WHOGX5

You can set custom detents using curvature in your throttle axis tune. Just rescale everything so the detent ends up where you want it. It's not as straight forward as in the sim that shant be named, but it's a relatively quick workaround.

I'm not sure I completely agree. Describing the DCS F-16 as WIP would imply that there's actual progress being made... I have bug reports I posted over a year ago, pretty much just after EA release that would probably take about 92 seconds for an 70 IQ programmer to fix. But ED doesn't care. Instead we get new shiny weapons that are broken beyond comprehension months after their release. Whoop-diddely-doo. I have already accept defeat. I gave them my money, and they bamboozled me. I don't even bother reporting bugs anymore, like what's the point? F-16 is basically abandonware and it's not like it's gonna get fixed in the foreseeable future.

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't discuss this on a scientific basis using actual performance charts, but rather look at youtube videos and try to interpret the turn rate visually? You don't need an MSc in aeronautical engineering to read a simple performance chart and you don't need to be a test pilot to fly in a simple circle according to those charts and measure the deviation between the two. You keep saying 'I think this' and 'I think that', and then you "prove" your hunches with youtube videos of dogfights? What is your goal? To convince us with your gut feeling as the main argument?

And even better, imagine having a solution like that integrated with DCS. Being able to download mods via the DCS menues, activate/deactivate with checkboxes, create different presets, getting updates pushed, etc. Would make things a whole lot easier than moving stuff between folders depending on if you do IC or non-IC friendly stuff.

There is a software called WeaponsDeliveryPlanner which lets you create a loadout an get all the important weights and drag indexes. I think it can even give you rotation speed and climb profiles, though it wasn't made for DCS so it won't be super accurate, but it'll get you in the right ball park. Alternatively, you can calculate your loadouts manually using the HAF F-16 NATOPS. It takes a while though as there are a lot of variables that will affect your drag index (the drag of a weapon on one pylon being affected by what's loaded on the adjacent pylon, etc.). Once you've calculated everything for a loadout though, you can just save it somewhere and after a while, every loadout you use regularly will be accounted for. Whichever method you decide on using, always leave a good amount of margin though as the DCS F-16 flight model is still in early development and not very accurate.

I have no idea where those textures are located. It's worth noting though, that it's not just the textures that change, but the entire pilot model. It's the same post-ejection model for all NATO aircraft so chances are that the model and textures are located somewhere in the root DCS install, probably in the Bazar folder. It's not much, but I hope it helps.

We're like the kids walking around with Nokia 3310's playing snake while all the other kids are sending selfie MMS's on their flip phones.

And please ED, if you overhaul the comms system, please go absolutely insane with the callsigns for longevity. Add 100+ of the most common real life callsigns and we won't have the issue of people using different callsigns for human and AI interaction respectively.

Honestly, I don't even care about a planning tool at this point. Just put an .lua file somewhere in the Saved Games folder that doesn't get nuked after each patch and let the community develop the tools to use it like we've done with everything else. A lot of things like countermeasure programs and screen setups don't change between flights. We'd only need a software like CombatFlite to edit and export steerpoints to the .lua and we're able to do everything we need to do.

I don't know about the USAF, but the Swedish Air Force had turnaround times of about 10 minutes for complete refueling and rearming of a combat aircraft while in a forest somewhere, with 6 ground crew. I'd imagine the USAF would get somewhere close to that during an actual full scale war at a fully equipped airbase.

When it comes to utility helicopters there really isn't a better choice than the HH-60G. It's old enough to have available documentation and it's new enough to be extremely capable. It is all-weather capable with GPS/INS, forward looking infrared and weather radar. Sling loading, hoisting, aerial refueling, etc; it can do all that stuff. It's even capable of shipborne ops with folding rotorblades. It can perform any roll from transport to CSAR and spec ops insertion. I dare anyone to find a helicopter variant that is more or equally capable with the same amount of available documentation and access to SMEs.

Don't think so. But as far as I know, in real life pilots never land with night vision goggles. You always flip them up and do a regular ILS landing instead.

This. While other pilots can give and receive bullseye calls left and right, us viper pilots have to do some form of eyeballed trigonometry to figure out a very rough area where something might be. Either that, or interrupt AWACS with a "Hey...., Magic...., could we get uhh, a BRA for that last bulls call?"

