WHOGX5

RC13 is the latest version, I think they just forgot to update the version number in the UI. I'd refrain from using RC13 though, VirusTotal lit up like a Christmas tree last time I ran RC13 through it. I still use RC12.

In addition to these weapons ED should also implement the basic functions of the AN/ASQ-T50 pod. It would allow us to do simulated weapon launches and give indications whether or not a simulated launch would have resulted in a kill. The implementation would be quite simple as you'd only have to take, for example, the existing AIM-120 in DCS and launch it while the 3D model stays on the rail and the missile impact does no damage to the target. It'd also be able to be displayed in TacView if doing it this way. I get that ED might think that this is a very low priority but individuals and communities who fly in a realistic way according to real world procedures would like to be able to train that way as well.

For me the formatting in the Kneeboard page is correct. I think you can choose between different coordinate formats in the top left corner of the Kneeboard window if I remember it correctly. There is no such implementation at the moment. I know someone posted a commit on Github that supposedly enables importing from CombatFlite, but it has never been added to the release build.

You can't import a flight plan directly, but there's a easy way of transferring steerpoints. Open the Kneeboard page in CombatFlite and you'll have the coordinates for each steerpoint in the NOTE column. Just click to select, CTRL+C, then CTRL+V in the coordinate field in DCS DTC. Rinse and repeat. Even for a full flight plan of 24 steerpoints it takes maybe 5 seconds to input each steerpoint (including altitude), so about 2 minutes maximum for a full flight plan. It's not optimal, but it's your best option at the moment.

If you're light and/or spawning on a sloping apron your aircraft will start to roll. Even if your engine is in idle it will still produce thrust. The main issue in DCS is that you don't spawn with wheel chocks in.

Razbam already implemented this for their DCS M-2000C module where it's called TAF. It integrates with the LotAtc software so human controllers can give mission assignments to human pilots via data link. They also implemented a AI GCI which can be added in the mission editor and which gives the player mission assignments based on EWR line-of-sight. So it's definitely possible and it would be amazing if the DCS F-16C and other L16 capable modules got this feature as well.

The yellow square means that the MIG-23's IFF is responding but with an incorrect code/key which is normal if you're on different teams. The strength of NATO's Mode 4 IFF is that together with the interrogation pulse a code is sent and if that code doesn't match the code of the day, the interrogated aircraft doesn't respond and therefore doesn't reveal its location. The interrogated pilot will also receive an audio cue to alert him that he's been unsuccessfully interrogated with Mode 4 (which is quite concerning if you're a NATO aircraft). However, a incorrect response from an interrogated aircraft should definitely not ID the contact as a friendly.

In Wags NCTR video he "initiates" NCTR with TMS Left Long. This is incorrect. NCTR is a "passive" mode insofar that it is constantly running when you have an STT lock; it is not initiated by the pilot. The reason you need to use TMS Left to perform an IFF Interrogation is that the aircraft actually needs to send out an interrogation pulse in order to trigger a response from the transponder of the interrogated aircraft. With NCTR, all your radar does is analyze different parameters of the returning radar energy from the STT lock in order to determine aircraft type. That is also why it only works in STT, because you can't really perform the necessary analysis from a mode like TWS where the radar only sweeps over the target instantaneously. If NCTR was performed using TMS Left you'd simply have to spam TMS Left until you actually get a postive ID when in STT which would only add to pilot workload with zero benefit.

Yep, can confirm. The three damage states in the DCS F-16C is dead, severe fuel leak or unscathed. I'm pretty sure this is a known issue to ED.

Yes, still works for me.

For the F-16, the fact that the audio panel is maxed out is really indefensible...

This should definitely be a thing. There are multiple games from well over a decade ago that actually had functional voice recognition that worked quite reliably. I can just imagine what would be possible today with neural voice recognition combined with high quality microphones. Just a month ago, OpenAi released Whisper; an open source, multilingual voice recognition software. It is incredibly impressive and can recognize speech in real time from extremely low quality audio with a very high accuracy. Whisper, or something like it, should be seriously considered by ED.

Weather cells in this context usually refers to having the map divided into a grid where each cell in that grid has a specific weather (wind, temperature, clouds, etc), then you usually have some blending between the cells to prevent any abrupt change in weather state as you fly from one cell into another.

