TobiasA

Gripen is classified and will remain so. It is more likely to see the Jaktviggen (AA variant) but even that stuff on that plane is classified.

If they bring the FM update which will most likely have a positive effect on low speed handling (like landing and takeoff), I can live with a lot of the limitations the current F-16 has as a WIP.

So just the entry fee for flying the cat in a virtual squadron and having cool deck operations. Alright, I can live with that.

The text was "Viper work is currently focused on IAM (JDAM, JSOW, and WCMD) weapons. In parallel, the FM is being tuned so there is a lot going on behind the scenes, we will share more news as we get closer to releasing more features. " Was a post in reply to someone who bought the viper. So this means at least the most notable problem with the F-16 which is the poor lift is being worked on. Actively. Probably right now.

I was just wondering, since I have lost a flap due to ground contact but I have never lost any bigger parts or structural damage by pulling too hard.

You guys actually broke something on the Viggen?

Hi, so I bought the supercarrier to be able to be a RIO in the tomcat and actually start and land on a boat, or more precise watching while someone else starts and lands on the boat while I drink beer and eat chips. I also did the tomcat's training missions that require a supercarrier to be able to somewhat fly this airplane. Also, it is pretty cool to actually see people on a carrier. I think I can start, fly and land the cat on land and probably land on the boat now, yet I like the position of a RIO although I haven't learned A/G yet. Wanted to get somewhat reliable with the AWG-9 first. I see people talking about the SC and I think that I am somehow missing an important part of the module. It actually felt like an entry fee for the tomcat's navy operations. Don't get me wrong, I don't regret it and deck operations are pretty cool. But... there is more, isn't it?

I can understand your frustration because I feel the same frustration looking at the progress, but ED commited themselves to the F-16 just a few hours ago in the facebook group. And the development isn't stopped, it is just paused. I'm pretty sure it is not abandoned, althought it might feel this way right now.

I think it is normal to be able to lock and see someone that has not crashed into the ground yet. Datalink doesn't know if an aircraft is burning or not, it doesn't know if the one is diving or crashing. So as long as there is a non-responding radar contact, it is gonna be an enemy. #2 is probably because he it out of the scope of any allied radar, but I could be wrong here. I noticed this as well on multiplayer servers.

"Soon" is the reason why I would like to see the F-16 from HB... Just daydreaming.

What I would really like to see? HB taking over the F-16 and doing the Blk 40 with FLIR and Blk 52 with HTS. Stay tuned, boys

Besides the HARM not being able to extract markpoints, every other sensor can do markpoints. Just not yet implemented. Same goes with the data catridge which is just not there yet, but comparable to that of the viggen. However, it is never a bad idea to map the keypad to the ICP... I'm used to putting in points in the ICP, and it's faster than copypasting something around somewhere. We do that on-the-fly in multiplayer ops with AWACS or GCI calls. Even Link 16 has no clipboard.

Totally agree with that, yet people do it and complain about it (see above)... Over-G should be modelled tho.

It is simply not modelled. You have no wing flutter, no hung ordnance by overspeeding your AG ordnance, no failed stations or ripped fuel tanks du to over G.

It is not the flight model at this point being off by a large amount, it is the lack of VNE- but even then, this does not apply to a clean jet. I'm just waiting for the fix below Mach 0.5 mainly, radar range won't hurt much with LINK16 because I'll still be able to support my missiles till the end and with the COAST mode it will not be worse than now in the range where it matters. Slightly lower acceleration doesn't matter, as well as a slightly slower end speed. It will be considerably better after the rework...

We don't fly airspeed in the F-16. We fly AOA. There are charts for landing distance in RL manuals (from HAF) but they do not apply to DCS since the FM is not according to the real thing. So you will always have longer landing distances in DCS until the flight model gets fixed. That is the main part of your problem with stopping. The current F-16 has landing speeds of up to 175kts due to that issue, leading to extremely long stopping distances. During aerobraking, try to keep the AOA near 12-13°. Lower the nose at 100kts. When the nose comes down, extend speedbrakes fully and pull the stick full aft to use the elevators as an additional speed brake.

