WHOGX5
-
Posts
749 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by WHOGX5
-
-
7 hours ago, Hobel said:
Have you seen my video completely?
The refresh rate is almost spot on if it's not inflight members.
And the inflight delay has already been reported. Or am I missing something here?
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.
-
23 hours ago, Hobel said:
Thx
And we have a high refresh rate in dcs I think, only there is a bug.
Inflight members always have a high delay, see video:
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.
-
On 9/23/2022 at 8:01 PM, 777coletrain said:
I do remember that being a problem but I think this is separate. I think this is about the LAR when you aren't straight and level. The testing I did yesterday shows that pitching up 5 degrees extends the max range of the LAR by 3nm causing the bomb to fall 4nm short of the target. If there should be 2 LARs I'm kind of surprised this thread is marked as correct as is.
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.
-
18 minutes ago, SickSidewinder9 said:
Wait, F-ACK isn't IFF Acknowledge?!
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.
-
32 minutes ago, ruddy122 said:
Found it
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkCurious DED switch says it but doesn’t display DED data
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThe 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.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, falconzx said:
I don't know how is it in the real plane.But it doesn't seem to me a bug. I expect that the position of the cursor when i press EXPAND will be the center of the area i'm zooming in, so the symbology underneath the cursor will be in the center of the screen. What would be useful is to not having the cursor still in the old position but resetting it in the center when inside the expand mode. BUT putting the cursor in the world space instead of the actual screen space is very annoying when you maneuver the plane while doing those operations. So screen space is important to be maintained despite an eventual cursor position reset.
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.
-
2
-
-
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:
-
4
-
-
3 minutes ago, Comrade Doge said:
While the ellipse is now shown proper FCR limits it still does not follow and show the actual FCR LOS and it's still stuck to the HMCS LOS. Perhaps @BIGNEWYa can help us with a status on this issue....
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.
-
3
-
-
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.
-
6
-
-
I had completely missed this, was it mentioned in the patch notes? Anyway, this implementation looks almost perfect. The only thing I can see that needs to be fixed is that the ellipse should only be visible when in bore mode. So when you enter dogfight mode the ellipse is not there, then you press TMS Up to go into bore and the ellipse appears, then when you move the ellipse onto a target and you get a lock the ellipse disappears again. But I'm really happy that the ellipse actually follows the FCR LOS just like it's supposed to and is limited by the maximum angular velocity of the radar as well as the gimbal limits!
-
3
-
1
-
-
The way I do it is I simply estimate the "angle", or lateral distance, between the velocity vector and the gun cross. Then you estimate the crab angle and add or subtract that to your magnetic heading in the HUD and you won't drift. If you're not confident enough to eyeball the crab angle, reference the 5 degree marks on the pitch ladder and use that to estimate your crab angle.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Aquorys said:
I guess you are right for the Caucasus map, but in the entire sim, I think the longest runway is probably the extremely long (and normally inactive) 13/31 at the Groom lake facility in Nevada. I think the Persian gulf map also has several runways that are slightly longer than the one in Mineralnye Vody.
The speed will vary depending on your weight, so it is quite irrelevant. As others have already said, the value that you are most interested in is your AoA.
That's normal
Most VFR landings in the F-16 are around 2.5°, because there is a dashed line in the HUD for that. If you are flying an ILS approach, it would typically be 3°.
Some approaches may require a steeper glideslope, or a steep approach might be done for tactical reasons (or another reason would be a deadstick landing), so it's not a bad idea to practice those too.
Personally, I fly 2.5° approaches at the upper edge of the bracket or slightly above, then pull back the throttle, flare and just wait for the aircraft to settle down onto the runway. For steeper approaches, I fly slightly faster and aim in front of the runway. Bringing the edge of the runway roughly in the middle between the flight path marker and the 2.5° dashed line until all three overlap is quite a good method to flatten out a steep approach before landing.
For instrument approaches, just keep the flight path marker at the upper edge of the bracket and fly the glideslope and localizer. If you are off course, once the localizer indicator touches the flight path marker's circle, you should be within 5 degrees of the runway heading (plus/minus any crosswind corrections), or you will probably overshoot. Normally, you can just keep the flight path marker on the circle, and you can slightly lead the circle if it is guiding you to turn or pitch up/down.
