TobiasA

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.

I can't say, after the state of the F-16 I skipped the hornet. Might buy it some day, but now that I have the Viggen and the F-14 it ain't that likely in the near future. All I can say is that the Viper has an outstanding concept of operation. Everything you need is one or two clicks away, easily memorable and accessible in the heat of the battle. I don't know if the hornet comes close, and I won't compare. I came here for the F-16, found other nice planes, will soon have the Apache and absolutely love the F-16. Because it is the most awesome plane to fly with that bubble canopy, easy to use systems, agility and flexibility as a multirole platform. And it will probably be the most capable SEAD platform in DCS when we get the HTS.

The way it is meant to be used is that you set up the F-16 BEFORE entering the fight, on the runway, during transit, but way before fence in. You set it up, and then you got almost everything you actually use on the HOTAS. You got: - MRM override - DGFT override - A-A mode - A-G mode - NAV mode Make use of it, every mode can store its own settings. Three of those are available on the HOTAS (one "base mode" being AA, AG or NAV and the two overrides). You go AG master mode, put TGP to one MFD, HSD, WPN and SMS to the other one. There you go, having two sets available for AG mode that you can switch with missile step / DMS and AA mode is just a flick of a switch away with the MRM or DGFT override which doesn't even mess with your AG mode settings. You press DMS right (or left) and switch to HSD, check the situation and continue your run with the WPN page just one more click on the stick away. You get jumped? You flick the override to MRM and keep the bugger busy, as soon as you cancel the override all your settings are back and you are back on track. Learn the HOTAS and you master the F-16. There are a lot of things you can do in the DED, but you do most of it before your wheels leave the ground. Once you are in the air, it is a master in simplicity. But: If you want to be really good in it, you'll have to spend the majority of hours in it. You can be excellent in one module, good in another one but it is hard to excel in a third. For me, the one I picked for "excellent" is the F-16, "good" for the Viggen and... Well, it is hard to be somewhat proficient in the F-14 then tbh. Hope I'll get the Apache right. Looking back, about half of my modules just support ED or a 3rd party developer.

Depends on your target size, larger targets are Ok. Don't know about the Hornet, it is the only teen fighter I don't have.

The track is rather large, but watched it anyway. If I saw that correct, you did not lase prior to dropping the JDAM. This will enable the laser rangefinder on the TGP for a more precise target location. It doesn't really matter if you point at the tank or the ground at that steep angle, but laser rangefinding does. You do not need to lase after the bomb has been dropped, but JDAM's are more precise if you use the laser rangefinding BEFORE you drop for a second or so. Note the little jump in coordinates after lasing on the TGP.

The issue is fixed with the latest update, might as well update the tag. @BIGNEWY Thanks to the whole team, RWS and TWS are both way more usable now

May it be the that your AMRAAM was in the air for more than 80s? Can you share your tacview file?

Speed has nothing to do with the T/W ratio, only with drag and thrust curves. However the drag is a little off currently as it seems. The FM is being worked on, we should wait for the rework.

Keep in mind that the graph shows almost sea level while the Vipers advantage begins on altitude. However the russians are the kings of alpha, especially the Flanker. So in order to beat them, you would have to keep up your energy, but that opens up possibilities to make use of HMS and R-73. If flown right the Flanker is very hard to beat, the MiG-29 isn't so far behind, its alpha and instantaneous turn rate are insane at corner speed. Anyway, you need to see more altitudes in order to be able to say that the F-16 is worse than the Fulcrum. It is on sea level, but gains on 10k ft and above afaik.

Yes, there was no improvement in the low speed range which would also reduce the high landing speeds. After all, we are getting closer to the agile Viper it is in real life and I really appreciate it.

There are several issues with RWS, dropped tracks and a messed up datalink. You might dig into one of the previous threads and see if this is one of your issues, if not, save a track when you exit the mission and attach it here.

That is weird because I remember testing the changes. I will have a look when I get back to the computer.