Fuggzy

Oh this is really good info, thank you @Moonshine it works. and now I finally have a reason to remember that button

OK I see what you're saying. Ground stabilization and getting a target lock are not the same thing, I'm conflating them. Whether aligning my TGP to Mav seeker or using VIS with HUD TD, unless I align and BS both pylons separately I always get the first (highlighted) missle looking where it should, but the second will be misaligned and not matching the TD/TGP. But yes I think you're right, it actually is GS but just not aligned. Also just read that aligning TGP to Mav BS has an exploit, AND BS'ing can be done on ground. Now I have to go back and try everything again, the hardest part for me is getting both sides BS'd before I overfly whatever I found to lock onto. If I can do the full (correct) BS while sitting on tarmac, maybe I can learn to like the Mavs.

I still have not come to a place of peace with Mavs, sometimes they work fine other times I do *something* different and no-go. That said, I think I've seen and fixed (by procedure) the issue you described... As I understand it, if you hot-start a mission Mavs are already boresighted (BS). Cold-start, you have to boresight them, or VIS will really give trouble stabilizing. I assume you're all good to here. I was doing my BS procedure and having success with my first Mav, but yeah -- the next Mav would not seem to ever be looking where it should and wouldn't stabilize. I didn't realize that one has to BS both pylons independently... do it twice, essentially. BS, then switch to the other station at bottom of the page and BS again. Hopefully that helps?

I don't know what is going on, I can't hit anything with any type of bomb... they all fall short. I've included a track file where I setup 5 missile launchers clustered together on a road. In this track file, I'm starting airborne with 4 MK84 LD bombs, switching to AG, selecting Pair drop and ripple 2, and a little distance apart. In this case I'm just trying for the simplest CCIP dummy drop, and my bombs fall short. This happens every time for me now, in CCIP or CCRP, with any type of bomb. Either I am doing something fundamentally boneheaded wrong, or it's like the computer always sees the ground lower than it really is in its calculations and it drops too soon. I try with different run-in speeds, altitudes, it sure acts like the AGL is off in the weapon system. On a hot airborne start, is INS jacked up? Super frustrated, if anybody wouldn't mind to watch the track file and tell me what the crap I'm doing wrong I would send loving vibes. short_dumbombs.trk

Guys I really appreciate all these outstanding answers, much to read and learn about. Thank you @Sandman1330 for the graph, it's worth >1000 words to me. My only RL flying experience is in gliders, and I know a similar graph . So, what have I gleaned from this regarding jets? Yes, there is a minimum speed Viper needs to fly, above L/Dmax, to not be a pig -- and that minimum seems to be about >300 knots KTAS. (That is a two part efficiency of aerodynamics and engine thrust yes?). For real efficiency, I believe @Frederf is saying if loaded up it's more like 350 KTAS to not be wasting fuel pushing through mud. That's basically what it feels like to me -- all else equal and regardless of armament, if I let the speed drop below 300 in any situation, it just flies poorly and needs substantially more throttle to mush ahead. Above 350 it feels "alive" and slick. I've also noticed when dogfighting that if I lose focus on my airspeed and let it drop to 250 KTAS or lower, fuggedaboutit, I might as well punch-out and save everyone the time. Thrust feels like it falls off a cliff somewhere in the mid 200's, and I have to fully unload all forces I can to get the speed back in such a low-thrust state. As it builds back closer to 300 the acceleration (thrust) improves, but by that time I'm usually dying. Someday I'll learn to manage energy.

In the F-16, I use differential toe brakes much more than people should. But I rarely tip over anymore.

I've been doing bombing practice and retract everything I said about REL ANG - had nothing to do with it, and I still dropped some measure of short every time. What @void68 and @Coole28 just said here works. On my bombing test mission I was always re-arming after INS Align had started, by my own dumb checklist. Correcting that got my bombs a whole lot closer right away. But wow... lasing the target with the TGP early on in the run to help it get accurate range REALLY helps drop the bombs more accurately. Much gratitude.