Once you are comfortable with the standard approach, and you're looking for some challenges, you can try some of these approaches:
Novorossiysk 22
Gelendzhik 19
Khasab 01
Kutaisi west (in the city) from east
Low visibility HI-TACAN 21L / ILS 21L into NellisActually, what is commonly done during ILS landings in the F-16 is that you approach it on the 3° ILS glideslope but once you have the runway in sight and you're in close you dip down to put the 2.5° line on the runway threshold in order to get a shallower flare.
-
19 hours ago, Deano87 said:
Great to see this topic unlocked again. I hope this means it’s being looked at and on the radar for being fixed.
If you need any more tracks to replicate the issue with the current beta build please let me know.
As I mentioned in a previous post in addition to the FPM not being in the correct place when drift compensated the pitch ladder should also be anchored around the FPM just like it is when not using Drift C/O. Currently when drift c/o is on the pitch ladder is anchored around the gun cross at the top of the HUD. This is incorrect.
I'd like to point out that the velocity vector not being in the correct place is not exclusive to Drift C/O. If the velocity vector for whatever reason goes outside of the HUD and gets crossed out, it will display the same incorrect pitch movements as it does in Drift C/O. You'll also see similar behaviour with the target locator line. If you hook a LINK 16 track on the HSD with PDLT that is a decent angle off of your nose, if you bank the aircraft the TLL will point in an incorrect direction. Depending on which direction you roll it might point up into the sky or down towards the ground even though you're flying in a straight line. As you turn directly into the direction that is indicated by the TLL it will start rotating and changing angle as the angle from your nose to the target decreases. So instead of guiding you straight towards the target via a simple planar turn it will make you perform some weird, squiggly, three dimensional turn instead. Also, if you turn off HUD blanking, take your crosshair in the JHMCS and overlay it directly on top of the gun cross in the HUD, you'll see that there is a difference in angle between the TLL in the HUD and the JHMCS and as you turn towards the target and/or bank the aircraft you'll see the angular difference between these two TLL's change. So there's defintitely some incorrect mathematical equations in the core HUD integration.
Now, I haven't made a bug report on any of this because I simply can't be bothered to spend hours recording a bunch of tracks and scouring through manuals for references, but I'd bet you a hundred buckaroos that all of these issues I've mentioned stem from the exact same faulty calculations that cause the Drift C/O FPM issues.
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, Skoop said:
That link to 3.3.0 RC12 triggered anti-virus response on my system.
Every version of DCS DTC has triggered Microsoft's anti-virus checks until the files have been sent to Microsoft for them to check and clear it. This has to be done for every single patch that's been released and since 3.3.0 RC12 isn't an official release but a forked version my guess is that whomever made it never sent it to Microsoft to get it cleared.
-
5 hours ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:
Thats how it is IRL. Look at Internet images of its runways.
I think its great. All airfields have some amount of uneven flatness. I disliked total flatness of DC fields, and in other flight sims across nearly 30 years of flight simming since I was early teen.
I've landed DCS: A-10C, A-10CII, F-15C, SU-27, Mig-29, Mig-21, SU-25/T, Mirage2000C, Hornet, and helicopters in day and night from both seaside and land side. Easy runways to land on. Very long. You can hang in GE and allow gear to rest on its own, then let aircraft run with minimal braking. Runways on Guam were made to take max grossweight T/O and landings, with emergencies, of largest types of a/c in US and allied forces. C-5A/M, C-17, B-2A, B-1B, B-52A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H, KC-135, KC-30, VC-25(AF1), 747 Doomsday , SR-71. F-16 , F-15C/E, F-22A, and F-35A squadrons and wings demonstrated elephant walks. Mass emergency takeoff . 3 or 4 aircraft a breast scrambling on the ultrawide runway. Although not done in DCS, inRL, USAF cadets demonstrated landing the soar glider on width of runway or slight angle off. Guam AAFB is gigantic and its runways are loooonnnngggggggg. Now other runways on Tinian and Saipan, are short, and require handling in fast jet. But my favorite is Harrier so , few worries. Hornet can come in at 135 knots IAS, A-10C at 115-120 with t/d at 110. But with Mirage and Mig-21bis, without drogues is more problematic. I got Mig-21bis in 2014 and its still the most challenging to land safely. With or without drogue. Both like to keep their nose up, while aerobraking. I have had Mig-21 and Mirage overrun Tinian and Saipan runways. If I made approach errors and came in at 150-180 knots IAS at T/D.
