Aquorys

They were not, although the MiG-29S would be capable of jamming. The context was: in comparison to "Random between min and max range", which is... well... random. Yes, I know some YouTube channels like Growling Sidewinder, Grim Reapers, etc. "teach" this, but it's quite nonsensical tactics in most cases. It's ok as a last resort, but if it is the go-to option, then it often indicates prior tactical errors in the attack and/or defense geometry. The AI does a lot of funny things, and it also dies a lot doing funny things. Bad luck, they're in and out of the trash already.

The AI still does very weird things for sure, especially Ace AI, but I got much better results when I tried to reproduce your scenario. AI set to "Launch by target threat estimate" though. However, that would typically make it more of a threat, not less. 50 nm initial, FL300, M1.15. #1 Target M2000C, it fired first, AMRAAM launch at 25 nm, hit #2 Target M2000C, I fired first, AMRAAM launch at 35 nm, hit #3 Target M2000C, I fired first, ARMAAM launch at 29 nm, hit #4 Target Mig-29S, I fired first, AMRAAM launch at 29 nm, hit #5 Target MiG-29S, I fired first, AMRAAM launch at 35 nm, hit #6 Target MiG-29S, I fired first, AMRAAM launch at 34 nm, miss, 2nd launch high to low, missed due to terminal guidance failure, 3rd launch high to low, hit, but I ate an R-77 that was fired by the MiG-29S 45 degrees off-bore-sight 6 seconds after its radar could technically have the ability to scan the area of space I was in. That's a bit fast for a MiG-29S pilot to defend against an AMRAAM, then readjust the radar, wait for the radar to find a target, select the target and fire a missile. I had previously evaded two R-27ERs. #7 Target MiG-29S, I fired first, AMRAAM launch at 33 nm, missed because it could not find the target despite it being ~20 degrees off-bore at ~5 nm and much less before that. I defended against an R-27ER, the rest turned into a mess of flying projectiles, with the remaining R-27ER, 2x R-77, 2x R-73s, 3 AMRAAMs and 2x AIM-9X fired, none of which did anything (mine not tracking, the opponent's kinetically defeated), and it ended up becoming a dogfight in which I had the MiG-29S defensive until its pilot ejected, probably due to running out of fuel. #8 Target MiG-29S, I fired first, AMRAAM launch at 31 nm, R-27ER inbound at 28 nm, another AMRAAM launch at 23 nm, the first AMRAAM failed in the same way as the one in engagement #7, the second one hit. My initial launches were around M1.1 to M1.3. The M2000C went crazy fast, launching at M2.00 in the first engagement. Good for missile performance, but bad for maneuvering. I had previously tested against a MiG-29A and got first-launch hits in all 3 engagements. Not sure about the exact situation, but in most cases, that's a bad idea. Exceptions being mostly radar performance on some aircraft and attempting to merge due to an asymmetric weapons situation.

None of that is relevant in the final phase of an AMRAAM (in the real world), because the target proximity is ascertained by the target detection device, not the guidance section.

Track history and coast is a couple seconds, but it's not anywhere close to 32

One of the most beautiful F-16 liveries for shure! I saw a great display of the Belgian air force F-16 a couple years ago and met Gizmo afterwards, who was the F-16 demo pilot from 2015 to 2017. A signed poster of his jet still decorates the wall in front of my simulator gear, and I still enjoy looking at it.

Things like strategic or tactical AI decisions could possibly run asynchronously, mission scripting maybe as well to some degree, physics not so much. You need the physics pretty much on each frame to get somewhat accurate and especially repeatable/predictable behavior, which in turn is important for the exact position of all objects and as a result, weapon guidance, collision detection, etc.

I think people greatly overestimate the performance gains that the use of multiple cores will likely produce. For things that need to be done every frame, you get about 16 milliseconds to get everything done for each frame if you're doing 60 fps. Multithreading is most efficient when you have highly independent, long-running tasks. Games are usually the opposite of that: very interdependent, extremely short-running tasks. Now you need to delegate to multiple threads from the main thread, then it takes time until all those threads start running, modifying data that multiple threads need to access now requires acquiring and releasing synchronization objects, also implying that the CPUs would often have to write through their fast local CPU cache to slower caches or the even slower RAM so that the data is kept in sync for all CPUs, and then you need to wait for all the threads to complete, and you don't know when that will be, and the chance that one of the threads will not complete in time is probably higher too. Add in that none of the general purpose operating system kernels - be it NT (Windows), XNU (macOS), Linux or any of the various BSDs - have hard-realtime capable schedulers, and you will slowly begin to see the almost infinite multitude of problems and performance-adverse conditions that you will typically run into whenever you try to make use of multiple processors under such conditions.

If that doesn't get the job done, hit the voice message inhibit to your right, it'll lower her SPL quite a lot! It's safety-wired though, so you might need to explain that to the maintenance guys...

In the case of the F-16, the stick is force-sensing, it moves only about a quarter of an inch (~6 mm). The force required for pitch-up vs. pitch-down vs. roll is asymmetric, and the force required for maximum pitch/roll is different depending on the FLCS gains (mostly because maxium pitch/roll is different depending on the gains). For max pitch-up, it's roughly 25 lbs / 11 kg, max pitch-down about 2/3rd of that, and max roll about 70%.

