known enemies while attacking then your tactics suck. If you get launched on during an attack and you consider it an acceptable risk or part of the plan, you'll absolutely know where it is at least generally enough that you can react without flying the wrong general direction. Even so real pilots don't react to waypoints, they react to threats and so a missile is a threat above anything else. They start thinking in terms of azimuth and evasion pattern. If they don't already know which direction safe(ish) airspace is going in then what are they doing there?

 

So for its use in a reflex situation I'm not so sure its really that needed, though an elegant solution to this proposed system could be useful. I just don't think its absence is in any way hindering people's ability to be effective and aware in DCS. I think if we had even more of these toys DCS players would get incrementally worse just because most of them don't learn to play by any meaningful standard of realism and so they get into all kinds of trouble real pilots never deal with. DCS players are so very much walking around on crutches.

 

 

About the "solution", if there are pre-existing enemy formations on the map having some unique marker on say the TAD to identify them to augment SA would be beneficial but to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the TAD already has this in real life, DCS just doesn't let us implement full TAD utility because of the lack of MDCs.

 

Now, how does any of this apply to waypoints? I guess you could have a subcategory of waypoint called target waypoint. Give it a unique shaped icon, make it easier to sort when attacking, but to be honest I think its always more important to visually corellate your flight path with the ground than it is with the moving map. Preparations for engaging targets on waypoints in your database and flight plan will not be done haphazardly. If you're using waypoints in an attack you're going to be well briefed and clear on what you're doing. In the pit every attack is briefed and both pilots ensure the other is clear. They go in from an IP and its not exactly hard for them to look at the letters and numbers of the waypoint name to ensure they're flying towards and engaging the right set of coordinates. Whether we have unique symbology for "attack points" or not they will always need to use basic naming conventions to sort them out. Without that a bunch triangles or circles or rhombuses will be just as confusing as a bunch of squares.

 

Another thing for us to take into consideration is that DCS is a ridiculously unrealistic battlefield. Waypoints and markers and data is so much more useful than in real life because in DCS stuff doesn't move practically at all. What good is a waypoint if the enemy can be 2 or 3 miles away from it after a few minutes? Now you've got all these lovely red Xs or Triangles or whatever but the enemy is nowhere near them. Do they mean anything? Do they help? This is where UAVs and other aircraft sending SPIs is much more useful. Then you also get POD in POINT mode. Or smoke. Or "next to the hardball on the N side of the intersection, before the treeline, moving south".

 

Thats my point of view, and I'm sticking with it til someone who knows more about it tells me I'm wrong. :music_whistling:

[kk0425]

 

This whole thread. I don't even know what's going on anymore.

[PFunk1606688187]

 

This whole thread. I don't even know what's going on anymore.

 

2 people who know nothing about the actual military are arguing about how to properly design 21st century avionics. Clearly this is groundbreaking stuff.

[Flagrum]

I've shortened your quote a bit and added my comments in blue.

 

To me this situation seems very unlikely. At any given moment the pilot should know where everything is. (...)

Yes, he should. But providing more and better tools to do his job can't hurt. And if it is just for a brief glance at the situation to reassure that that what he (thinks he) knows is really that what he is actually seeing outside the cockpit.

 

I just don't think its absence is in any way hindering people's ability to be effective and aware in DCS. I think if we had even more of these toys DCS players would get incrementally worse just because most of them don't learn to play by any meaningful standard of realism and so they get into all kinds of trouble real pilots never deal with. DCS players are so very much walking around on crutches.

No, we can even deal with technology of eras when the term "symbology" wasn't even invented, yet. :o) The "effectivity" (and "survivability") of a DCS pilot in general is primarily depending on a lot of other things before we had to consider technologies as this ... :D

Anyway, I wasn't speaking of DCS but rather in general. And if something works in RL then chances are high that it would not exactly hinder us in DCS.

 

About the "solution", if there are pre-existing enemy formations on the map having some unique marker on say the TAD to identify them to augment SA would be beneficial but to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the TAD already has this in real life, DCS just doesn't let us implement full TAD utility because of the lack of MDCs.

Current A-10C (and even the suite modelled in DCS) have this implemented. What we get to see in regards of SADL is probably only 10-20 % of what is available in RL.

