WHOGX5

It would be cool if they did but I definitely don't think it's a necessity. 90% of the effect of implementing this would apply to players themselves. If you're fighting an AI that has GPS compared to one that doesn't the difference would barely be noticeable by the players. Most of the AI aircraft we currently have in-game don't have a GPS system as it is and they still act in a believable way. In the end, a pilot without GPS who knows how to properly manage the INS would practically navigate as well as one who has a GPS. The main difference would be in the planning stages and some additional workload during the mission for whoever only has an INS, but the end result would be quite similar.

I'd like to propose the ability to simulate a no-GPS environment in DCS. Much like the USAF's Red Flag exercises that are regularly flown in GPS blackout conditions I'd like to have the ability to fly in the same conditions in DCS. Reason being that a full scale war between any of the worlds superpowers would probably result in the immediate destruction of GPS satellites, or at least the jamming of GPS signals forcing aircraft to use INS navigation like in the old days. A simple checkbox or a trigger that can be set in the mission editor to toggle this feature would suffice. This would be quite a simple addition that would only require that modern aircraft actually have a modeled INS and the ability to update the INS via fixes. It would provide a completely new challenge to people who fly modern fighter jets like the F/A-18C and F-16C and it would also give mission makers a tool to put aircraft from different eras on a more even keel, while staying 100% true to realism. Just like it would in real life, a GPS jamming environment would hamper the reliance on standoff precision weapons like JDAMs, JSOWs and SLAM-ERs and make GBU's, MAVs or even dumb bombs a more viable option. Flight plans would have to take terrain and landmarks into account to allow for easy updating of the INS rather than simply flying a point A to point B mission. This in-turn would make maps containing lots of water or big, featureless deserts a bigger challenge to navigate in just like they would in real life. All in all, it'd add a completely new type of gameplay for all GPS-capable fighter jets in DCS.

Since the last patch there are yellow flashing lines around the track on your FCR after launch. Those yellow lines are not supposed to be there. The yellow lines in the real life F-16 manuals are there to indicate that whatever they're pointing towards should be flashing in a still photo. You can see the same yellow lines stretch beyond the MFD display in many other illustrations in those same manuals. So in this case when all the yellow lines are pointing to the rear of the track, rather than surround the track completely, that means that the little tail at the rear of the track should be flashing. Or if it's after the predicted impact time, both the tail and the cross should be flashing. As a matter of fact, if you scroll one page down beyond where the image you got those yellow lines from is located in the real life manual, it is described in no uncertain terms exactly what should be flashing, at which hertz, under which conditions, etc. and it is described in words rather than illustrations. Here's an in-game video of the yellow lines in action for reference:

The main issue is that the MFD brightness in the DCS F-16 is incredibly weak. The MFDs always look dim during daytime. If purple symbology would be invisible during daytime like it is in DCS, it would never have made it into the real F-16. And simply changing the colour of the symbology would be an incredibly lazy and unrealistic workaround.

Verbal communication is pretty much the only way unless you get close enough to see the markings/camo.

I've got just the thing...

In real life the CBU-87 is more than capable of eliminating armored targets. Just look at Desert Storm where F-16's dropped a whole bunch of them on armoured targets with good effect. The main issue regarding cluster bombs in DCS is that ground units don't have a real damage model. It's basically just an HP bar. While a single CBU-87 submunition could cut it's way through the top of a tank, in DCS you need multiple submunitions to hit the same target multiple times to reduce the HP enough for it to be set on fire. It's the same issue faced by the A-10's in DCS where you need to put hundreds of rounds on a tank with your cannon to actually set your target ablaze. If I understand it correctly, you should also be able to kill a tank with an AK-47 if you just shoot at it long enough, though I haven't taken the time to actually try this out. And in real life you don't even need to destroy a target for it to be put out of action. Just put a bend in a tanks cannon, kill the crew, de-track, demoralize, etc. and you've done your job.

From what I can see in all the engine threads people are still having issues even in brand new missions. And it's not hard to stay up to date with the Dora. You can check the Dora subforum once a month and there'll be 10 new posts because there's almost no one in there anymore. But yeah, let's hope that revisit becomes a reality. I think they were talking about overhauling the entire engine model which will hopefully fix that issue, but it was so long ago that I might just be misremembering. I really love the Dora and I just want to be able to fly her regularly again.