Yes, I guess you might be experiencing this bug. If that is the case, then in all likelyhood, it's not really your Oculus Quest 2 at fault, much rather it's a programming error in DCS' VR code. The part that could be attributed to the VR headset messing up is that it temporarily loses track in the first place, which triggers the bug in DCS as a result, but has no effect in other VR applications, because they don't have the same bug. With the multiple gyroscopes and accelerometers that the VR headset has built-in, there is no reason for it to continuously require the cameras to track its position. Even if the cameras were unable to see anything for a minute or two, it should still be able to track pretty accurately. The cameras should only be used to prevent gyroscope drift.

My somewhat educated guess would be that the answer to the question why the F-16 is not roll stabilized is simply that the F-16 is one of the earliest applications of a fly-by-wire flight control system, and it would have been too complicated to integrate full 3-axis stabilization. For example, even today, integrating new weapons for the Typhoon (aka Eurofighter), which is fully 3-axis stabilized and follows a "carefree handling" philosophy, requires making changes to the flight control software, simply due to the fact that those weapons change the aerodynamics and thereby the behavior of the aircraft in flight. Today, where we have access to more powerful avionics systems, better test equipment, better simulations, better software development environments, and where engineers have a lot more experience with fly-by-wire systems and the software required for it, this is a much more manageable effort than it was in the 1970s. Back then, overcomplicating the F-16's flight controls would probably have impeded the integration of weapons, stores and other equipment, and as a result, it would possibly have made the F-16 project unfeasible as a whole.

If you think that the current F-16 is overcontrolled, then you have clearly never flown an Airbus aircraft

...or just use ships with less capable air defense systems. The Grisha and Rezky have the Gecko system, the Molniya appears to have only guns, the La Combattante doesn't have missiles either. The Neustrashimy is somewhat more powerful with the Tor system, and the 054A has more or less an imported or chinese copy/modified version of the Gadfly system.

On a side note, unless some threat has suddenly popped up somewhere or you need to get really close due to ROE, you probably should not be so close to your threat that notching would be your best evasive maneuver

What does it do? Target aspect, altitude & speed would also be most useful to know to figure out whether whatever is happening makes sense or not.

Check the caution lights, the safe way to start is to wait for the SEC light to go out before moving the throttle to idle. PS: Also, see the checklists linked in my signature, in case you are looking for something that you can put into the kneeboard as a quick reference.

Long story short, SAFE is more like SIM in DCS, and SIM isn't implemented. Typical real life procedures involve switching to SIM and perfoming a weapons systems check sometime on the way to a combat area, followed by a fence check where it's switched to ARM before entering the combat area.

There are a couple switches, buttons, etc. that don't do anything in various variants of the real world F-16. They just didn't customize the panels that much for each variant.

Rumor has it that it's table based, like one other very widespread flight sim. That would typically work quite well under conditions that are somewhere within the boundaries of what's in the table, not so much outside of it - which is probably less relevant though, because those areas are normally the ones where you've seriously departed anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter how exactly you're gonna crash

Not sure about the other modules, but the F-16 was all over the place in DCS. It was quite snappy first, but didn't turn to well, and it seems the drag model was off, now it turns, but it feels really sluggish in pitch response now, more like a traditional aircraft than an unstable fly-by-wire one. But apart from that, yeah, the realism in some flight simulator has been taken quite far. One of those other sims is realistic enough that they could use the simulation to test changes that were later implemented on the real aircraft. That particular sim you can run on your home PC too, and it's not even expensive.

That pretty much sums it up. I have always wondered why they only put the SM-2/SM-2ER on ships, but not also into land based systems, maybe even (semi-)mobile ones. It seems as if that could have been done with moderate effort and investment. PS: They could maybe add the SM-2ER to DCS? The british Sea Viper (PAAMS) on the Daring class (Type 45, which, by the way, I'd love to see in DCS one day) has an AESA radar, but that's about the only one I could think of. Maybe the French/Italian Horizon class has it too, it's mostly the same system, but I'm not sure about that one.

ALLE SCNR

It depends on what kind of simulator you are talking about. There are "professional" simulators that are not that much different than yours at home, e.g. the USAF has used a product from one of their main fighter aircraft suppliers for a while, and if you look at the details, you'll quickly find out that this one is simply a heavily modified version of probably the most wide-spread home flight simulator (yeah, that one from a well-known very large software company). That is by no means a secret, it even says so in various public documents describing the technology. Some other simulators on the other hand, particularly for pilot training in the civilian market, are way ahead of anything I have ever seen being available for use at home, especially concerning the accuracy and completeness of all the avionics, and how it works and reacts. Many of them are also full-flight simulators (meaning the entire cockpit moves to trick you into thinking that you are moving). Many parts of those simulators are from the real aircraft, and for that reason, they obviously come with the same price tag. Suffice it to say that a seemingly simple sidestick for one of those simulators is a whole order of magnitude more expensive than most people's entire home flight sim gear.

Most of the civilian drones that interrupt airport operations are remote controlled, there are microwave guns that can be used to interrupt the communication. Depending on the drone, that either crashes the drone, makes it attempt to land, or at least keeps it in position until it runs out of power. Such microwave guns have been around for a couple years now in various military and police units. There are also antennas and RF spectrum analysis software to detect activity on frequencies typically used by drones and other model aircraft or vehicles.

Thanks for the information. I think light should not be the problem, I can try it again during daytime with sunlight, but that room isn't too large and the light source is the LED equivalent of a 100W light bulb. With regards to the position data, it seems that the zero position for the Rift S is not calculated from the seat position, but from the geometric center of the "Guardian" area that you draw into the room. Kinda hard to get that perfectly centered around the seat.