 

Another thing for us to take into consideration is that DCS is a ridiculously unrealistic battlefield. Waypoints and markers and data is so much more useful than in real life because in DCS stuff doesn't move practically at all. What good is a waypoint if the enemy can be 2 or 3 miles away from it after a few minutes? Now you've got all these lovely red Xs or Triangles or whatever but the enemy is nowhere near them. Do they mean anything? Do they help? This is where UAVs and other aircraft sending SPIs is much more useful. Then you also get POD in POINT mode. Or smoke. Or "next to the hardball on the N side of the intersection, before the treeline, moving south".

In RL the SADL network gets updates from all participants. This concept is even brought way further with the F-35 / F-22 and also the Typhoon for example. They call it "Network centric warefare". And those aircrafts use a technique called "Sensor fusion" where all those inputs from all participants of such a battlefield network are brought together to provide a coherent picture of the battlefield (prioritized, filtered and all that stuff).

Edited June 23, 2014 by Flagrum

[Flagrum]

2 people who know nothing about the actual military are arguing about how to properly design 21st century avionics. Clearly this is groundbreaking stuff.

Better than F5-ing the crap out of the browser in some certain 3rd part dev subforums ("Aren't we there, yet?") :D

[PFunk1606688187]

I've shortened your quote a bit and added my comments in blue.

 

Indeed. Good stuff in there.

 

All in all though, going back to what was the original catalyst for this entire conversation, I've yet to see a good reason why we need one more waypoint type. ;)

 

I'm not speaking against this sensor fused modern datalink capable warfare, I'm merely discussing the systems as they are in the A-10C we have. One more subdivision of the waypoint database isn't going to meaningfully improve the lot of the A-10C pilot in our game. What will improve it is the implementation of the TAD's full suite of capabilities.

[Flagrum]

Indeed. Good stuff in there.

 

All in all though, going back to what was the original catalyst for this entire conversation, I've yet to see a good reason why we need one more waypoint type. ;)

 

I'm not speaking against this sensor fused modern datalink capable warfare, I'm merely discussing the systems as they are in the A-10C we have. One more subdivision of the waypoint database isn't going to meaningfully improve the lot of the A-10C pilot in our game. What will improve it is the implementation of the TAD's full suite of capabilities.

I agree, just that single feature would not do much.

 

But while each single feature alone will not help much, it still adds to the whole. Separate "target points" would help to communicate the intent of the mission better between mission planner/mission designer and pilot. Without them, you need to invent your own conventions, for naming targets meaningfull, for defining it's properties (i.e. elevation = ground level) - and you (as mission designer/panner) have to communicate those properly. Separate "target points" would not need this as the conventions would be already there and enforced (i.e. plausibility checks like not allowing to enter an elevation, something like that).

That makes communication less error prone and thus reduces the chance for mistakes ... which in the end might save your life. :o)

 

 

edit:

The other extreme would be - in case of the Network Centric Warefare concept, to mark every "thing" with an (monochrome) "X". Ground targets, enemy fighters, whatever. Maybe you have some small description text which says what is what and what it is doing (altitude, direction, ECM on?, etc.). That would be absolutely contrary to the idea of the concept and would lead actually to information overflow.

But if you have separate "types" of "information items", you (or the board computer) can apply meaningfull filters. And also your brain can apply such filters.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Flagrum

[PFunk1606688187]

I don't know why its so hard to have a written briefing that defines these things though. Its already obvious to anyone flying that waypoints which are in mid air are navigational while waypoints which are at terrain elevation are targets or some point on the ground of relevance.

 

Naming conventions? Well every pilot can have his own in game when flying with his friends. Thats all a matter of creating a system that works. Single nato phonetic character plus numeral works pretty well.

 

A good briefing should have an explanation of the enemies you'll face, the specific objectives you're going to destroy, and how all that fits in the flight plan. ENO insists its not the mission creator's responsibility to "spoon feed" information, but frankly thats a pretty silly notion. If you know something and you want them to know it make it clear as day or its a waste of people's time trying to figure it out. A 30 second reading of the briefing included in any mission should leave me wanting for nothing if this is supposed to be a "pick up and go" mission with no meaningful preparation.

 

Really this is again where I say "DCS players get themselves into unrealistic trouble" because we're getting to the point where we're contemplating systems that handicap players who hop into missions without doing any meaningful preparation or reading of the briefing and who get confused by the waypoints.

