Tango3B

Uhm, yeah. I was not clear enough. He was also talking about only using the altitude hold button to activate the AP. But wait, let me do a test here real quick. I´ll be back in 15 minutes...

Exactly. I am looking at a certain document right now which I cannot share and it shows AERGES to be correct. The OP however, is referring to a method alike to what you would see in a MiG-29 because he says ( if I understood correctly) he wants push in the AP disconnect trigger while he intends to make a changes to the flight attitude. Then, when he lets go of the trigger, his assumpption is that the AP should accept the new flight attitude and hold/stabilize the aircraft there. This is definitely not what the AP in the CE version does. Maybe the OP is referring to some kind of Ex version? Maybe an EQ? I do not know which version was capable of doing that but the EQ 6 comes to my mind...! Anyone?!

@BIGNEWY Hey, BN. Since quite some time has passed since I first asked if NCTR will be implemented to the DCS APG-68v5 I just want to ask for a heads-up. Is there any timeline on this, actually? This is quite an important feature so it would be really nice to have as the F-16 is getting more and more mature, right? Thanks.

Dear AERGES team, can we please have an option to reduce the trim sensitivity in the form of a 0 - 100 slider from the special options menu? I think the default value is a bit too funky to fine trim the aircraft for some people, especially with the HOTAS Warthog stick trimmer. At least I would prefer a bit more fine control over the trim function. Also, it would be very nice if we could have a more distinct sound for the extension/retraction of the gear and the operation of the flaps. Can you please consider adding these items? Thanks.

Indeed, Joey45. And when you consider the age of the Cyrano IV radar and the fact that France was a little bit behind the US at that time when it comes to more sophisticated radar thechnology I think France actually fitted the F1 with quite a capable package. The Cyrano can do a lot of things surprisingly well. That said, the Cyrano IV is actually quite decent in DCS and I have absolutely zero problems finding targets with it. Why? Because I know exactly what it can do and what it cannot do. I think, people need to understand that the F1 is no F16. Also, people need to understand that radar technology from the 60s or 70s has very severe limitations concerning its overall capabilities but once you know how to handle this technology it can actually perform very well in the right hands. And it does in DCS, too. If you fly on a certain Cold War server where everyone and his mother is flying treetop level just do not expect this radar to perform well. It just will not do that for you and this is totally realistic. Sure, AERGES still has some work to do on the Cyrano but this radar is absolutely usable and far from being crappy. And there is an old saying. Practice makes perfect, right?

Exactly. You would make a call in relation to your bullseye so that there is absolute certainity which contact the AWACS should declare for you. No, there is absolute zero fanatsy involved in this. And yes, there is something similar to this in reality. Like I said above you would conatct AWACS/GCI and give target postion in relation to your bullseye to have absolute certainity which contact is actually interrogated (declared) by your AWACS. There is actually a very good example for this stuff. F-16 drivers had to do this in the 1991 Gulf War, for example because back then the F-16s did not have an onboard interrogator installed. Just like our F1, right? And forgive me for using the word "magically" in my above reply to you. I should not have...it was apparently misleading.

You don´t need to test it. It isn´t available in the F1 just yet, so...this is the whole point of this thread. Aerges still needs to implement it.

Felixx75 you do not need datalink or any fancy stuff like that for this very feature to work. It actually just works like this: you lock a contact on your radar and thereby you STT the contact. Then you open your Comms menu and go to the AWACS/GCI menu item. There you would see an option called "Declare" which is only available if you have a locked contact present and then the AWACS/GCI "magically" interogates this contact for you (3rd party EID) and either declares it hostile or friendly. No fancy stuff involved. And it only works with that contact in STT lock. If you want to "Declare" another contatct you would have to STT this contact, too. Also, it is game related and not an actual part or an avionics funtion of the F1. Also, this is already available as a menu item in the Comms menu of the F/A-18 or the F-16 so we should theoretically be able to see this in our F1, too. Hope that clarifies, what that function does.

You´re my hero. First, you made the HUD readable and now this awesome mod. Great work, dude!

So, my understanding of the APS trigger function is, that you should basically hold down the said trigger like you would do to command an APC STT track, right? The difference for APS is that in this mode the alidade (TDC) should, as the manual cryptically says, transition to a horizontal position to indicate that it actually has achieved a lock while maintaining the ability to scan a certain volume of airspace. Apparently, the radar display should not change function and stay in the normal search display format. Ok, this never seems to happen, right? Right. Well, then the manual also cryptically mentions alleged mandatory conditions in the following way: "In this function, scanning ± 60° in 1 line is imposed. The target square is present but undergoes fluctuations due to the resetting carried out at each scan." Mmmkay...so, I tried all possible combinations in a 30°/60° degree scan combined with a 1L/4L scan while staying absolutely level and co-alt and nose on with the F1 to give the Cyrano IV perfect conditions. Nothing. I tried HA and 1C modes. Nothing. Maybe someone from the Aerges staff may try to explain how this mode is intended to work? Please?! Quick edit: I mentioned 1C mode. Personally, I see zero difference to HA mode. Can someone from Aerges please also explain the advantages/disadvantages of this very mode?