Hi guys, another dumb observation/question probably - I've noticed when heavily loaded, leveled-out at high alt (25k+), and going slow to wait up for my dufus AI wingmen, too slow in fact, something interesting happens. At a certain RPM, if I let the speed drop below 300 knots while straight and level (AP) speed will continue to bleed off as the pitch increases, exacerbating the speed loss. But when I punch the AB, get it to about 340 knots, then return the throttle to the same setting as before, now she not only holds speed but slowly increases it. Looking external at both situations, I wonder if the Viper has a need to be "on step" kinda like a boat to be efficient. God forbid anyone thinks I'm calling Viper a boat, I'm just saying it has a weird step function of speed efficiency that reminds me of boating. Curious if anyone has observed it too, and if it's realistic. I think it is, but love to hear the experts' take. Thx

Thank you sir! That's what I want. Unexpected method, but it works. Twice was the charm

Hi Frederf, Yes, that's the one. Like OP's topic, when I think everything is right -- bombs hit short. I started changing that to 0 at some point and it seemed I hit the targets sometimes. But it was not real testing and I don't actually know what the hell it does. In my practice I'm bombing pretty flat, minimal dive. Is the release cue and toss anticipation cue the same thing, and is it having any effect or am I just riding placebo?

Try setting the bombs' Relative Release Angle from the usual default of 45 degrees to 0 degrees. Or, leave the setting alone and actually dive bomb at 45 degrees -- see if now you hit 'em. I think that the bombing angle setting matters quite a lot.

I now leave the ATT HOLD switch on all the time, from startup to shutdown. I use no other mode of the AP. I've found no situation or case where I need more AP. Me Viper flies like true FBW. If you need to use steerpoint AP whilst also on ATT Hold -- my god man, buy a hammock.

Thanks for the article link sir -- best answer! The YT video of a Viper flutter demo/test is neat -- I had no idea the F-16 has a flutter problem. edit: it feels like freedom to know I can stop changing the default loadouts to put the AIM9's on the tips every. single. time.

Ok, I could see that being the case. Thank you.

Yes press Numpad 5 and it centers up. This drove me nuts at first with VR too.

I've noticed that every default Viper layout puts AIM-9 missile variants on inboard rails while putting the bigger and heavier AIM-120 variants on the wingtips. Is this how it's done in real life? I'd assume just by physics that it'd be optimal to put the lightest missiles on the wingtips and heavier stuff inboard. I always reconfigure my loadouts that way, and noticed that none are that way by default. Do real F-16s mount AIM-120s on the wingtips with AIM-9s inboard? I wouldn't, but maybe they do that for good reason. Thx!

This whole problem has consumed me, I find it a very interesting problem that certainly wasn't forseen in VR world. I've figured out a way to illustrate the gist of it: First, a fact: VR headset motion/position tracking resolution is an order of magnitude more precise than TrackIR. e.g. Quest2 is particularly proud of their ultra high resolution tracking, and they are not lying. OK, let's begin the experiment. On a dark evening, duct tape a laser pointer to your head such that it shines directly forward. Proceed to your backyard. Stand at one end of the yard such that you can shine the laser dot on a flat surface as far as you can get from it. 30yds/m is enough. Now, hold that laser dot exactly still, using your head. ... It's ok, you can sit and try again. ... Prone? Of course, go for it. ... Dang that's impossible, IKR? Ok now we ponder this Observe that while your head jitters continually, one's brain is continually stabilizing the full-world FOV. The world around the backyard is perfectly stable, as if none of these tiny head movements exist. It gets even crazier that our eyes are also going crazy micro-moving without ever stopping, and we have zero perception of it. That old meatball up there is doing camera stabilization of GoPro's wildest dreams, all the time. But the brain cannot smooth out that laser dot, it is an external metric that exposes the movement that is countered automatically out of our vision. The helmet mounted devices in DCS are like laser pointers, affixed to our virtual heads which are married to our high-resolution VR head trackers. If you really watch closely at the outside edge of your FOV where the mask is, you'll notice that yep your head is moving relative to the view, and it matches the IHAADS... but the freaky thing here is that your brain is making the VR world view smooth as silk exactly like it does in RL view. -- BUT it cannot mask the motion of the laser pointer, in this case the helmet symbology. In summary, the problem here is that everything -- the VR headsets, DCS, implementation -- work perfectly, exactly as designed, and better than expected. This is a problem that I believe only dynamic focus lens headsets of the future will truly solve. Pretty neat. But man the jittering. I just map a control on HOTAS to on/off and use it only for combat. I still think the headset makers could add a slider into the headset tracking setup that detunes the tracking resolution to be in larger steps or something. But that would never happen, because in 99% of games you'd never see this phenomenon, only those where there happens to be a pointer thing attached to your virtual head in the game.