 

Do real pilots ever have any doubt as to what every waypoint in their flight plan means or what each of them is named? No, and because of that the systems are designed for that kind of use. The "Target Point" is a gamer's idea. Its the flashing waypoint on the minimap that tells you to go here to receive bacon.

 

I still think you're taking ridiculous liberties with my perspective though. I don't think one extra layer of discrete separation about waypoints is worth much so I must clearly desire no meaningful symbology? Taking things to an "extreme" is not a fair way to characterize someone's argument when their argument is in no way about making broad sweeping generalizations, and instead about a single system specific topic.

 

I just think that the notion of a "target point" is a subdivision that makes sense to people playing DCS more than it would to real pilots. Would I welcome a switch you can throw to turn a square waypoint into a diamond to indicate its "special"? Sure, I guess, but honestly its a crutch for people who have no idea whats happening around them. It still needs to be named something or else every other waypoint like it will still be as confusing as without this new system. If you get confused when you read waypoint names like "Tanks" and the briefing says "Enemy tank platoon at waypoint Tank" then what are any of these things going to do to help you?

[carrollhead]

Isn't exactly the problem though, that DCS almost enourages pilots not to prepare before flying? I don't know how many briefings I've made that are obviously ignored by people flying the mission! It doesn't stop me putting the info in there BTW.

 

Pilots don't need to do any more than join aircraft - fly to waypoints. Then die, and DERP do it again.

 

Actual pilots would be spending a great deal of time working out the whole mission before they went near an aeroplane. In DCS, the mission creator does that, then people mostly just jump in and fly.

 

There are ways around it, but it's pretty silly not to be able to review your own waypoints, and get a picture of your mission "in your head" prior to departure.

[Flagrum]

P*Funk, we're now really going in circles ...

 

You don't understand why a good mission briefing shouldn't be enough and I don't understand why providing (more) relevant information literarily "on the fly" can be considered unhelpful.

 

Or are we just have a different starting point for our discussion? Are you saying "Would this single feature actually help the OP to become a better pilot?" I don't know. It would not make him necessarily a worse one, though.

 

My starting point was just "Flight plan waypoints are not meant to be undisciminately dropped bombs upon. For that, modern jets usually have 'target points'".

 

Your argument was, the nav points were not set up correctly for being used as target points by the mission designer. My argument was - supporting ENO - yes, but they aren't really meant to be used like that - except the fact that we have no better tools than that in DCS.

 

edit:

And fwiw: no, "Target Points" are NOT just a gamer's idea. The concept is in use in military aircrafts, even in the A-10C (the real one) afaik. If you insist, I try to dig out screen shots or something similar (... but this stuff might be a bit harder to find - all that TAD/SADL/etc. stuff is a bit harder to come by ;o)

Edited June 23, 2014 by Flagrum

[PFunk1606688187]

My starting point was just "Flight plan waypoints are not meant to be undisciminately dropped bombs upon. For that, modern jets usually have 'target points'".

 

edit:

And fwiw: no, "Target Points" are NOT just a gamer's idea. The concept is in use in military aircrafts, even in the A-10C (the real one) afaik. If you insist, I try to dig out screen shots or something similar (... but this stuff might be a bit harder to find - all that TAD/SADL/etc. stuff is a bit harder to come by ;o)

Well my problem is that you're not really articulating clearly what a "target point" is. Noodle, who knows a great deal about how the actual aircraft's systems work, says there are no more points available to pilots than we already have in our waypoint database.

 

So what is a target point? Is this just the conceptual notion of having confirmed enemy shared on the TAD using datalink somehow? If thats the case then that still doesn't have anything to do with waypoints.

 

Your thesis that wayponts are not meant to be "indiscriminately" targeted is completely wrong as far as I know. The conceptual issue of sorting between navigational and target related waypoints appears to be a non issue for real pilots.

[Flagrum]

Well my problem is that you're not really articulating clearly what a "target point" is. Noodle, who knows a great deal about how the actual aircraft's systems work, says there are no more points available to pilots than we already have in our waypoint database.

 

So what is a target point? Is this just the conceptual notion of having confirmed enemy shared on the TAD using datalink somehow? If thats the case then that still doesn't have anything to do with waypoints.