You do know Mach 1.4 is the official rated limit for those? Mach 1.8 with 2 heaters and 2 slammers... It has a DI of about 15 or so. You can even do that in that other sim if you don't carry a jammer. Yeah, maybe it is 1.7, I don't really care. You do need a few dozen miles for that tho. Once the FM rework is done you will still complain about the speed of the viper because it will only be slightly slower if people don't carry a jammer with a DI of about 35. And I really hope ED includes the rework in the next version so we can finally stop complaining about that FM issue because literally the whole F-16 section consists of it. All I was talking about was a strength of the F-16, with or without the rework but everyone is so badly pissed about the Viper at this point that it doesn't make any sense to discuss anything about the F-16 anymore because it turns into an FM discussion. The F-16 sees no progress until the hornet is done, and we need to face it. We probably won't see anything before autumn this year. I am pissed too, but it won't change a thing to be too negative about reported and acknowledged bugs. I'm off to enjoy the stuff I bought from Heatblur. Wish they had done the Viper.

Mavericks are a pain. While I need to go to work now, there are a couple of video tutorials out there, think from Wags and probably a good one from the grim reapers about alignment. But... They aren't easy to use together with a targeting pod.

Does it happen with larger ripple settings? Pair and a ripple of 40 gives you the same footprint. I usually use 100. Didn't blow up yet, but also did not test it in 2.7 yet.

I'd be happy to see ANY progress on the plane itself.

I know the simulator you are talking about, and I hope we see something like this in DCS some day.

If tanks would have a real stabilizer and lead computing like the Leopard 2 and Abrams have, I'd buy the module. I currently went against it because commanding units are not my thing, but driving a tank in a simulator certainly would be. Right now it is a bit arcade. I would actually pay 20 bucks extra for having a real tank simulator.

The Su-33 is probably a bit easier to fly, but.. Which aircraft would you consider "beginner friendly"? Fighter planes are bitches because they go for the edge. The Su-25(T) is easy to fly and beginner friendly, but the design is completely different and focuses on getting in and out, surviving battle damage and still being able to fly and not on going supersonic in the stratosphere. Probably western planes are easier to fly due to their fly-by-wire which keeps you from doing bad things, but the MiG-29 is -besides being a bit bitchy during landings- pretty easy to fly. PIO's are a thing I learned in the F-16 tho. Quite common in aerial refueling for beginners.

Problem is I speak german, english, a little swedish and a few words french, but no russian Would have to ask one of my neighbors. But then: When in doubt always go to what the real life pilot says. I must say that I have the MiG-29 for about not even a week now, didn't even do the tutorial and just landed based on what I know from other planes. Scratched the tail a little on my first try. I do not know any russian planes except the Su-25T, all my experience is western aircraft. I'm used to nautical miles and feet instead of km and m. Fun fact: There isn't even a training mission for landing the plane. My landings are usually above 260km/h but touchdowns in the F-16 are up to 165kts which is about 290-300km/h so I didn't bother with that. It does however have a somehow weird ground effect, which makes my landings not very backbone-friendly. Well it might not be perfect but given I literally got it for free and it costs 15 bucks if not in sale, it is outstanding for its price. It is not as bad as the creator of this thread says it is. I personally was surprised how good it actually is, without saying it is perfect, and I think I'll take it for a ride more often. I expected some arcade stuff, and got surprised with a model that actually makes sense, has wing flexing and even models loss of roll authority on high AOA's. It actually makes sense what happens in this aircraft, and I did not expect that. However, I think that russian aircraft are largely underrated and deserve better than being an FC3 module without being fully clickable and without a flight model that lives up to the expectations of the dogfight crowd. I mean, look at the F-16 section. Literally everything in it circles around small deviations in the lift curve below mach 0.5... FC3 owners usually don't expect so much from a module. I'd love to see a full fidelity MiG-29 model tho.

Before or after the PFM? I'm a total noob on the plane and the one takeoff I messed up was one were I actually forgot to turn on the right engine which ended in desaster. The only thing you need to take care off is to not exceed 15° AOA.