WHOGX5

CTRL+Z

+1, I've had the same experience as those before me, I didn't get a track file or anything that I can upload.

It's also worth noting that this error does not apply to all airframes. I've flown the F-16C in formation with F-15E's in DCS, with the same barometric pressure set on our altimeters, and we had somewhere between 500-1000 feet of difference between our indicated barometric altitude at FL200-ish while flying wingtip.

This is incorrect. Firstly, you are indeed correct in the fact that the KC-10 is a special case which has the ability to provide both DME and bearing information via TACAN, but other aircraft can only provide DME via A/A TACAN, not bearing. That's the reason why the NATO brevity for A/A TACAN is "YARDSTICK", because you measure distance with it. Secondly, as has been reported many times in the past since a DCS patch broke this well over a year back, tankers in DCS can currently only be received with TACAN using either REC or T/R modes in DCS, which is obviously incorrect as these modes are meant to be used for ground stations. With your TACAN set to A/A mode you cannot recieve neither DME nor bearing from a tanker, but in REC you can receive bearing and in T/R you can recieve both bearing and range, irregardless of whether the tanker has this capability in real life, and irregardless of weather you've ticked the "Bearing" option in the advanced options for the tanker.

I mean... It'd be pretty dope to have the actual AVTR implemented. The ability to record HUD/HMD as well as both MFDs for both BDA and debriefing using the switches in the cockpit. That'd be extremely useful.

You don't have to accept anything, it will just magically appear in your aircraft as the steerpoint indicated on your HUD. One thing you can do though is to press the WARN RESET switch on the ICP to get rid of that message if you think it gets in the way.

The Sufa is so incredibly classified and has so many domestically produced Israeli systems that there is a 0% chance of it being developed for DCS unfortunately. The Greek F-16C/D 50/52+ variants have a lot of publicly available information however, so that might be a more viable alternative. Personally I'd really like an F-16D or a Block 40 with LANTIRN (or both).

They are indeed ground units. We had some guys in our community perform DEAD on an entire SA-2 battery with AIM-120's using A-A radar. Great success!

I'm not sure what the cause of your issue is, but I strongly suggest that you join the DCS DTC discord where the developer is more active than here on the forums. You'll most definitely get a faster response that way. https://discord.gg/dcBWPNMw

Remember that in DCS the ILS will only be turned on for the active runway. If the ILS for one runway doesn't work, try tuning the ILS for the opposite runway. If they're inactive in both directions, then something is wrong.

I give you an A+ for the ingenuity of your method for finding information about the AN/ALR-56M.

This is not correct. In SAM and DTT the radar will linger on a the bugged contact for 1 second (if memory serves me right) before doing a sweep across the search volume, then linger 1 second on the bugged contact, then sweep, so on and so forth. In TWS the radar will constantly sweep across the search volume and build tracks based on the momentary returns during each sweep. This is why "locks" in SAM and DTT are more stable than TWS, because your radar sends out a tonne of radar pulses on the same target rather than just getting a single return or so.

I really wished that both the IFF and HAVE QUICK pages would be implemented. Even though DCS itself doesn't support actual IFF or HAVE QUICK operations yet, SimpleRadio (SRS) does and the only hindrance to using SRS to it's fullest extent in the DCS F-16 is that we simply don't have the IFF or HAVE QUICK pages in our aircraft. All we'd need is the ability to change the frequencies and turn options on and off on those two pages so SRS could extract those values to use with it's own radio and IFF functionality. Maybe even get the "turn IFF mode on/off N/W/E/S of steerpoint x" functionality in there...

I just pray to god that we get clickable paper kneeboards with the upcoming pilot models, preferably one on each leg, with tabs so you can quickly switch between chapters and an ini file or something to define chapter locations in your custom kneeboard pages. It's a real hassle having to flip through all your checklists and charts sequentially in order to find what you're looking for. It's also really unpleasant to open a white kneeboard page during a night mission and get blinded, rather than having the page be lit by the dim flood lights in the cockpit.

The reason you lose the INS is that the EPU has been incorrectly implemented, meaning it does not properly power all the emergency buses. It has already been reported, no word on when it will be fixed.

As far as I know, you cannot resume the alignment once you're stationary again if you're doing a stored heading alignment. It only works with NORM alignments as long as the RDY/ALIGN is displayed (it does not need to be flashing, just displayed).

You should be able to move during alignment though. As long as you're doing a NORM alignment and the align status is below 70 the aircraft should enter NAV mode, even with the INS knob still set to NORM. When you're stationary again, the alignment will continue automatically. You just need to set the INS knob to NAV before you're airborne, but you can still taxi around and stuff without ruining your alignment.

Indeed, if you go back and check the changelogs, the rate of bugfixes and addition of new features for the DCS F-16C has seen a dramatic reduction in 2023. Resources have most likely been moved elsewhere to focus on other ED products.

I can confirm this, and it is indeed different between modules. This has been an issue for a very long time and even though most aircraft in DCS have a small amount of error (which is to be expected), for some reason the DCS F-16C's error is extremely large. The size of the error me and my community has encountered lines up perfectly with the values in your post.

I see that this thread is marked with "pm evidence". You can simply open a -1 flight manual of your choosing and check the power distribution diagrammes. They will list everything that is powered by the EPU (and a lot of those items are currently not powered in DCS using the EPU). I'm sure ED has much more modern documentation in their possession than any of us have access to, which would naturally be more useful for the type of F-16C they're modelling.

This thread is still not marked as neither "Reported" nor "Correct-as-is". Is there any additional information needed to prove that this is indeed a bug that needs to be fixed?

@falcon_120 is completely correct. I did not mention commits because my intention was not to give a crash course in air-to-air tactics, but rather to give a quick answer to the question I quoted in my post. To quickly explain my point in a little bit more detail, in air-to-air combat you use what is called a timeline which is determined before the flight, based on the threats you might encounter during your mission. Each step of the timeline will correspond to you being a certain distance from a target group, and require a certain action to be taken at that distance. At some point during that timeline your flight will "meld", which usually includes switching from RWS to TWS if the situation requires it. As the distance at the meld between you and the target group is known in advance, you can setup optimal TWS parameters for your entire flight before flying the mission, loading it into your respective aircraft via the DTC. Changing those settings during your flight is not necessary because you would practically never use TWS to search for targets, but rather use it during an engagement to engage more than two targets at once at a certain distance. If you want to search for targets you would use RWS (or VSR) instead. If you disagree with my explanation, then you are free to provide a counterargument (which preferably consists of more than simply saying "that is not true").

AFAIK, it's because RWS is used both to search for and to engage contacts, while TWS is only used to engage contacts. This means that with RWS you're constantly changing which volumes of airspace you're searching through, hence bump range and bump azimuth makes that process much more efficient. However, TWS is only used when you've already found whatever you're engaging. The distance from the target group where you switch from RWS to TWS in an engagement is predetermined in the mission briefing. Becuase of this, TWS settings like range or azimuth are simply loaded from the DTC and not meant to be changed while flying. The removal of bump azimuth means that you can move your cursor freely without worrying about accidentaly changing any azimuth settings.

IMO jammers are pretty much useless in DCS except for A-A combat. Even an SA-5 will launch at close to max range even if you're barrage jamming. This wasn't the case before where ECM would usually half the engagement range, so something has indeed changed.

Its also difficult for milsim communities who work with real life airspaces, because the tanker turns in DCS are so incredibly wide that it doesn't fit in any tanker track in the world. You need such an enourmous amount of airspace reserved for a single tanker in its current state.