WHOGX5

You can, but only in steerpoints 1-24, meaning that manually created lines plus your entire flight plan has to be (24 - n) steerpoints in total, where n is the total amount of areas you want to mark, as you need to leave an empty steerpoint inbetween each area unless you want everything to be connected. Needless to say, this is quite limiting.

Has there been any progress on this point? It still isn't possible to tell who's who on LINK 16 outside of your own team members in the DCS F-16C. Both the DCS A-10C and F/A-18C has had an equivalent feature for ages, I don't see why we can't have it in the DCS F-16C as well?

Oh my god! I never knew this was even an option. Gonna rebind right away!

It does depend on squadron and wing equipment availability as well as standard operating procedures. If you go to the F-16.net wesite and search for PACAFI, you'll find a document containing standard loadouts for Pacific USAF squadrons. There you can see that most F-16C squadrons in that theatre mandate the use of ECM in every single loadout, no matter if it's A/A, A/G, SEAD, etc. Keep in mind though that just about every single USAF fighter squadron in the pacific theatre is heavily equipped and prepared for a full scale war against either China or North Korea. They are armed to the gills. If you went to your average USAF squadron on the mainland, I'm sure things would look very different. Same thing goes for COIN ops in the middle east.

Just to add to your point, holding Pinky Switch Long will not only zoom in your HSD, but it will zoom your HSD to the lowest possible scale where all your LINK 16 flight members are still visible, so it's a really useful tool to get situational awareness on your own flight. This works irregardless of SOI as far as I'm aware. I'll also add my own point, which is that when you've assigned a PDLT on the HSD, you can use TMS Right Short to cycle your PDLT between all visible LINK 16 tracks on your HSD. Very handy when there is a lot of stuff on there.

I think one important thing to keep in mind is that, beyond being pretty to look at, the KC-10 has higher fuel transfer rates via the boom than the KC-135 has, and it also carries a lot more fuel. I know there used to be a KC-10 in DCS back in the day, and I sincerely hope we get one again!

My community has done some more testing to check the effectiveness of the AN/ALQ-184 against different threats in DCS. As you can see, in its current state, the AN/ALQ-184 in DCS is practically useless in Mode 1 and Mode 2 against all concievable threats, and should never be used in those modes in its current state as it only really decreases/inhibits your own radar performance but not the enemies. Mode 3 barrage jamming is the only effective method if it is activated before you get locked (same performance as Mode 1 and Mode 2 if activated after lock), but it really only has a tactical impact against very long range SAMs like the SA-5 and SA-10. For most medium and short range SAM systems, even Mode 3 has a negligable impact if any at all and should probably not be used. Seeing as the AN/ALQ-184 is quoted, in real life, as being extremely effective and being a main contributor to the extremely low kill rate of SAM systems against platforms carrying this jamming system (primarily wild weasel F-16CM-50's), it has to be markedly more effective than it currently is in DCS. I think it's fair to say that electronic warfare is the single most important aspect of aerial warfare in today's age, and seeing as just the AN/ALQ-184 program alone has cost billions of dollars and ended up being equipped on the US Air Force's premiere SEAD platform, it must bring with it a major tactical advantage, which we don't see in DCS at the moment. You also have to remember that the AN/ALQ-184 in DCS seemingly has 360 degree coverage. In real life, it uses Rotman lenses fore and aft, meaning that it cannot jam threats off to the sides, or above/below the host aircraft. Based on public information about Rotman lenses in the scientific field, we know that they have the ability to jam multiple emitters in multiple bands simultaneously, with quite a wide field of view but with a dropoff in effective radiated power towards the edges of it's field of view, at very high angles. This should reasonable mean that, in real life, the AN/ALQ-184's tactical use has to be great enough to make it worthwhile for a pilot to point his aircraft towards or away from an emitter after getting locked up, and also make it effective enough to be used on wild weasel F-16C's whose sole job is to fly in and get locked up and shot at by various SAM systems. Currently in DCS, seeing as Mode 3 is the only effective mode, you have to completely inhibit your own radar and HTS pod and fly around blind to get any use out of ECM, making you wholly ineffective as a wild weasel. Whether you are in Mode 1, 2 or 3, you cannot expect to break locks at any meaningful range, meaning that you need to constantly barrage jam before being locked up to get any protection at all, and even this would only result in SAM systems launching in home-on-jam mode or enemy signal interception systems triangulating your position in real time. Anyways, here are the experimentally acquired values in DCS: ECM Mode Max lock distance Max stable lock distance ---SA-2 OFF 27.5 nm 27.5 nm Mode 1 27.5 nm 27.5 nm Mode 2 27.5 nm 27.5 nm Mode 3 24 nm 24 nm ---SA-3 OFF 14.5 nm 14.5 nm Mode 1 14.5 nm 14.5 nm Mode 2 14.5 nm 14.5 nm Mode 3 14.5 nm 13 nm ---SA-5 OFF 75 nm 75 nm Mode 1 75 nm 72 nm Mode 2 75 nm 72 nm Mode 3 31 nm 31 nm ---SA-6 OFF 24 nm 24 nm Mode 1 24 nm 24 nm Mode 2 24 nm 23 nm Mode 3 21 nm 21 nm ---SA-8 OFF 11.5 nm 11.5 nm Mode 1 11.5 nm 11.5 nm Mode 2 11.5 nm 11.5 nm Mode 3 10.8 nm 10.8 nm ---SA-10 OFF 35 nm 35 nm Mode 1 35 nm 32 nm Mode 2 35 nm 35 nm Mode 3 24.5 nm 24.5 nm ---SA-11 OFF 21 nm 21 nm Mode 1 21 nm 18 nm Mode 2 21 nm 18 nm Mode 3 15.5 nm 15.5 nm ---SA-15 OFF 10 nm 10 nm Mode 1 10 nm 8 nm Mode 2 10 nm 8 nm Mode 3 6.5 nm 6.5 nm ---SA-19 OFF 6 nm 6 nm Mode 1 6 nm 6 nm Mode 2 6 nm 6 nm Mode 3 6 nm 6 nm