I'm not sure if you just don't understand what I'm saying or if this is some elaborate trolling scheme? First of all, seeing as the picture you linked was taken at Lajes Air Base in the Azores, I should refrain from commenting on it specifically... However, even that picture does not show any sharp angles whatsoever, whether it be on the runway or the taxiways.
Just to be 100% clear: The issue is not uneven flatness. It's not sloping runways. It's not tectonic plates or volcanic ashen soil being located under the runways and taxiways. It's not downhill or uphill sections of the runways or taxiways. All of these things are completely fine.
The issue is sudden edges on taxiways and runways that are so sharp that they would have to be intentionally man made. It's 100% unrealistic. It's not the result of any natural phenomena whatsoever. I don't know how to explain this any clearer.
-
1 hour ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:
Everybody has a theory and one other feature.
I agree. I experienced in in every flyable mod that I have. But it is minor issue, as nothing breaks.
It's not a minor issue. Try landing on 06R in IMC conditions and overall poor weather in an F-16. As you're aerobraking you'll, all of a sudden, become airborne again. Not due to bouncing or pilot error, but due to there being such a sudden and sharp downgrade that you literally become airborne. This is not realistic and it is unacceptable. All it takes is a little bit of crosswind to tumble you over and smack your wing into the ground. Even without a crosswind you'll be at stalling speed when you go over the edge and smack down several hundred feet down the runway which, considering the F-16s lack of suspension, can end in a multitude of different ways. Even if you merely attempt to taxi at the max allowable straight line speed you'll regularly be surprised with your nose wheel steering getting turned off as your nose wheel ever so slightly lifts off the ground.
I don't get why you're defending Andersen AFB being broken and unrealistic? A fix would be preferable to just having Andersen AFB be a crap airfield.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:
Thats how it is IRL. Now the interaction of DCS aircraft with uneven field at AAFB is something that can be improved. Mariannas are volcanic islands made of soft volcanic soil that shifts under tectonic stresses much more then mainland field. Or so the theory goes.
As I mentioned in my post, the issue isn't that there are slopes. The issue is that there are sharp angles between different inclines. Here is a video of Spudknocker taxiing on taxiway B at Andersen AFB. It's worth noting that he is taxiing way below the standard taxi speed for an F-16 and it's still giving the nose gear suspension a run for its money. Obviously this is incredibly obvious on the runway when you're landing at 170 knots.
-
1
-
-
I think the runways and taxiways at Andersen AFB needs to be smoothed out quite a bit. It's especially noticable when landing on runway 06R where you land on the runway and, all of a sudden, a few thousand feet down the runway there's an incredibly sharp downgrade that sends you airborne again at stall speed, slamming you into the ground which isn't ideal in an aircraft like the F-16 which has almost no suspension at all. Taxiway bravo is also incredibly bumpy and taxiing at normal taxi speeds feels like it's going to snap your nose gear clean off as you hit sharp incline after sharp incline.
Looking at videos of Andersen AFB on Youtube it's clear that the runways and taxiways aren't flat, but they are curved with very long and smooth transitions between different inclines. In DCS it's not smooth at all but rather very polygonal with sharp angles between each face.
-
1
-
2
-
-
When bringing up endurance mode on the DED it will give the pilot an optimum mach number to maintain for maximum endurance. In the track posted below the optimum mach was 0.58 mach. However, on the HUD the mach indicator displayed both mach 0.57 and 0.59 but skips over the actual optimum mach resulting in the pilot being unable to determine whether he is maintaining the correct airspeed.
