TobiasA

It is exactly the same in the middle of the map. The ruler is about 4-5° off in the main area, that is probably due to the conversion flat - round. Also, on the edge of the map, you will always have a slight deviation due to that. The north "opens up" so to say, so lets just fly north in the middle of the map. The start heading is 000, and it will also show TRK 360 on the "TacView globe" in the middle of the map. As soon as you correct your course to go north, you go about 7° off. In the middle of the map, I go north if I enter a magnetic deviation of exactly 0.

Hi, the FPM already shows the wind compensated flightpath. The tadpole should point at the steerpoint. See the video at 10:59. You can clearly see the crosswind component, but the tadpole is on the steerpoint, FPM, tadpole and steerpoint align and you are flying towards the steerpoint. If you recreate this in DCS, it looks different. Video: DCS: I think you can see what I mean- where the tadpole is in the HUD video and where it is in DCS. Apart from that, it is a pretty close representation, and the amount of work that has gone into that is outstanding. Thanks a lot!

Well yes but not 14 degrees.

Edit: Well, it even seems to be checkable by using the ruler in the F10 map vs. the cockpit indications. Then, the magnetic compass will show the heading on the map (the one of the ruler). I think (just a wild guess) that the sign of the magnetic deviation is the other way around. Because when I enter a magnetic deviation of W06.8 instead of E06.8 I'll head straight east when flying 090.

On the caucasus map, the heading tape and HSI are off by about 14-16°. On the marianas, you fly straight east or west (90 or 270°) and the latitude does not change. In the caucasus, you fly the same course, but the latitude does change and TacView shows that you fly or heading of about 14 degrees more. Radials on the HSI are also affected. Wind is not so much an issue in the free flight missions in which I tested the behavior. We noticed when someone in our squad invited us for a navigation training and l got a bit curious as to why I flew about 15 degrees off the desired radial. You have to fly heading ~75 in the caucasus to go east. It also does not happen in Syria. It is however related to the theater, I think, since the error is about the same in the Viggen... Feel free to move it. Tracks and TacViews included, the TacView in the Viggen was the usual "spawning with heading 0, then turn to 090" and you can see the initial heading is already off. It is just easier to see in the F-16 when you look at the INS page. heading_tape_caucasus.trk heading_tape_caucasus.acmi heading_tape_marianas.acmi heading_tape_marianas.trk caucasus_test_Viggen.zip.acmi

This happens when you fly through strong crosswind- or the INS is faulty. I'll assume the INS is alright. You might center the pitch ladder at any time by selecting DRIFT C/O underneath the ICP (that switch below the "numpad", underneath the "0 M/SEL" button). This will cut off the wind part of the FPM. However this is not so wise if you intent to use CCRP bombing. But for general navigation it will work fine.

Well I personally pick up units (warm things) faster now. The pod we currently have does not excel in terms of picture quality either way, I think the sniper pod might have a better quality. But at least it is IR now.

Just a thread to appreciate the work on the TGP. For the first time, the F-16 is a capable night striker. You can actually find units on the TGP. Might not be perfect and requires a little manual adjustment on the gain, but that is a big step forward from the pitch black image we had before. You can see ground details, you can see cars on the road, you can see the heat from several systems spreading on the ground in bright sunshine, you can even see the heat from a fire:It is now IR and not just a filter on top of a TV image. And I even didn't read anything in the patch notes. Did I miss this some updates before? This means you can now fly AG sorties at night. It is awesome! Thanks to the team!

Well, this is a game after all so tactics may differ from real life. I had one guy blasting in on a two Gepards at 1000k in the F-16. I know the Gepard, he wouldn't have survived IRL but it is perfectly fine in DCS if the units are not that skilled. It is as realisitic as you make it.

Problem solved. Thanks a lot!