As mentioned in the other thread, which was promptly locked, the issue isn't a lack of assets but rather a lack of bugfixes for the actual aircraft. There's no point in adding trucks, halftracks and tanks when the actual interface between those and the players, namely the aircraft, aren't functioning properly. That's why WWII player numbers are waning. Fragmentation and the ground unit damage models is an area that's also lacking and it's been that way for over a decade. I spent 90% of my time flying DCS warbirds in the Dora so that is the aircraft I base my opinion on. The Dora has a single gamebreaking bug that hasn't been fixed for ages. That's literally the only reason I'm not flying warbirds anymore. I'd love to fly multiplayer missions with all the new WWII assets and maps, but it's just not enjoyable due to the aforementioned reason. Don't get me wrong; I love DCS and I've invested an unreasonable amount of money and time on all kinds of different modules. I'm just being honest about my personal view of the current status of DCS WWII. To be honest, that's a pretty accurate description of the Dora. I mean, we don't even have a texture template yet and it's been close to 7 years since release. For what reason, I don't know.

I'd do anything for a Ju-88! Nothing compares to WWII gameplay where you have aircraft with different roles duking it out. It'd be amazing if we got to fly in the pacific theatre some day as well with fighters, fighter-bombers, level bombers, dive bombers, torpedo haulers, etc.

The FW-190D-9 is my favourite WWII aircraft and I love it to death, but it's engine model has been broken for years on end resulting in the engine randomly quitting during flight, even if you fly in economy power throughout and follow all the proper procedures. So I'd love to fly WWII stuff more often, but for the last couple of years it's just been pure suffering knowing it's a coin toss whether I'll be able to finish my flight or have my engine quit halfway through due to no fault of my own. So I don't fly WWII stuff anymore in DCS.

As a sidenote to this discussion, the funnel is great to have beyond being a backup system. A great thing about the F-16 is that your radar turns off when you enter Dogfight mode. This means that if you just get into a decent firing position you can engage a target without giving away your position, especially when using rounds without tracers. Once you get used to how the funnel behaves and you start doing sweeping shots from aft to fore you can achieve a very high hit rate without even turning your radar on. The F-16 is so small and so easy to lose sight of in a dogfight that you can really use stealth to your advantage.

This. On one side you have armchair generals who thinks the USAF F-16CM-50 circa 2007 should have CFTs, Scorpion HMDs, etc. and on the other side you have the SMEs and c/o who are willing to give their lives in order to stop that 4/6 umbilical from being featured in-game. In my eyes it's very simple: Allow the USAF F-16CM-50 circa 2007 to do what it was ABLE to do. Yes, the umbilicals weren't there at that time. But if the Cold War 2.0 broke out and there was an actual risk of a war where you can't just drop GBU's on shepherds with complete air superiority, I'd be very surprised if the USAF didn't but those umbilicals back in with haste. Likewise, we shouldn't have access to CFTs because the USAF don't have CFT's for the F-16 in their inventory and they wouldn't be able to just add it without making modifications to the airframe. And regarding triple mavs, I don't think anyone would give a hoot about longevity when you're fighting a conflict where hundreds of aircraft would be shot down each month. I don't think this stance is unreasonable. Should we only be able to fly the types of missions the F-16CM-50 circa 2007 flew in 2007? COIN, CAS, etc? Should we not be able to employ the F-16CM-50 circa 2007 in the way the USAF would have employed it in 2007 if some WWIII situation broke out? We're not talking modifying the entire aircraft or anything, we're just talking about using things that aren't actively used in order to reduce costs, things that could and would be used by the USAF without any notable modifications if the types of conflicts we often simulate in DCS would've become a reality.

The reticule disappears because your target was accelerating away from you. You had the pipper, then your target starts moving beyond 4000 ft and the pipper disappears, then when the target starts pulling G's and you get below 4000 ft, you can see the reticule reappear. And regarding the range of the gun, I think you underestimate how relatively slow bullets are and how quickly they lose speed. The M61 only has a muzzle velocity of about 3,500 ft/s and the bullet weigh about 100g each. That bullet is gonna bleed speed like crazy against the air resistance, especially when the speeds are so high and the mass is so low. That's why the M61's stated max range is about 2000ft. It's not a long range weapon.

