WHOGX5

I managed to find the post! If you go through that thread you can see some of the discussion about the AN/ARC-210. There's also a thread regarding which tape of F-16CM-50 we have/are going to get but there was never a conclusive answer from ED. So at the moment it looks like we're getting some kind of M4.3-M5.1 hybrid. Here's the thread!

ED has said they're replacing the current VHF radio with the AN/ARC-210 so it should be on its way.

Your behavior in this thread is absolutely ridiculous. You seem to be dead set on not listening to a single person who doesn't completely agree with you. Your view is too far forward. Adjust the default camera position to where it would be in real life. That's it. You'll see the RWR. Instead you choose to go on and on with these theatrics about how you just want to see the RWR but you're also not prepared to do a single thing within your power as a human being to make that happen. You can ramble on about engineers, pilots, alternate universes; it doesn't matter. Your theorizing doesn't prove anything. So all you have to do now is to just PROVE to us with EVIDENCE that the cockpit around the RWR isn't modeled correctly. No more "I think", "they can't" or "they wouldn't". Just post actual proof. Trust me, I'm always down to complain about the absolutely horrid state of the DCS F-16, but this is not one of those times. I don't get why you refuse to come to terms with the aforementioned answers which others and I have explained to you several times each at this point, and we have done this in the most succinct and plain manner. I'm honestly at a loss as to how this thread hasn't been locked yet.

If you would have taken the time to read my first response to you you wouldn't have to keep bumping this thread. The default head position in the F-16 is too far forward. This is to make the HUD more visible as you only have one viewpoint (without VR) and in real life you have two eyes which gives you a wider FOV of the HUD. The solution is to move your default head position backwards. It takes 5 seconds and you won't have this problem ever again. Here's a photo of an Israeli F-16C Block 52. See how visible the RWR is? Do you also see how the HUD is very zoomed in and hard to see with the single viewpoint of a camera? PS: Don't try to get ED to adjust the 3D model of their cockpit based on a video of a cheap simulator cockpit made in plastic.

Just to clarify: In DCS all datalink contacts belonging to the opposite team are always identified as hostile. In real life there are multiple colours and shapes for contacts. Green circle for friendly ID criteria, white box for unknown, yellow box for partial hostile ID criteria and red triangle for fully met hostile ID criteria. Mission or campaign specific ID criteria can be loaded via the DTC and classify targets based on aircraft type, IFF response, etc. And if the tracks are hollow they're just link tracks and if they're solid they're being tracked by your own radar. So yeah, until DCS includes some sort of ID system, all hostile tracks will simply be shown as red triangles in TWS.

Considering the state of fragmentation damage in DCS, I'd be surprised if SDB's could even kill infantry.

You can't complain about ED removing AGM-154C as it's a USN munition. It was never procured by the USAF and it was never fielded on the F-16. You can however complain about ED adding it to the roadmap in the first place instead of doing the minimal amount of research required to realize that the charlie variant was never used by the USAF. Hopefully it wasn't a calculated decision.

Video example posted to youtube in 2009:

I think we need to start a collective effort to archive every single ED post because so many things get smoke and daggered away and it's gone so far now that people are starting to question their own sanity and the overall validity of their own memories.

Oops, seems like I struck a nerve. First of all, I completely agree with Deadpool. Second of all, the reason we have an official forum is so that we have a point of contact with Eagle Dynamics. I don't mind ED being active on other platforms, not at all. But it's very strange when questions are answered on other platforms but not their own official forum. It's even stranger that they answer the questions in PMs but they refuse to reply in the actual thread for all to see. This time the information made its way from Steam onto the forum. Great. But how many unanswered questions have not been relayed to the forums? Do I have to be active on the ED forums, Steam, Reddit, Facebook and Youtube to get a complete picture and find the answers I'm looking for? I don't understand how you can be defending that. I hope you can cope with this "unleashing" onto you. Stay strong!

I completely agree! The Sniper XR would vastly improve the capabilities of the Viper, even without the advanced features like target recognition and stuff. I've heard of F-16 pilots being able to point track targets with the Sniper XR at over 80 nm. I'd be happy if they developed an initial trial version of the Sniper pod, when it had the same software as the LITENING. Alternatively, they could guesstimate the systems like they do with so much else.

Are you daft? Why is it weird that people want confirmation on the official forums? I don't own DCS on steam, why the hell should I have to go there for information about DCS? I don't know if you've noticed, but this thread has 53 posts and none of them is an answer from an ED employee. They stealthily removed it from the road map, and now they refuse to talk about it. It's like Stalin photo shopping people out of photographs. But you can be damn sure that if I posted a picture of classified manuals or something, they'd be here in a flash. It's not that they're not listening, they're just choosing to completely ignore us. Par for the course as an DCS F-16 customer though...

This dude would have been brain dead after 3 seconds if DCS G-modeling is correct.

*"...at least we have something to forget on startup" FTFY

Amazing performance, superb avionics design, and most important of all, the appearance! Sooo beatiful!