Ain't that the truth. VR headsets capture every nanometer of head motion, where TrackIR doesn't see any movements smaller than deliberate. So for immersion, I just pretend that this mission is going to hell in a handbasket, I took too many go pills, have to <profanity> badly, and am rattled to the bone by what I just witnessed. Then the HMCS/IHAADS/JHMCS jittering becomes a thoughtful touch.

If it's ok with you, Dragon 1-1 sir, I'd like to plagiarize portions of this for use everywhere that I frequent, sir.

Thanks for the reply, it drives in towards the point of my question. I also *used to* disengage all AP when it was time for crank n bank, but one day I decided to just leave ATT HOLD on, and only ATT HOLD on, from takeoff to landing. I liked it very much...didn't seem to affect how hard I can turn or the response or anything, except for a slight "notch out" of autopilot hold when initiating stick movement. But there are super knowledgeable people here (ahem Devs) and I'm just curious if maybe ATT HOLD does limit rates or boundaries or stuff on the edge of the input envelopes. I can't find a reason not to glue the ATT HOLD switch down, please help. Ed 1: Oh yeah, like QuiGon said, formation flying might not work so well, agreed. But like WHOGX5 said, if you're the lead in the formation, ATT HOLD is useful for himself and I reckon the whole formation with him staying AP-steady. Ed 2: But wait. ATT HOLD does help me when trying to AR, I've tried it. Why would that differ from holding a formation slot? I assume the problem there is that little "notch out" whatever feel when I move the stick off center, like the AP is disengaging itself to wait for the stick to recenter. Does that interfere with tiny movements in formation? It doesn't seem to bother me at all, I notice it but it doesn't screw me up. Hmm.

I was chatting earlier today with a co-worker who happens to be a former B1 flight commander. We were talking about in-flight refueling, and SHE explained to me that surprisingly often, the coupling would leak gas and spray on the windshield while pumping gas -- which she said adds a whole new level of difficulty to staying connected when turning into the sun and she nor the copilot can see the tanker. Anyways, she said that some amount of fuel spraying out is common and I think it'd be a cool touch if in DCS sometimes you'd have to do what she did and ask the KC135 to shut down 1 or 2 pumps or completely disconnect/reconnect to try and get a better seal. Obviously the vision problem would only affect aircraft with the fuel port in front, but it'd be neat to see fuel spraying on occasion like it does in RL, apparently. News to me.

Lately I've been keeping ATT HOLD on all the time. Do others do this? Is it unethical or too lazy? I find that it basically produces a set-n-forget FBW feel with it continually holding attitudes for me. It doesn't seem to interfere with or fight my inputs, but maybe there's some penalty here that I'm not considering.

The use case: Sometimes I'm well along into a mission and the TGP is looking at some past point I've been. I have good results when I slew the TGP pipper on HUD as SOI at finding targets that I'm bearing down on, and in this case I want to do that... but the TGP is looking behind me still. Slewing it manually all the way forward is impractical, takes way too long. I wish there was a simple way to "cage" it home to straight ahead, independent of whatever weapons I've got selected. I will investigate using AA mode, thank you!

lol that video is how I land 90% of the time, only because this is a simulator and I won't die

Is there an easy way to force the TGP to re/center on the flight path marker or cross, despite any loadout? ex. would be DTOS mode, how the TGP slews from whatever whacked-out backwards direction I've got it looking atm, to the FPM. I'd like to do that no matter what loadout I've got. Say I'm flying a clean Viper with TGP only, how do I force it to snap front-and-center from any position? edit: I know about snowplow and have used that, but I want to push a button and boom TGP is is on the FPM. If there's a way, it eludes me.