TobiasA

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...

Weird thing is that the timestamp of track and Tacview are the same on my computer... Strange. I owe you a beer when we meet in real life one day.

Well, second try... Tacview-20211027-211254-DCS-AA_test_120.zip.acmi Well at least the track works, the end is a bit weird tho since it continues to run after I exited and I get shot down what didn't happen in the match. But you can see the weird maneuvers, I replayed the track to be sure. Sorry for the double work. AIM-120_fail_second_try.trk @BIGNEWY that should work now.

Now that is really weird. Does the tacview work for you? I'll record a new pair

As suggestion or "best guess": I think and I am pretty sure that the real thing limits lead to a percentage of the seeker FOV.

Well it seems I came a little closer to what happens there... Did send in a track, lets see what happens.

I managed to get a track with two 120's just missing the targets on two MiG-19, a medium range shot of about 15 - 18 miles in TWS, supported until pitbull. No chaff. The missile pulls way to much lead, causing dramatic energy losses (it is about worthless at more than 15 miles out), then misses the target by a solid nautical mile. Sorry for taking a few days. My default view should show the miss just right away on both missiles, I attached the tacview and track. The point is that the missile pulls so much lead that it shifts the target out of the FOV which then leads to relying on datalink as it seems. As of now, I can see two problems: - Pulling way to much lead mid-flight - Placing targets outside the own seeker FOV during pitbull The problem is the same with the second 120: I hope this helps and this is really considered a bug, because it kinda ruins the experience Thanks a lot! AIM-120_outright_fail.trk Tacview-20211027-194716-DCS.zip.acmi P.S.: However, what I saw is actually promising. Because the datalink works. And in earlier tests, the missiles did indeed track even if the radar lock was lost and reached their target if it didn't maneuver aggressively. I appreciate the work that did go into a better AMRAAM.

To be honest, I think that this aspect is the only one that makes me questioning the otherwise awesome simulation aspect of DCS world. The 120's never hit against notching targets in PvP. Never. And it even fails to hit non-maneuvring targets as of the latest patch. Let's hope it's just a bug...

Out of 6 shots, 6 were a close miss against the AI. I have not scored a single 120 hit since the last update, but I don't know what causes it. Will try to get a track at the end of the week.

The F-16 is not the king of BVR, but it has a nice radar for its size and can hold its own against most of the russian fighters, mostly because of the lack of the R-77 in most of them. The F-16 is a capable multirole fighter, and is a backbone for SEAD / DEAD in the air force. It can still shine against many opponents in BVR, but that's neither its purpose, nor was it designed for it. Doesn't mean it's bad, the current modelling is pretty nice apart of the look down issue. I'd even say that the signal processing is as important as the dish size, and the american radars are outstanding in that (see DBS1 and 2 in the AG radar). Its radar is capable of locking fighters within the range of the 120's in almost all conditions, unless the target beams or disappears in ground clutter (which is only an issue if you are really low, not just by pointing the radar a few degrees down). If the numbers above are correct (which seems to be the case), then it is clearly overdone without any physical considerations taken into account. Locking someone flying at 20k while flying at 30k isn't affected by ground clutter. Best is to wait for the next patch, and hoping for more in november. It is WIP after all.

Did someone state these numbers or is this a wild guess?

We do use the charts from the official manual: Either you have a human controller in MP missions that vectors you, or you manually go to the entry / exit north / east/ west / south and proceed from or to there. 1500' or below. But going by the official map from the kneeboard is no bad idea imho. I do not know if this is the official chart for Kutaisi in real life, but it is certainly something you can fly by using TACAN or simply coordinates. Viggen guys usually follow their TILS which works in a similar way, F-16 is fine with TACAN and I always put a steerpoint in the middle of the runway as a backup and as an additional reference for ILS in bad weather. Mirage works in a similar way. I have no clue about the hornet, the charts are from the A-10 ages but those work with all the planes in our squad. IFR means the human ATC might vector you to the IP. Visual follows the chart- note that it usually follows not only radials but also landmarks like rivers, city borders (poor citizens) and similar visual references. At least that's how we do it, and it works fine. It also works fine for deconfliction between landing and departing flights.

I imagined an F-16 with auxiliary wheels on the nozzle slamming on the runway with 35 degrees AOA just right before my first coffee and it made me smile. I understand you. Let's just say that the shape of the F-16 in a wind tunnel has a stall speed. The F-16 as such has not, because at least the weight distribution would make you leave controlled flight way before reaching it. You reach a point of no return there, that's why the FLCS prevents it.

If life was a wind tunnel... But it isn't. So there is none. That's what I wanted to say. (English isn't my mother language so sorry if I sounded otherwise)

There technically is a stall speed and AOA but you can't reach it unless the FLCS fails, and if it does, you'll depart either way. Probably a very violent way of leaving controlled flight. So no, there is neither a stall horn nor a stall speed in the F-16. There is a AOA limitation inside the FLCS that will limit the AOA to prevent departing which will block you from stalling, departing and other nasty things. You can't compare an aerodynamically unstable airframe to a Cessna. There is a computer that makes the airframe do things that a Cessna can't. And it can't fly without.