WHOGX5

I reported a related issue in the past which has since been fixed, yet one issue still remains. When you press COM1 or COM2, the scratchpad should show your previous frequency (doesn't work). Then if you press enter without inputting a new frequency, it will tune your previous frequency (works). I've linked my previous report below. Here's a video with a timestamp at 35:30 where you can see this in action. The pilot presses COM1 and you can see preset 5 already being in the scratchpad (if you rewind to earlier in the video you'll see that it was his last tuned frequency). Then he overwrites it with his intended preset 7 an tunes that instead.

You can add two different offset aimpoints to each steerpoint which are visible both through your HUD and JHMCS. You cannot add offsets to TACAN beacons in the F-16C, you can only add them to steerpoints.

Yes, they just need to be clickable, no functionality needed. There are many features you'd assume a combat flight simulator like DCS would have, yet they haven't been implemented yet. That's why third party tools are essential if you want to fly in a realistic manner. For example, the F-16C doesn't have any real IFF modelling in DCS, but since you can still set your transponder code in the cockpit it can interface with SRS and LotAtc, allowing those third party tools to enable squawking as a means to identify and correlate an aircraft to a callsign based on their transponder code.

So how come we have 699 steerpoints then? Some kind of interim upgrade?

Well, currently in DCS we have 700 steerpoints in the F-16. It must be some new M4 addition and I have no idea what all the new steerpoints are for. I think the M3 had like 127 steerpoints in total. I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

I don't get why you don't just use hot start? Adding a bunch of options where you can choose which parts of the start up procedure you want to perform and which parts you don't want to perform don't make any sense. The whole point of this simulation is to try to model these aircraft as true to life as possible. To stray away from that would go against the entire raison d'être of DCS. I also don't see how it'd work in an online environment. Like, would every server require different startup procedures due to different parts of the start up process being disabled on a per server basis?

It's not supposed to only send markpoints to your own flight, but IRL you can set different D/L channels to choose which aircraft you relay information to so you don't send your markpoints to every aircraft in the theatre. Choosing D/L channels has not been implemented yet in DCS though.

I agree. I'd rather see ED actually fix the issue than create workarounds for it though. I really don't see how it can be so hard for ED to implement proper boresighting as it seems like one of the absolute easiest features to implement. Just check the angle between the sensors and slave the Mavericks to that angle? But I've suffered through 3 years of early access hell flying the F-16C, so waiting a little bit longer can't possibly decrease my mental well-being any further. I just hope they actually fix these issues before they push the F-16C out of early access.

I completely agree that they should be pre-aligned in a hot start aircraft. I just think that when starting from a cold and dark state, the aircraft should truly be cold and dark. lol

If you warmup your mavericks during startup, you can boresight them before taxi/takeoff in 1-2 minutes depending on how many you're carrying. I'd suggest you simply practice boresighting so you can do it quickly and efficiently instead. I don't think we should make the aircraft less realistic just because people can't be bothered to learn how to start their aircraft in a timely manner. What else should we remove? JHMCS alignment? INS alignment? Why not just hot start/air start at that point?

Frederf is completely right. The GBU-24 has an autopilot (in real life) with mid-course guidance and different modes, extending the range more than just having bigger fins would. The GBU-24 doesn't have an INS nor GPS guidance so it will not be accurate at all without laser guidance in the terminal phase, but it will be able to get close enough to capture the laser. In DCS you literally can't even drop the GBU-24 at its maximum range according to the DLZ. The target will be beyond the max range of your laser designator and therefore the GBU-24 will just fall ballistically and impact way short of the target. I was really stoked for the GBU-24 but it is literally useless compared to the GBU-10 with it's current implementation so don't even bother. You get a slight increase in maximum range in exchange for not knowing what the actual maximum range is since the DLZ seems to be correctly modeled but the bomb itself isn't.

This should definitely be an initial feature. You shouldn't need to setup all the pages in 5 different master modes every single time you start your aircraft.

Do you have anything to back up these claims, or are you just going off of your gut feeling...?

Quote from a member in my community who's infinitely more knowledgeable than me when it comes to IT stuff: "It connects to HTTPS servers on the internet which are part of a CDN, it seems to include packed / crypted data and it creates guard pages..." I trust his judgement and I'd rather be safe than sorry. He's checked previous releases of DCS DTC as well since they all give off anti-virus warnings, but RC13 was the first patch that he told us, in no uncertain terms, not to download.