I don't think people should have too high expectations when it comes to weather in 2.8. Their wording makes it sound like 2.8 will contain moving clouds and rainbows/ice halos. That's it. If 2.8 were to ship with full dynamic weather with different wind strength, wind direction, air pressure, temperature, humidity, etc. in different parts of the map which change over time, they would most definitely have made that very clear as it'd be an absolutely colossal development and a milestone for DCS World.

Every time I hear one of your PRF tones my soul sheds a tear. I sincerely hope your work gets implemented by ED!

I'd like to add that US aircraft had their names changed in 1962 when the US switched over to the tri-service aircraft designation system. As an example, the first F-8 variant was called F8U-1 (XXX-X) but then got its code changed to F-8A (X-XX). So it is quite possible that the XXX-X module is an A-1 to A-7 or F-1 to F-9 fighter variant produced before 1962 and that's why they changed the name back from it's tri-service designation. Just a guess though...

Yes, but I'd say your evidence is inconclusive. It's impossible to tell whether they update faster or if the PDLT track just isn't drifting spuriously like it does for your wingman. The non-flight members would need to be maneuvering for you to be able to tell whether the difference is due to refresh rate or drift.

The refresh rate in the DCS F-16C is way lower than it is IRL. Different messages get sent with different intervals over L16 so some information will be update slower than others. I already sent a PM to @BIGNEWY on July 20th containing all the necessary references in response to a previous thread on the same topic.

I've experienced the same exact issue with GBU-31s when I've tried to loft them. I haven't used JSOWs since release as they're absolutely useless in DCS and does no damage to anything but unarmored trucks, but from what I recall I had the same guidance issues with those as well. If you try lofting them they'll fly a very strange trajectory and not impact anywhere near their target.

Nope, it stands for Fault Acknowledge. There is no way for the pilot to "acknowledge" an IFF interrogation. The closest you'll get is your IFF IDENT button, right next to the F-ACK button, which will perform a squawk that makes your track flash on the ATC/AWACS radar display.

The DED DATA switch will repeat the PFL at the bottom of the HUD in the middle position and repeat the DED at the bottom of the HUD in the up position. Since the PFL only lights up when you have a fault it will not display anything most of the time. The only fault that's currently implemented in the DCS F-16 is the FLCS BIT FAIL. To make that happen, just rock the FLCS BIT switch back and forth a few times, canceling the bit and causing a BIT fail, and you'll get the fault message on the PFL. Then you can acknowledge the fault with the F-ACK button on the left eyebrow and use WARN RESET on the ICP to stop the warning sounds and mnemonics.

Well, you're wrong and it is most definitely a bug. The way I explained it is the way it is in the real plane. There are some very good reasons why the F-16C FCR page was designed the way it was. Since the cursor stays in the same position both in EXP and NORM, you can can zoom in and out seamlessly on a target or group without having to reorient yourself everytime because the target and cursor changes location on the display. Also, if you see the box around the cursor in EXP mode, that shows exactly which portion of the NORM radar volume that you're scanning in EXP mode. If you want to learn more about F-16 functionality I suggest you download some publicly available F-16 manuals and give them a read.

If you have a target underneath your cursor and you enter EXP mode, that target should stay underneath your cursor. Currently when you enter EXP mode, whatever was under your cursor ends up at the dead center of the screen instead. NORM before switching to EXP: After switching to EXP: Expected EXP behaviour:

Yeah, I tried it myself and noticed the same thing. It works correctly as long as your JHMCS crosshair is outside of the radar gimbal limits. For some reason, when the crosshair is within gimbal limits, it just uses the old, incorrect implementation where the ellipse is simply latched to the crosshair. Should be an easy fix for ED though.

The DCS F-16C basically has no damage model so it's not unexpected to see this kind of behaviour. In my experience you pretty much experience three different damage states in the F-16: 1. Purely visual damage. 2. Severe fuel leak. 3. Dead pilot with varying degrees of wing detachment. Until we get a proper damage model things will stay this way. For example, I was really stoked when the KS-19 was released by ED but, after trying it a few times, I realized that the only two outcomes are no damage at all or a fuel leak that will drain you in under a minute. There's no in-between. I also agree that proximity fuses is a much needed feature in DCS but, just like the KS-19, it won't really matter as long as we don't have a proper damage model and fragmentation damage.