Thanks! I got a RWR indication and launch warning. Indications on both the RWR and the HAD, the HARM did hit. Somehow my text in the previous message got dropped when I inserted the picture, I added that again now. Thanks a lot! Tacview-20211121-102051-DCS-SAM test.zip.acmi

Edit: I have no clue what happened here, my text is gone so I am rewriting it and hope it stays this time. The HTS does not detect the Roland ADS. Even if you add it in the threat table (which I did), it does not show up in the HAD: This picture was taken about a second before it fired on me- I locked the Roland in HAS but the HTS stays empty. It won't ever detect the system. If I have to add the threat code manually to the HTS, feel free to move this out of the bug section. I have to add that the HTS is awesome, and its implementation is better than I expected- bugs may be there, but those are gonna be fixed. Thanks a lot for that! HTS_Roland.trk SAM test.miz

He nowhere mentioned the range of the 16, and did not mention which radar version he referred to in the 16 (just that it is the 68, not which version of it)- and which version of the hornet. ED has at least one SME having flown both the 16 and the 18- which is also the author of the article that you linked- so I would expect that ED uses that source. Radar and stuff is highly classified though. The F-15 radar range discussion would belong into the F-15 subforum. I think the F-15 is underperforming currently.

And this is based on which technical evidence? The problem here is probably the F-15's radar underperforming, the detection range of the F-16 matches what is publically available about the AN/APG-68 V5.

The new sounds are awesome!

This, it is more probably that other planes perform slightly better. Plus, the F-16 is currently still underperforming a little on slow speeds. I can understand why you dogfight guys are sad about how the Viper performs in dogfights, but... Let's just wait for the final rework, including the landing speed issue and ITR, and then judge about it. STR is pretty much on point in most areas. You can't beat a hornet in a heater fight if he decides to pull tight in his first run. There is no energy left, you can't extend since you'll catch a heater then, and you can't fight him down there. It's the way it is, never merge with one- or pull and get your 9X off, hoping for him to go wide because that's where you've got a chance. If the hornet wouldn't be such a nasty opponent for the Viper, Dos Gringos hadn't made a song mentioning its alpha... The one thing you can't beat is a flanker with R-73s. And the one thing one never ever does if off-boresight missiles are in the fight is a 2-circle turn. If you don't have a significant rate or off boresight advantage, just don't. Never. And you don't have that advantage, neither vs. the hornet (since it rates about the same) nor against the Flanker since the slightly worse off-boresight advantage the 9X has is compensated by the sheer rate amount and the massive amount of angles that beast can pull. If you decide to go 2 circle, pull. Rate all you got slightly above corner speed, throw it all in and hope that 9X does hit because it is about the one chance you get until the other guy has the same idea.

The question is: Why do you guys eject from a plane that is still flying straight?

The HAF manual also shows a considerably lower landing speed which indicates some inaccuracy on low speeds, and I expect some changes in that field with one of the next updates. Other than that, it matches the HAF performance sheets pretty much. Basically the area below 200-250kts is slightly off right now.

That was before the AIM-9X and JHMCS. Before, they had no chance against the MiG-29 or Su-27. And the turn rate does depend a lot on altitude. In low altitude, the 29 has the upper hand. On high altitude, the F-16 has the upper hand. A 29 is hard to beat in the F-16. However, what matters in a fight with 9X and R-77 is the ability to get your nose around, point and shoot. It's not a turning fight at all, and sustained turn rates are not that important at all.

Not always, I have been able to eject sometimes. Extremely rare though. With fragmentation warheads, this sounds reasonable. You might survive a hit from the AA-8 (R60) since it's warhead is really small. And keep flying. I experienced that once.

I have probably not yet really used CA. I'm almost only interested in jumping into vehicles like AD or probably doing JTAC some day. The potential of CA is huge, and it has just begun.

I would love to see a gun stabilization in the leopard 2 though. The real thing keeps the gun pointed at 60km per hour offroad while you can't fire when going 20 in DCS. But apart from that it is pretty awesome. I mean there is no other sim out there combining helos, fixed wing and ground units into one.

You get hit, you die. Especially the F-16 with its single engine and a very light airframe is unlikely to survive a missile hit, especially compared with the titanium tub of the A-10 and its engines which are outside of the airframe.

My tests were against MiG-19s and at least three out of four 120s fail without seeing chaff or ECM.

Well my targets don't even really notch. The 120 corrects and guides but places the target outside the seeker FOV or calculates weird lead solutions. Sadly, the 120 in DCS has been made fun of with Tacview gifs in other communities...