Obviously the turning circle will be huge at 9g, that's why you want to rate fight in the F-16 rather than go for a radius fight. The main issue in DCS is the ridiculous G-LOC which prevents you from fighting the way an F-16 is supposed to fight. The biggest benefit of the F-16 in BFM is that you have the corner plateau from roughly 350 KCAS to 450 KCAS. This lets you enter a fight with somewhere around 500 KCAS and use instantaneous turn rate down to 450 KCAS and then maintain sustained max turn rate. After that you can pull instantanous turn rate down to 350 KCAS and still maintain maximum turn rate at that speed. If you try to do that in DCS you will pass out in seconds. But regardless of that, if you try to engage any of the aircraft you mentioned in a radius fight in the F-16, you will definitely lose if the other pilot knows what he's doing. You gotta go for rate in the F-16.

DON'T USE RC13! Use RC12 instead. A lot of sketchy stuff was added in the RC13 patch which will compromise your PC.

The EPU/emergency buses have always been broken in the DCS F-16, that's why you lose lots of systems that are supposed to still be functional during a flameout (like the INS). These issues have been reported years ago but they still haven't been fixed by ED yet.

Yes, it's the bird strike option that does it. Most people keep it turned off.

No, this is incorrect. TOS is where you set your desired time on station (a.k.a time over target) by pressing 4 on the ICP for the STPT page. You can set a TOS for each steerpoint. DELTA TOS allows you to shift all your TOS timings back and forth. So if you need to be on station 3 minutes later than planned you just enter 3-0-0 in the DELTA TOS field on the TIME page (ICP 6) and the TOS for every single steerpoint will shift by 3 minutes. Both of these features are implemented and working. If you want the speed carrot on the HUD, press 5 on the ICP for the CRUS page followed by pressing 0 on the TOS rubric. Something that sounds like it would be handy for the problem you explained though but isn't implemented yet is the ability to have your TOS timings reference hack time instead of system time. This way you could set the TOS of a steerpoint to 00:04:30 if that's how far into the future you want to be there, and when you want the countdown to start, you simply set your hack time to 00:00:00 and press enter. Voila!

This is incorrect. The AN/ARC-222 can also tune FM bands from 30-87.95 MHz.

I can confirm that OA's have been completely broken in the latest patch. The triangle marks aren't gone, but they're really, really far off of where they should be. I tried to make an OA 10,000ft above a steerpoint at 50 feets distance and it was a multiple of 10 nm off and looked like it was even below the ground. PS: Regarding my last sentence, that's just what it looked like to me. I can't say whether it was off in altitude or distance because it was in a mission and I didn't have time to investigate it. All I can say definitively is that I should have seen it above my steerpoint since it's just offset in altitude, but I saw it below the steerpoint instead from my perspective.

People in this thread mention look down penalties and doppler notches as the main issues but when we're talking specifically about maximum range of the radar in DCS compared to real life, there is another issue that has a much bigger impact. In real life, the chance of a radar pulse returning to its sender is probabilistic. As an example (using completely made up numbers), every sweep of the radar maybe has a 80% probability to get a return head on at 30nm, while it only has a 10% probability at 70 miles. This is why real life pilots are always saying that STT is much more reliable than TWS, because in real life you get a hell of a lot more radar pulses on target every second in STT than you do in TWS, hence a bigger chance of actually getting a return. This means that even if you only manage to get a single return from a contact at 70 miles every tenth sweep with the radar, maybe 1-2 minutes in-between each return, you could still be able to get a stable STT lock simply because of the sheer volume of pulses you're sending out every second in STT. To use incorrect terminology, you could say that STT has a "longer range" than RWS or TWS, which is why it's so weird that STT has a "shorter range" than RWS and TWS in the DCS F-16C. The radar model in DCS is deterministic. If you're within these and these parameters, you'll be visible on radar 100% of the time and if not, you'll be visible 0% of the time. This is why the "maximum range" is so short in DCS and also why a lot of people use TWS all the time, because with a deterministic radar model the benefits of STT are much, much smaller. So, as long as a future refactor of the F-16's radar doesn't implement a probabilistic radar model, you won't see "maximum ranges" anywhere near to real life. Any kind of improvements to the F-16's radar are welcome though.

Yeah, and that's especially noticeable with AGM-65's. If you're flying at low altitude you might have to wait until you're maybe 6-7 miles from the target before you can even get a lock. At higher altitude you can lock targets almost at double that range.

It's also annoying when you're trying to point track a enormous, glowing warship that covers half of the TGP's field of view, but because you haven't reached the magical max range of the TGP you can't point track it.

It would be very nice with a fix for this issue. When flying in a high threat environment, even when in both Priority and Target Separate mode like Furiz is in the original post, you often can't see what's actually nailing or spiking you. It would be less of an issue if we had the PRF Handoff where you can audibly hear which emitter is locking you, but at the moment the RWR doesn't really help much if you've got multiple emitters on the same bearing.