DukeAngus

the AGM-154a has the blu-97 submunitions which are the same as the cbu-87 but the AGM-154a only contains 145 of the blu-97 were the cbu-87 has 202 blu-97 long did you let the INS align for? if there is drift with the INS in the viper will there also be drift with where the weapons go when released?

When I read the f-16 manual change log, I read it as that revisions were preformed as necessary for accuracy and correct formatting for the whole manual. Then after Revised/updated were the following sections then had been completely revised. it only made since that the manual would be brought up to speed of all the features that had been added to the f-16 since the manual had last been updated. i now know that is not the way dcs works and im sorry for wasting everyone's time.

the issue for me with the 120's this update is after the first shot is trashed, when in closer range and lower altitudes. when im not quite in sidewinder range and the bandit is moving horizontally. usually i will be in a stt lock and it seems as if the missile doesnt follow the correct flight path for an intercept. pre-update when the missile would launch off the rails it would immediately turn and start pulling lead. i will upload files when i get home from work. when the bandits running from you at what range do you need to be at to be in wez for the 120 ? say the bandits on your 12 your on its 6 say going the same speed. in regards to the 29 and jamming when flying the f-16 the mig would jam and i couldn't get solid lock until 20-30 miles depending on my altitude compared it its. with the f-15 i could get up to twice as far. plus it also depend on if your in rws or tws when you lock the target whether the 29 tries to jam at all

have you considered adding the info/ table info for the HAD harm system or the harm targeting systems tables numbers to the kneeboards?

in the bottom right-hand side of the hud, in at least nav mode is the time to steer point which could be the target, miles to and heading to the currently selected steer point, based on current speed.

"30 Nov 2022 – Revisions performed as necessary for accuracy and correct formatting. Revised/Updated DCS: World Fundamentals, Weapons & Munitions, Cockpit Overview, Hands-On Controls, Heads-Up Display, Upfront Controls, Radio Communications (work-in-progress), Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, Defensive Systems, and ALIC Code Appendix. Added Tactical Systems chapter (work-in-progress), HARM Targeting System chapter, Electronic Countermeasures, Appendix C – HAD/HAS Threat Tables, Appendix E – Glossary of Terms, and Appendix F – Formulas." the first string of words is "Revisions performed as necessary for accuracy and correct formatting." having false information in a manual only reflects poorly on whose name is on the manual no matter how much glitter is in said manual!

thank you very much for this addition to the documentation for the fun to fly f-16. after doing some brief reading i have found some pages that i have some questions and comments about. i know the manual is a work in progress. page 246 says that the slew-able sub mode for dgft is coming in later in early access. page 251 says that only gm and sea modes for the ground fcr are the only modes selectable. on page 253 there is some wording that i do not quite understand. i have currently been using the ground radar to find moving targets with some success and i thought there is no better way than using the newly updated manual that was released yesterday. i thought how much better i could do, by just understanding the full capabilities that the fcr has. on my way to learning about the fcr i stumbled across these three obvious discrepancies. i am really appreciative of the wonderful work the dcs team has put into the sim lately, we dont need bells and whistles, we just need a manual that simply reflects the advancements that have been made in the aircraft since it was originally released. thank you

I second this! it is frustrating beyond belief to try to Lock a target in a field and have the Mav Lock onto nothing way over there somewhere.

if I understand correctly after doing a little more research, metals can reflect infrared light, say from the a sun, that is the reason why they are High lighted compared to the background. I found that metals reflects a good amount of IR light, snow is quite reflective itself. And a reason why the towers and vehicles are the same color is because the t-pod doesn't have many gain levels to distinguish between different amounts of light that it is picking up it would be interesting to see if cloud cover or even during night flights would change any of this. fyl the pics in the first post of the MFDs, the gain/contrast or any of those types of settings had not been adjusted, I spawned into the plane and used the tgp and mfds as is

i have noticed while flying on the caucus map in january (it was 10 celsius) while flying the f-16 and using the lighting pod in flir mode that the high voltage electric towers/ transmission towers you know the biggest ones that support the high voltage electrical wire on very long runs around towns and town to town. the metal part of it is showing the same color as bmp's and ifv's. i was only hunting bmp's and ifv's that were driving in a convoy at the time i noticed the towers. it is to my understanding the reason why the ground armor is the color that it is, is because of the engines are hot. are the transmission towers really that hot? i could see that the actual wires themselves could be hot from the electricity running through them but the metal of the towers i dont see how they could give off the same heat of a vehicle's running engine. i also noticed the same thing using the ir mavs. i would be appreciated if someone could confirm or deny my reasoning and verify if this is how it should be in dcs.

Are the mark 62, 63, 65 on the Road map for the F/A-18 for maritime activity's?

i am glad to hear that ED is making some progress towards updating the manuals. unfortunately it is too little of an effort for how far behind so many of the manuals and the work that needs done to bring the manuals up to current specs. i have been playing DCS for a little over 6 months or so and in that time i have taken advantage of the test drive program. i have gone from greatly impressed to greatly disappointed at times in the short time of being in the dcs community. yes i understand it takes a ton of time to make a proper manual that reflects the complexity of the systems in the planes and how to properly use them. one of the short falls that i have noticed with the f-16 module, is that in some of the training missions briefing will say you need to make sure that you are familiar with this system on this page in the manual only to have it not be on the page and it take 15 minutes to figure out where the proper section is that the briefing said. that was one of the multiple. fortunately there has been an amazing amount for progress with all the modules but what happens is that with out the correct documentation the updates are useless because no one knows that they are even there or how to utilize them, without the proper documentation. i have found in quite a few of the manuals that the planes have changed so much that there is the wrong or missing information in the them. there have even been times when trying to figure a lesson out in the training that is telling you to push osd # that says abc but now it says xyz, when osd# is pushs it it doesnt do anything any more. there have been in the training missions bugs where it wont let you past a certain spot in the mission and the little box that is over the switch doesnt go away and you cant go any further in that training mission. those are but a few of the many errors that has happend to me while trying to learn a module. what i am saying is that it has been 4 months since you hired the new guy and there has only been 5 pages posted. With only one guy redoing the manuals, they will never get done because by the time he gets one done there will be new modules that need more manuals. DCS needs a whole team to go over every manual and fix and add them. it would also be worth it to have a section on the main page in dcs for manuals called MANUALS, right above the one called encyclopedia. i didnt even know that dcs had manuals!" Is the sentence that i hear the most frequent . I can understand 3rd party manuals in the open source community but dcs that prides itself on the most realistic flight simulator EVER!, has to have the proper documentation to go with the modules, to be the best, you have to have the whole package! this is not a bash dcs post, it is my experience, and what they need to fix this current problem. i couldn't find a better place to post it fortunately between the dcs manual, grim reapers how to airplane playlist , wagner's youtube, chucks guides i can usually find what i am trying to figure out. but it shouldn't be that way, i shouldn't have to go to 4 different sources. DCS should hire CHUCK or buy or license his guides since they are have part of the puzzle in them!

there is more to linking units than that. you can link warehouses, ammo, fuel barrels and others to ships, farps, airports as consumables

there are mods out there that make the whole screen look like a nvg