Stubbies2003

Like I said this happens immediately after take off when flaps are still at half, gear is still down and I'm still in full AB. I wouldn't be complaining if I was being premature on reconfiguring the aircraft and it settled because I was over enthusiastic about it. I never have any forced climb to stall issues. Just that once in a great while I have to force it to fly as it doesn't want to. Once I get to a safe position I reconfigure for normal flight and it behaves just fine then.

I don't ever see a right hand turn but I've seen an annoying number of 120s that even when shot from short ranges never even bother to try and track. They go stupid off the rail and fly straight and never turn. I fly the 18 almost exclusively at this point and just keep it simple and do RWS/STT. Fairly annoying if you are in an A-G load out and you only have 2 missiles and one is worthless.

So I did a search and looked at the first few pages of the bug report and don't see this directly. I've noticed this only recently so I'd imagine it has something to do with a recent live side update. The problem I'm seeing is using the F/A-18 and taking off from various airfields I can only guess about 1 in 20 take offs or so instead of full AB and half flaps with gear down causing the standard pitch up I've seen it where I'll get just over 200 knots and the aircraft will get airborne but it will NOT climb on it's own but instead it will try to nose down. I have to manually pitch up and get to a safe attitude before I can go gear up/flaps auto and bring it back to mil power. My only guess to this would be related to an older post talking about ground effect with the F/A-18 as when it decides to do this of course having just taken off I am close to the ground. Other than that oddity once I get it safely in the air then it flies normally. I don't have a track file of this as I fly MP exclusively and, as stated, it isn't common nor do I know what the difference is on any of the times it does happen versus not to actually reproduce the bug. I never saw this earlier than the latest live side patch though.

Pre order + F/A-18 + ED miles for a whopping 15.45 out the door? No thought required on that one.

Lester you also caused testing discrepancies by not launching from the same wing station on the last two vids as the first one. So hopefully this terminology is somewhat similar to the F-16. Your first AIM-9 shot was from either station 2 or 8. Almost at the wing tip. Your second and third videos were station 3 or 7 shots which are closer to the centerline of the aircraft thus like what GGTharos pointed out. Even a 9X versus a 9X comparison would show different results based on where the lost drag/weight is at. Now that being said I do agree that even with the location of the missile that seems to be an excessive amount of roll input. I've never seen that myself but I also never carry AIM-9s on that station. Always 120s.

Why is the good question here. The real aircraft doesn't do that. I can understand some things being added in for lack of the feedback a real pilot gets but I'm failing to see what the benefit of that noise is.

Even among similar target types you will see considerable differences in how much they bullet sponge. I can easily get strafing kills with one short burst on Patriot bits but the SA-10 takes a LOT more in the way of bullet hits from the F/A-18 to get the job done.

Saw that yesterday when flying MP on the carrier. Not sure why the launch bar was over extending so much but if you wait until your at the shuttle the command to hook it up brings the launch bar back to where it should be.

The truth is quite simple. The F-16 landing gear was never designed to take the abuse of a carrier landing. Neither was the landing hook designed to take a carrier landing. Any way you slice it landing a normal F-16 IRL on an aircraft carrier (assuming it could even engage the arresting cable) is going to result in major damage, if not complete destruction, of the aircraft. It doesn't matter what people can land on the carrier in DCS. That isn't real life and they also don't use the arresting hook system when landing aircraft like the F-15. Being able to do that in a sim versus real life are two different animals entirely. The video showing the BAK system in action should tell you all you need to know. The aircraft is already firmly planted on the landing gear prior to engagement so there would be very little, if any, stress added to the landing gear. Because that system would also be engaged at the far end of the runway the aircraft is also travelling at a slower speed when it hits the arresting cable. Also you get to hear and see the BAK system take a LOT longer and farther to stop those F-16s than could be feasible on any aircraft carrier deck. That is to limit the amount of force the F-16 arresting hook has to absorb in the process.

Yeah TACAN is flaky AF in DCS. At least in MP and in the F/A-18. Sometimes it'll die for no reason. I've seen it lock up at much closer ranges and have to recycle power to get it to update again. Then sometimes it works as advertised. YMMV and no promises extended with that system in the F/A-18.

