Hummingbird

Trap? Mate the main spar isn't damaged, hence there's nothing preventing the aircraft from flying on. The extent of the damage is a lost flap, and by the looks of it due to a hit by AA, maybe a 3.7cm APHE round, we don't know. By contrast the damage to the Spitfire is fatal, and we know this not just by observation (main spar all trashed, i.e. wing will collapse), but because the British report says so. Really you're arguing against real world findings here, not me. So if you don't believe the British, German & US conclusions in regards to the average effect of Mk108 hit then just say so. I just hope the devs don't share that view.

1) Not even remotely the same damage as inflicted to the Spitfire, main spar still completely intact. (Also why is the prop bent? Crashed?) 2) 2nd photo is not actually that severe damage, just the tip of the wing

Who, where, when? If you're talking why didn't the British just switch to cannon, they were already in the process of doing so, but you can't just do so from 1 day to the next during wartime without upsetting logisitics. Besides the Allies weren't worried about armament capable of quickly taking down a bomber as they hardly ever faced bombers, this was more of a German concern, hence they were quick to employ the Mk108 in number. Also the Mk108 heavily influenced the decision todesign the ADEN cannon which was constructed as a consequence of the demonstrated effectiveness of German 3cm cannon shells.

What'ever led you to that conclusion?? As the report says of the 10 shots fired 3 were immediately lethal whilst the rest were probably lethal, as in "not likely you're flying this one home". Hence why the final conclusion was that it would on average take just one hit anywhere to down a Spitfire with the Mk108. You're just not flying home with this type of damage man:

Indeed, and I think a P-47 would be very lucky to make it back home if hit by a single 3cm HE(M) shell, 2 hits I almost wouldn't believe it could survive and if it did it would only be via extremely careful flight all the way back. I mean even against the Blenheim bomber the British concluded that "for the most part" it requires just one hit.

I'm very happy the British weren't that daft when they assessed the damage inflicted by the 3cm HE(M) shells during testing. Shows they atleast knew what they were talking about, in contrast to certain others :music_whistling: "But MUH random pictures!" :doh::doh: Now please crawl back under that bridge of yours.

A sort of fix is to set the radar azimuth to "center", or to clear the radar periodically to convince jester to switch his priorities. That said jester still doesn't function very well in general when it comes to choosing what targets to prioritize. IMHO Jester ai should possess the basic logic of: 1) All targets moving toward the aircraft immediately get assigned high priority status 2) Of these high priority targets moving toward the aircraft the final order of priority is then assigned according to distance; i.e. the closer the incoming target, the higher the priority.

PIRATE should work a lot better than the IRST on the Su27 & MiG29 though, as it's using later generation IR sensors.

Some things to consider: If the APG-68 is capable of detecting a 1 sq.m. target at 38 nm (according to the source linked by airhunter) then: 1) What is the RCS of a typical combat loaded F/A-18C? With the big pylons, esp. when loaded in SPAMRAAM config, I suspect we're talking quite a big one. 2) What is the RCS of a combat loaded F-16C? With far more discrete pylons, and probably a smaller RCS than the F/A-18C to begin with, I'd expect it to be noticably smaller than that of the Hornet. So with this in mind, at what range is it reasonable to expect these two to detect each other? In other words are we really seeing a problem ingame?

On the contrary please read my posts. I'm not disputing that the DCS is using the V5.

Well I think the appropiate question is weither or not the average USAF Blk.50 F-16C in 2007 flew around with V5 or V9. I couldn't find any mention of what version of the APG-68 is discussed in the document?

Well yes cause it is a source, and it's mirrored by most places talking of the V9. As for your link, keep in mind this is against a 1 sq.m. RCS target, and it ended up at 38 nm here (vs 22-27 nm against a "medium" sized target for the APG-66), which I think is pretty impressive for such a small target. I mean some sources claim a 20-25 sq.m. RCS for the F-15 Eagle. In other words detection range also depends a lot on what it is you're looking for, so people have got to be sure what it is they're actually picking up before they complain about anything overperforming.