That is not true. Even before the M4 tape the Break X has been red. You can for example see it in the M1 guide.

We just had 9 aircraft brick their HADs when performing TDOA in our mission tonight. So this issue definitely exists. Exact same symptopms with cursor bullseye being several millions of miles away.

I think what is clear from this thread is simply that ED should wait longer with pushing new features. You can still output the same amount of content at the same pace, just do it a month or two later and give both your QAs and developers more time to find and fix any bugs. That feels like it should be enough to stop all these bugs, because it feels like every DCS F-16C patch is two steps forward, one step back (at best). I also think ED needs to be more receptive to bug reports. It is very difficult to get bugs reported, and so many threads which are clearly describing incorrect behaviour gets marked as "correct-as-is" and locked to prevent any further discussion or context to be added to the matter. I know both myself, and a lot of my DCS friends, have simply stopped reporting bugs on the forums because it feels like a futile endeavour, when you've spent hours sometimes researching an issue and providing all kinds of information, and still it gets marked as "correct-as-is" and locked. The community is more than willing to help ED make the DCS F-16C the best it can be, we just need to be given the opportunity.

@Tom Kazansky If you look at the real life tanker tracks from Operation Allied Force from the af.mil webiste, and you do some Google Maps measurements and MS Paint forensics, you'll find that the AGIP tanker tracks are about 40x20 nautical miles in total, meaning a 10 nautical mile turn radius and 30 nautical mile legs.

They're always in racetracks, but the speeds and altitudes vary in accordance with real world tanker setups for recieving different airframes. So for the F-16C's for example, optimum altitude and airspeed is at FL300, 315 KIAS.

Currently, tankers decrease their bank angle when an aircraft is refuelling. This often leads to a close to 40 nautical mile turn radius which is absolutely enourmous. This effectively means that a tanker with 20nm legs, with the possibility of initiating refueling on either of the two legs, will occupy an airspace of about 70x60 nautical miles. It would be nice if the mission creator could choose either the desired bank angle and/or turn radius in the mission editor. For communities who try to adhere to real life airspaces it is simply an impossibility to do so when the turns are so incredibly wide.

I agree that it is logical procedure in real life to turn off the station before mounting/dismounting the TGP, but that does not mean the TGP will not turn on when the hardpoint is powered. Obviously you would keep things turned off IRL to minimize the risk of power surges and stuff like that during power cycles, but that kinds of wear-and-tear and failure simulation is a level of detail which is not simulated in the DCS F-16C (but I would warmly welcome that level of failure simulation in the DCS F-16C). Also, another issue in DCS (last I checked) is also that we cannot re-arm individual stations, so any time you hang some new bombs off of your wing, it will remove and replace your TGP whether you want to or not. Most of all, it's worth pointing out that this issue applies at cold starts as well. I've only done one flight since the last patch, and I did my normal startup procedure according to checklists, where I powered up the hardpoint well after the TGP had been mounted and the engine had began supplying power to the aircraft, but when I brought up my TGP once I was airborne, it was still turned off. This also happened to my flight members who flew with me last night.

I don't know why this is set to "not a bug"? If the hardpoint is powered, there should be power to whatever is connected to the hardpoint, right?