Ah there is something to that on Roland at least. I've found it impossible to even damage a Roland EWR via strafing with the 18.

Also you would need to know that the friendly in the area isn't merged with an enemy fighter and you are seeing that.

I've successfully done pure CCIP since the patch but I still think something is off with it as just as Airhunter states above the only way to do it is to start from like 20k feet and be very close as you must get into a very steep dive for it to not be CCIP to CCRP delivery. Perhaps it is as he says and they added a huge drag value to the bomb thus to the calculations but the delivery is so radically different than pre patch that if the only thing that was added was the 1000 feet to BA then something is definitely wrong.

Just to point out to the devs this should just be under the bugs sub folder not under controller and input as there is nothing the OP could do or mis-configure to make the aircraft FCR display what it was displaying. That was purely a F-16 module problem.

Nope. Stations 2 & 8 will act just like the wing tip missiles. Stations 3 & 7 also if loaded with A-A missiles. Those pylons do not have carts so they aren't going anywhere on jettison.

The F-16 FLCS will adjust surfaces to maintain control of the aircraft many times per second. Uh NO. The whole point of RSS is to enhance the maneuverability of the aircraft. In doing so this also makes the aircraft inherently unstable thus the requirement for the FLCS to adjust the surfaces to maintain control. An example of the F-16 doing this: An example of the F-35 doing this starting at 1:21:

Doesn't matter. Just watch the video. That is seriously broken as even at the 2 mile range under the captains bars he was showing 22/-40 and the elevation T was centered.. That is WAY wrong.

I haven't dug into the specifics of limiting the display like that but I can tell you the ghetto method I use to verify if I have the search radar or the track radar locked. I just hit the cage/uncage button to handoff to the missile. That drops all targets from the display but the one you are locked on to. If I see the S versus a 2 or a 3 then just cage/uncage again, RAID/FOV switch once, then cage/uncage again and see what you have locked onto then.

The roll will be mostly unaffected as flaperons do roll control for the most part. The pitch control in that video isn't realistic for sure as the asymmetrical nature of that input thanks to the damage would induce some nasty yaw and roll whenever you pitched the aircraft about since that is handled by the horizontal stabilizers.

There is no missile mode "layered in the background". If you have either dogfight or missile override selected you will not be in AG mode but in missile override or dogfight. Pressing AG master mode with either of those two selected does nothing IRL until you de-select dogfight or missile override.

Well for one your problem is not the same as the OP so sorry to the OP for this thread hijack. Your problem is you have left yourself in missile override or dogfight mode. If you are in either dogfight or missile override then trying to move to the AG mastermode is pointless. It will not allow it. You need to exit whichever mode you are sticking it in back to NAV mode THEN go to AG master mode. To the OP I've dropped many a CBU-97 from the 16 and have never seen that issue.

A stored heading alignment is set up prior to that flight by turning on the INS some point prior to the flight and performing a standard full length gyrocompass alignment of the INS. Then it is shut down and the aircraft is not moved at all. If it gets moved for any reason than another standard gyrpcompass alignment would be required to update the INS to the new position. If that is done then a F-16 pilot can on startup select Stored Heading as the alignment type. No entry of current position is needed and the alignment will take 90 seconds to perform as it is assuming some data from the last full gyrocompass alignment thus why you need to perform a full alignment and not move the aircraft prior to using stored heading. Works good for scramble birds which are not going to be moved and are just waiting for the call.

No IRL they would go for a Stored Heading alignment in that case not skipping it till airborne. Waiting till airborne is going to give you a very rough alignment that is going to drift like crazy and require correction from the pilot.

Definitely didn't help that the F-111 isn't exact carrier friendly thus why the Navy said thanks but no thanks we'll get our own. So the bad side is it definitely cost the tax payers more but good side is we got the F-14 out of the deal as you state so in the end it mostly worked out.

Which would have been realistic if not annoying for F-16 pilots back then. The vast majority of F-16s aren't equipped to fire the sparrow IRL thus prior to the inclusion of the AMRAAM most F-16s were sidewinder only.