Well you're welcome to post it, I can only rely on what I've read. As for the DCS version using the V5, if true then how can it be a Blk.50 anno 2007 ? A 2007 Blk.50 comes with the V9 according to all I've read so far. On another note, how should the APG-73 compare then if not similar? Asking as picking up targets at 100nm isn't a problem in Hornet ingame either.

Keep in mind also that the US statistic against the P-47 in this report are solely from test firings to the front and slightly below, so the big engine is shielding most parts, incl. the cockpit. So basically a best case scenario for the P-47.

The British tested from all sorts of angles (the on in the video was from 30 deg from the back), the result was always the same, 1 hit was fatal. Also keep in mind that ground testing doesn't reflect the extra damage subsequent aerodynamic forces will cause. Really there is zero proof thus far that a Spitfire could survive more than one 30mm hit to the fuselage or wing, like litterally zero. A P-51 shouldn't fair much better either. I mean the it would cut even a small bomber in half:

Well it's echoed across many, but this article goes into a bit more detail: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-apg-68.htm

Detection range was increased 30% from just the AN/APG-68 V5 to V9. Also the APG-66 is supposedly nowhere near the any version of the APG-68 in detection capability if F-16 pilots is anything to go by, all of which describe the introduction of the APG-68 as a quantum leap forward over the APG-66. I really don't think there's much to choose between the AN/APG-68 & AN/APG-73 in terms of detection range.

We have a Blk.50 anno 2007 AFAIK, which means AN/APG-68 V9. As for the RCS figures, where are you getting those figures from? AFAIK even the small F-16 comes in at 5 sq.m., which is the std. the radar was measured against.

The only issue I see with the F-16's radar in terms of realism atm is when in ACM modes, here it severely underperforms by being incredibly slow to pick up targets, infact it most often downright refuses to pick up targets when using vertical scan, even if they're directly infront of you and within a couple nm. In BVR mode it seems to perform as expected, albeit it perhaps seems abit too easy to notch. Anyway in regards to the detection range of the AN/APG-68 v9 (which is the version our simulated craft has), according to F-16.net it's 105 km (56 nm) for a 5 sq.m. object, and I don't think any of the fighters we have ingame currently has an RCS lower than that? Not sure how the AN/APG-73 in the Hornet compares to this, but AFAIK the AN/APG-68 v9 is newer, and according to C.W. Lemoine who flew with the older AN/APG-68 v5 equipped falcons there wasn't much to choose in this department. So I'm inclined to believe the AN/APG-68 v9 is probably atleast as good as the Hornets AN/APG-73.

What I find abit strange is that the F16's radar seems very slow to pick up targets in dogfight mode (so within 10 nm) , this goes for both boresight, horizontal and vertical scan, however esp. the latter is really bad. The F18 is much much faster to acquire a target under these circumstances.

Well, I'm a patient guy, but only if I have been informed on when to realistically expect something. Silence makes me impatient, and I think it's the same for most people. All I really need is recognition that a problem is being worked on and when to realistically expect the update, I can then wait quite a long time and won't be asking for a progress report before we get really close to the ETA.

Would just be nice with a rough ETA from ED, or just word that they're working on it. The silence from ED when it comes to the FM is deafening.

Indeed. I'd be surprised if any fighter could take more than 1 hit in real life and make it home, let alone maneuver in any even slightly aggressive way without falling apart.

One 30mm HE(M) shell should be more than plenty to down a fighter, yet they often soak up quite a few in DCS and keep flying. Meanwhile in real life the RAE pretty much established that a fighter surviving even a single hit from the Mk108 was very unlikely.

Was just wondering wether you (ED) have any plans of applying fixes to the F-16's flight model this year? Notable issues such as a low G onset rate making the aircraft feel very sluggish (esp. at high speeds), and the inability to pull more than negative 1.8 G's are things us Viper fans are really anxious to see addressed.