-
1
-
-
When selecting endurance mode in the CRUS page on the DED a time to bingo value will be displayed. This value is incorrect. In the example posted below the time to bingo is roughly 1 hour and 50 minutes while the fuel flow is 2550 pph and total internal fuel is 7000 lbs. This should give a time to bingo of approx 2 hours and 45 minutes, not accounting for the inevitable decrease in fuel flow as your total fuel weight decreases.
-
On 6/8/2022 at 2:57 PM, Lanzfeld113 said:
Also, after the engine stops and the EPU auto starts it seems the HUD tumbles. I think (not 100% sure) the HUD shouldn't do this.
IIRC this was reported way, way back but still no fix.
-
1 hour ago, Reflected said:
So the F-16 could carry 2 chin pods and the ECM pod under the fuselage. My question is: were these pods added/ removed depending on the mission of the day or were they just left attached, and even a2a missions would be flown with the pods?
does anyone have any real life info/ reference about this please?
thanks!
It's fully dependent on the mission at hand plus that each wing have their own SOPs and SCLs. As an example, it was very common for USAF F-16CM-50 squadrons in 2007 to have a mix of LANTIRN and SNIPER pods with a lot of pilots opting for the LANTIRN during most A-G missions like CAS due to it's wider field of view and choosing the SNIPERs for SEAD and A-A due to its better zoom and A-A capabilities. So even the TGP would be swapped out for another TGP on a per mission basis. There are also wings that require all their flights to carry ECM pods while other wings don't. I have even seen F-16s with full CAP loadouts hauling around HTS pods so anything is possible as long as someone at that particular wing thinks it's a good idea.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Flappie said:
Since @BIGNEWY and I don't seem to be able to reproduce this issue, I made a short clip using curent Open Beta. Antenna elevation was bound to a physical axis. Can you see the issue happen in my video? If so, when?
You see at 0:16 how the radar elevation indicator on the left side of the FCR moves all the way up and then all the way down when you move your physical axis all the way up and all the way down? Compare that to after 0:57 when you drop your TWS lock and the elevation indicator only moves halfway up the display since the radar has recentered at the location your physical axis was at when you dropped the lock.
-
1
-
-
On 6/28/2022 at 11:49 AM, Dragon1-1 said:
Block 40 did have TFR, indeed, you can see the "ADV" pushbutton in our Block 52 and the flyup override switch, which are for the TFR-coupled autopilot. I don't know whether the Block 52 could be outfitted such, but it's no longer done. TFR is part of the navpod, so unless the software doesn't support it, whenever you get FLIR, you get TFR (unless you're using the export version with TFR taken out).
The Tomcat, got the LANTIRN TGP just to be able to drop LGBs. The Tomcat's version was actually somewhat improved, and had to be modified to function well on its own, as opposed to working in tandem with the navpod. It's not the same pod as the Vipers and Mudhens were using.
First of all, there seems to be some confusion in this thread regarding the LANTIRN system. There are two LANTIRN pods; the AN/AAQ-13 Navigation Pod which contains both the terrain following radar (TFR) as well as the forward looking infra-red (FLIR) which can be repeated onto the HUD (much like the DCS AV-8B). Then you have the AN/AAQ-14 Targeting Pod which is a regular TGP. So just be aware that, when it comes to the LANTIRN system, the term FLIR refers to the AN/AAQ-13 Navigation Pod, not the AN/AAQ-14 Targeting Pod or any other pod.
And to answer your question, the F-16C Block 50/52 fully supports the LANTIRN system, it's just that the AN/AAQ-13 isn't used by the USAF Block 50/52s. You can see plenty of block 50/52/+ export vipers carrying both LANTIRN pods and even opting to have the WAR HUD from the block 40s installed on their 50/52/+ vipers. Also, since the CCIP upgrades of the F-16 fleet, block 40/42 and 50/52 are identical when it comes to software. Even the old export F-16A/B MLUs run basically the same software nowadays as the block 50/52 with a few minor differences depending on the operators integration of domestic weapons/avionics.
-
2
-
Flyable A6M5c tease?
in Magnitude 3 LLC
Posted
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...