The F-14 is a decent SCAR/FAC(A) platform, but I wouldn't call it "very good". It has antiquated link functionality, different functions in different cockpits reducing the ability to share the workload between pilot and WSO and antiquated avionics giving poorer situational awareness in general. That's the strengths of aircraft like the F-15E, F-16D and F/A-18D/F, that pilots and WSO's can share workloads and they also have advanced avionics and datalink functionality giving them amazing SA which increases their ability to coordinate. I can teach my children to ride a bicycle through a discord stream too. It's still not as effective as being there. If I'm actually in the cockpit myself, I can look at information I need to look at when I need to look at it in order to help the trainee, rather than telling him to "look at that thing. no, not that thing. below that, yeah. zoom in a little. yeah, thanks", then he looks back and he's flying through a forest somewhere. They're not completely different.

I can only speak for myself and those that I fly with, but the F-16D would increase our combat capability a lot. It would give us the perfect platform for SCAR, FAC(A), mission commander, etc. Those roles could also be performed by platforms like the F-15E or the F/A-18D/F but we don't have those in DCS unfortunately. And as I mentioned previously, our efficiency in training new pilots would increase by magnitudes. Trying to teach someone something advanced and avionics heavy is a PITA at the moment as we either have to do it as their wingman or via a stream of some sort. Neither is nearly as efficient as actually being there in the pit.

Unable to watch the track at the moment, but I've noticed two things that mess with D/L Having units with A-A TACAN set to 1-36 or 64-99. It seems like being on red team degrades your D/L even if you have an E-3 on your side. So see if any of these apply to your situation and see if changing them fixes things.

On a related note to this topic: Would it be possible to save even more space by having the base textures set in a common folder as in @Megalax's example and then create some sort of decal layer with transparency for the names for each individual aircraft?

Deleted

There is literally no reason to use the F-16 in BFM at the moment. The Viper was made to fight at high speeds and high G's. If you try to do that in DCS you'll black out instantly so I don't even bother. I'll wait for however many years it takes for ED to update the G-LOC until I touch BFM again in the Viper. After that, we can start talking about aircraft performance.

Where is the seam located? Each map has some defined limits that are technically outside the map but can still be flown over so if it's north of Adana or something like that it'd make sense for a seam to be there.

My statement about the NS430 was meant as a bit of satire in line with how people on this forum usually responds to requests like this. I couldn't care less if someone wants to put a crappy civilian GPS into an aircraft that already has an integrated military GPS/INS system. Like, why would you even want that? And there are some features in the roadmap which are a part of tape M5.1, like the JSOWs for example. I think the AN/ARC-210 was confirmed as well.

+1000 Like @ebabil said, it would greatly improve our ability to train newer pilots in DCS. Modelling an F-16DM-50 wouldn't require too much work comparatively speaking. A modified external model, added rear cockpit and some slight modification to the flight model. For all the different DCS communities that focus solely on teaching people how to fly rather than fighting competitively it would revolutionize their ability to effectively train new pilots in more complex subjects. Even though I'd be more than willing to pay for it, I think it'd repay itself in increased F-16 sales and the F-16 would become a natural starting place for aspiring virtual pilots coming to DCS. Just imagine the possibility of taking potential DCS customers along for an actual combat mission during a free weekend. That's impossible at the moment as all we have is the F-14 and that requires a competent RIO to be combat effective at all. And sure, you could record a video instead but it's not the same as actually being there in the heat of battle...

Exactly. Did the F-16CM-50 M5-M5.1 at Shaw AFB's 55th FS carry NS430s in their aircraft in 2007? Did they even have it in inventory?

In the HAF -1 under the Have Quick section it says that it takes 30-45 seconds from powering the EGI until satellite acquisition. GPS TOD will be entered automatically when contact has been established with a satellite and it will say GPS SYSTEM instead of just SYSTEM in the DED TIME page. It also says that GPS TOD should be manually updated again when you have a GPS HIGH horizontal accuracy status (alt. <300 ft) or when you have confirmed that your EGI is tracking four satellites at once to make sure your system time is accurate. However, it doesn't specify how to actually update the GPS time. I'll have to see if I can find that somewhere.

+1000 Not only place and pull chocks IMO, but pulling safety pins as well, charging the JFS after a failed start, hot refuels, etc. Maybe even require them to have the ladder mounted on the aircraft to be able to swap between JHMCS and NVGs........