This sounds like you're definitely tuned to the right radio freq but you're making your calls using the wrong radio. There are bindings for making calls on the UHF and VHF radio separately and you have to use the radio that's tuned to the tower for the tower to receive your call. In DCS, if the tower doesn't receive any requests from you they will automatically give you clearance when you start moving in order to alert other pilots to your actions.

It would be impressive if Iran could just send up a single F-14 tuned to a goofy TACAN channel and jam all NATO L16 ops in the entire Strait of Hormuz. If L16 can't even handle that, how in the world would it function in any kind of jamming environment? In my community this issue was specifically identified and ever since limiting ourselves to everything except channels 1-36 and 64-99 we haven't had any D/L issues. Before we did that we had D/L issues every single week.

There are DI values for all the individual stores in the HAF manuals but I don't have them at hand at the moment so I can't tell you exactly which page. Though I don't know how in-depth DCS drag modelling is, in real life the DI value varies depending on, not merely what you have loaded, but even what type of store is loaded next to another type of store. This means that if you want to calculate accurate DI values you need to calculate for the entire loadout with everything loaded on specific stations. For example, if you have certain munitions loaded on stations 3 & 7, the DI of those munitions will be different depending on whether or not you have fuel tanks loaded on stations 4 & 6, and that is without even taking the DI of the tanks themselves into account. I hope that helps and hopefully some kind soul who has the HAF manuals at hand is able to point you towards the right page.

I completely agree with OP, but for the love of god, don't exclude the HTS pod. The F-16CM-50 is the USAF's main SEAD platform so it would be nice if we were actually capable of performing it properly.

I don't know why you're referring to this B-1 incident as some sort of proof that the Sniper pod is less crisp IRL than the Litening/ATFLIR is in-game? Just go on youtube and search for some Sniper pod footage. You can see zoom level, distance from target, both TV and WHOT/BHOT.

The Sniper is worlds apart from both the ATFLIR and the Litening in every single aspect. The main reason the USAF used both the Sniper and the LANTIRN pods for their Block 50's in 2007 was because the Snipers widest FOV was too narrow for some applications, like CAS. That's why they used their scrappy old LANTIRN pods which were obsolete in every single way, because the wider FOV made it easier to perform certain missions and at such close ranges, things like low resolution isn't that big of an issue. As an aside, I've heard a viper pilot say he got an A-A point track from 86nm away with the Sniper pod. I'd like to see someone pull that off with the ATFLIR, Litening or LANTIRN pod. I've basically only touched upon the optics in this post, but there are so many software feature additions and improvements in the Sniper compared to the other pods that it's absolutely insane.

Like Frederf and Xavven mentioned, it will get better once we get closer to feature complete. Doing A-G in the F-16 is extremely clunky at the moment. That's partially due to a lack of essential systems but also due to the fact that all the systems that have already been implemented aren't in a fully completed state either. There are multiple ways to get your TGP onto a target that you have acquired visually in a short amount of time, but none of the good alternatives are implemented at the moment.

If you turn off all the lights in your room and zoom in really far you can actually see the fin. As you can see on the top left fin, the camera is angled right in line with the fin making it very hard to see and the main reason you see it at all is because it casts a shadow. The bottom right fin however is in the shade making it very hard to see.

As @Falconeer mentioned, your SPI has been slewed. You can tell that from the HSD display as the cursor isn't aimed at the selected steerpoint. This means that you must have touched whatever you have bound to your cursor. This is incorrect functionality in multiple ways, but it's the current state of the DCS F-16. I just responded in another thread how to "reset" it. Here's the link!

Normally you'd use the A-G FCR or the HSD page for CZ. Neither of these options are available in DCS though so the TGP is your only option. If you don't have a TGP loaded the only thing you can realistically do is to zoom in as far as you can on the HSD page, fly straight towards your selected steerpoint and manually slew the cursor until it's right on top of your steerpoint on the HSD page. It's not optimal, but I've done it and it works; at least to a satisfactory degree. If you don't have a TGP there are no other alternatives. And about TMS Down, it does not CZ. It only puts you in INR mode or drops the lock if you have a ground contact locked with the A-G radar.

Well, it wasn't really because of a lack of support from the USAF but rather that they experienced technical issues and cost overruns. Then, in the wake of the AGM-154B, the USAF funded development for the WCMD-ER CBU-115/B to do the same job as the AGM-154B, but that also had technical difficulties and on top of that the USAF budget was a bit tight those years so the WCMD-ER was canceled as well.