 

Your thesis that wayponts are not meant to be "indiscriminately" targeted is completely wrong as far as I know. The conceptual issue of sorting between navigational and target related waypoints appears to be a non issue for real pilots.

My idea of a "target point" is that of a coordinate that marks enemy positions. These coordinates may come pre defined by means of mission planning or may be created by the pilot manually or may come from other friendlies during the sortie (i.e. SADL). The symbology would be different from coordinates that are used to fly a route ("waypoints") to allow easy distinguishing between threats and other stuff.

 

Of course it is possible to fly and fight without that. We do it in DCS all the time and the real A-10C pilots are also living without it - as I learned today. But still, the concept is used - more information can not be a bad thing compared to less information (given that it is relevant information).

[Flagrum]

Points shared over SADL aren't actual database waypoints, they are Precise Position Locator Indicators (PPLIs) or simply "tracks". They are transmitted via J-series datalink messages.

 

There are stringent contracts that pilots adhere to in order to segregate navigation waypoints from target waypoints. As a rule, waypoints should never be created on friendly positions; this avoids inadvertently targeting friendlies. If the situation dictates that a waypoint must be created on or near friendlies, the waypoint should be named something unmistakeable. As a technique, begin the name with "/////".

 

Otherwise, waypoints are named in accordance with a squadron standard to remove ambiguity...something most DCS pilots have no knowledge of. Common conventions include adding an ".IP" suffix to IPs, adding a ".M" suffix to waypoints copied from Markpoints, and beginning target waypoints with "TGT".

Thank you, this is really interesting stuff - stuff that I, too, had no knowledge of. But that is why we/I are here at these forums, right? ;o)

 

All these "little details" - one can browse the internet 24/7/365 and will still only be able to gather a tiny fraction of such kind of "insider" information. I bet you guys over at 476th vFG do and know stuff even without really having to think about it, where we "mere mortals" have not the slightes idea of it's relevance or even it's mere existence. :o)

[PFunk1606688187]

I bet you guys over at 476th vFG do and know stuff even without really having to think about it, where we "mere mortals" have not the slightes idea of it's relevance or even it's mere existence. :o)

 

The 476 has an advantage with respect to how much real world knowledge many of the core members have, and that shows in the way the play style is organized via the 'as close as reasonable to real life' SOPs. That said so much of the knowledge is readily available on google and really its about studying it and internalizing the meaning and adapting it to the sim more than anything.

 

There are things though, like the contracts, which I'd never once encountered before joining and they transform how you approach flying with another person. One of the beautiful things is when you're the wingman to a very experienced lead you can spend a 2 hour mission killing lots of stuff and never have to flip on your TGP because the whole time your lead just sends you SPIs and fighter to fighter briefs that explain to you in very clear terms what you should do. Its a very liberating feeling actually, not being obsessed with needing to see in stark detail the fake-FLIR outline of your target and instead bowing to the other guy's instructions by using the Maverick seeker head to hit that white hot dot on the left of the pair, or being guided in to drop a pair of Mk 82s onto a speck to one side of an intersection and on the pull out having smoke dropped on the next target and finding yourself having in 2 minutes put 4 iron bombs on 2 targets more effectively than if you'd been staring down your soda straw on your own trying to figure out what to do next.

 

Its not everyone's bag, and surely everyone has the opportunity to play the game as they desire, but when the systems are designed to work like real ones do, once you start to use them as they were meant to be (however clumsily an amateur might do it compared to a real pilot) its a transformative experience with respect to how you approach the aircraft.

 

Target Waypoint is a term from Falcon I believe that just means its lat longs are more accurate than a normal waypoint. I think thats what Flagrum is referring to. So you could set a Target Waypoint on a single tank or something in Falcon. A waypoint is obviously a waypoint in the RW, up to you how accurate you want your coords.

Yea but the thing about the A-10C in DCS is that whenever you create a waypoint using any point like a SPI or your own sensors by default your waypoint has a 10 digit grid in it, which brings an accuracy of 1m. Being that MGRS is decimal based 8 digits is 10m accuracy and 6 digits in 100m accuracy. The only way to get a coordinate thats less accurate than 1m is by manually inputting the coordinates, so by default any waypoint created from a SADL generated point or an onboard sensor will be as accurate as is necessary for even the most modern of IAMs.