Pretty much everything you mention is in the real jet, it's just not implemented yet in DCS. You also have to remember that the A-10C has the same stick has the F-16, but the F-16 has to provide HOTAS controls for the radar systems as well so that's why there wasn't room for markpoints and the likes on the HOTAS. However, all you have to do is press 7 on the ICP, then TMS up to mark. Then if you press ICP 0 you make that markpoint your active steerpoint. If you haven't bound the ICP to your numpad already, you should really do that. Once you get used to the DED and how it works you don't even have to look at it when inputting stuff. All you need to do is let go of your throttle for two second and you're good. I even input stuff while banking in fingertip without any issues. Also, about the SPI thing, I'd argue the F-16 is more effective. In the A-10C you need to designate SPI manually and then slew sensors to the SPI manually as well. In the F-16, everything is SPI all the time. Move your ground radar and your TGP moves with it. And if you want to move the SPI back, just press cursor zero. I'd imagine the reason you SPI stays offset, even when you change steerpoints, is so that if your INS drifts and you have a steerpoint at some sort of recognizable feature (a building or something) you don't have to realign the entire INS to account for drift, whether large or small. Instead, you can simply "align" the SPI and then it stays at that offset which is much quicker. And yes, it's 2021 and we have GPS nowadays, but in a real full scale war, GPS satellites would probably be the first thing to go so flying solely on INS is still a very important ability. Also, I think you're underestimating how incomplete the DCS F-16 is. I'd say we've gotten about 15% of the way so there's still tonnes of stuff left to do for ED. It's definitely a rough transition coming from the A-10C which is the most complete module in DCS.

All of those things can be done or worked around when only using HOTAS controls. 1. Radar range is controlled by the cursor. Move the cursor to the top of the display to increase range and move it to the bottom of the display to reduce. 2. Steerpoints can't be cycled per se using the HOTAS, but you can instead simply select your desired steerpoint using the HSD cursor and selecting a steerpoint. As far as I know, this functionality hasn't been implemented yet in the DCS F-16. 3. There isn't really a need to switch between modes in the F-16. If you're doing A-G for example, you press A-G on the ICP. If you need to switch to A-A mode you simple set the Dogfight/Missile Override switch to Missile Override. Return the DGFT/MRM switch to the center position and you're back to A-G mode exactly where you left off. That's one of the best features of the F-16. You can look at an area with the A-G radar (not implemented) and TGP, then you flip the switch to Override and the radar and TGP automatically goes into A-A mode and you can do whatever you want. Then when you cancel the override both the radar and TGP goes back to A-G mode and points at the same place they did before the override. As someone who has flown the A-10C religiously since before DCS World even existed, and who has flown the F-16 for the same amount of time (though mostly in another sim), I'm sure you'll come to love the F-16 once you get into the groove of things. The main upside of the F-16 compared to something like the F-18 is the avionics. They're incredibly efficient and very user friendly in my opinion, just like the A-10C. The F-16 has been neglected by ED though in favour of development of the the F-18, Mi-24 and AH-64 so there is an insane amount of features that haven't been implemented yet. Hopefully they can pick up the pace this autumn though as the F-18 gets closer to being feature complete.

This. I've simply bound my numpad and arrows to the ICP controls as I have a HOTAS and TrackIR, so I don't need their initial functionality. If you do this, you can input coordinates while you're in the F10 view. Just learn how to input everything without looking at the DED and you can input your coordinates in a flash, even for multiple steerpoints.

It's hard to tell if it's a bug or pilot error from just your description. Has the SPI been moved, are there strong winds, what's the aircraft position relative to the target, etc. ? If you could post a track file or something similar that'd help in figuring out what went wrong. The artificial horizon can tumble some times. It's solved by pushing/pulling the rotary to reset it and scroll to readjust the indicator.

A word of advice as I see you don't have a lot of posts: Don't ever mention that other F-16 sim or post pictures from it or anything like that on this forum. The moderators will remove your posts if you do and you'll probably receive warnings/strikes too. Regarding the issue at hand, pretty much all the moving HUD symbology in the DCS F-16 is broken to some degree. It's most likely going to stay that way for the foreseeable future judging from the patch history for the DCS F-16 over the last year.

Yes. It doesn't matter if it's markpoints or not, but markpoints are definitely easier if you don't have pre-planned target steerpoints. Just pickle, next STPT, pickle, next STPT, etc.

As I mentioned previously in this thread, if you move your default head position backwards to where a pilots head would be in real life, you won't have any issues seeing the RWR.

Request: Create a DiCE "launcher" which starts the DiCE software and replaces the countermeasure files, then automatically starts DCS as soon as the files has been replaced. This way we could just always launch DCS through DiCE and we'd never have any issues with updates overwriting files or anything.

Yes, you are completely correct but I feel like you've misunderstood me. An official API would be the preferred solution. What I'm saying is that a heterogeneous mess of bespoke solutions is infinitely better than what we have now, which is nothing. We literally have nothing at all. That's why I'd rather have a simple .lua file in saved games where you can setup your avionics with simple true/false statements and integers. They teased the DTC like over a year ago and we've seen ZERO progress since. So until we reach the year or decade when the DTC actually gets released with an official API or whatever, give us a shitty, convoluted stopgap in the meantime.

The issue isn't with anything obstructing the RWR per se. The main issue is the same we had in the A-10C where ED had placed the default view position much farther forward than a pilots eyes would be in real life. Hold R-CTRL and R-SHIFT while pressing the zoom/view bindings on the numpad to adjust your head position. There is some way to save a new default view position so you don't have to set it every single flight, but I don't remember how to do that unfortunately. If you place your view about a heads distance from the headrest you won't have any issues seeing the RWR. Doing this you might see a little bit less of the HUD symbology but you should still see almost everything. This is because a pilots eyes can see more of the HUD symbology at the same distance as each eye views the HUD from a different angle. And like others said, TrackIR or a similar DIY solution helps a lot. It doesn't have to be expensive, I know people who've put together a DIY tracking solution for under $20.