Is the APS mode (TWS) already implemented or is it one of the radar modes still being worked on? If it is already implemented has anybody been able to get it to lock something? And if so how do you manage to lock something in this mode? I just can´t get it to work. Sorry if this has been asked before or if it has already been clarified that this mode isn´t working, yet but I am old and probably also stupid so I really need your help here, guys...

Exactly, you need to lock or bug your target before this very menu item is available in the Comms menu. I think, this is also how it works in the F-16 which is kind of logical because otherwise there wouldn´t be something to interrogate for the 3rd party source, right? Anyway, we really need this...

Dear Aerges team, since we have no IFF interogator in the F1CE, I would kindly ask you to provide us with the "Declare" option in the AWACS/GCI Comms menu. That would be tremendously helpful in SP/MP and it shouldn´t be too difficult to add that menu item, right? If it is unclear what "Declare" does, that would be the 3rd party EID way of interrogation via AWACS or GCI. We need that...like really!

Aerges, you did it. The F1 is superb. The flight model is truly excellent and the same applies to the simulation of the Atar 9K-50 engine. Flying this aircraft to the very extremes of its performance envelope reveals all the work which has gone in this module. Again, simply excellent. I love what you guys did, there and since this is just the early access version of the F1 the things to come will most likely only add more awesome stuff. Yes, this module is a winner.

And exactly this is my problem with the current implementation of the APG-68v5. These scenarios are simply illogical and against every form of radar theory which can be found in an academic context about newer radar systems. Since my last post got deleted for apparently quoting Hobel´s statement including that infamous document I still want to see ED´s white paper. We were promised to see how ED implements radar techology and how ED justifies these measures that currently affect the APG-68. I think at this point it would only be fair to have a better understanding of ED´s train of thought. I think there is no breach of any rule in this post and I want to politely ask for an ETA on the above mentioned white paper. Thanks.

Wait, that´s unfair, I wanted to have the first kill in the F1...! ;-D Anyway, one Backfire down in flames...

Awesome!!! Thank you, Aerges.

+1 for the manual

Ah, ok. I understand. Well, in this this case I am totally with you and hope for the best. Thank you for your quick clarification.

Uhm, you know that there was a Magic I (rear aspect) and a Magic II (all aspect), right? The latter is currently used by the M2k, so what exactly do you mean by your statement if I may ask politely? Is there any module (C101?!) that already uses the Magic I which I am not aware of?!

Dear Aerges Team, you made me very happy today. The Mirage F1 is, apart from the F-4, THE cold war module I always wanted to fly in DCS and now it is finally going to happen. I saw the F1 at an airshow back in the 80s when I still was a kid and I remember I was immediately amazed by its sleek and sexy appearance. And this holds true until today. The F1 has something to it which only the F-4 and the F-16 manage to awaken in me. Remember back in December ´21 when I said I expect the F1 to be released in July ´22? Well, apparently I was dead right. Guys, great work. This will be an instant purchase on release day. Oh, by the way: can you guys at Aerges already tell us something about the pricing for all the different F1 versions or aren´t you allowed to talk about it, yet?

Exactly. This seems to be a "thing" with the AI logic in SP sometimes but it is surely not a bug and the observed behavior is not a regular occurrence. Also, in PvP this problem does not exist when fighting against human players as far as my observation goes. So I can safely confirm the ALR has certainly no degraded performance as I can normally pick up Nails from F-14s which are still 150nm+ away from me.

With all due respect BN, this is not enough. The behavior described above was not there before the patch on the 28.04.2022 and the observed behavior was also reported and marked as a bug by at least one or two ED team members - and it clearly is a major bug. Saying we should wait for an explanation in the white paper, if there is any, is not really helpful in any way. Did you even read the above scenario I described? You just cannot leave us hanging in the loop with something which is so annoying and so wrong that I barely find the right words describing it. Thanks.

Ok, so the problem with the APG-68v5 not being able to bug targets flying lower or higher than 4000 ft below or above your own altitude and ranges of greater than 24nm under certain conditions, although the APG-68 has already generated a valid track file still exists in DCS Open beta 2.7.15.25026 as described in the following post from 28.04.2022: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/299740-dcs-f-16cm-apg-68v5-look-down-issues-and-also-weird-aim-120c-behavior/ I attached a track file and a vid of what happened on my radar while I was trying to bug two contacts coming in hot at roughly 40 nm. The first bandit is nearly co-alt with me, the second bandit is several thousand feet below me at the start of the engagement. A track file was created more or less immediately on the first bandit flying at co-alt at roughly 40 nm. The second bandit who now climbs slowly up to my altitude stays undetected until around 30nm when he is at roughly 15k feet. My own altitude at that moment is 25490 ft. So we have 10490 ft altitude difference, my scan settings on the APG are set to cover both bandits as you can clearly see on my radar display. Also, a track file is created rather quickly by the APG-68 on the second bandit, so in theory I should be able to bug him, right? Well, no! Only when the second bandit climbs up to 22k ft and 23.7 nm range am I able to bug him on my radar. Is there any explanation for this weird behavior because the same behavior is true for a bandit flying higher than you? So, let´s imagine a scenario on a well-known PvP where, say an F-15 is hot on you, flying at 42k ft and you are at 30k ft. The range is 40 nm. You know what happens? Right. You catch an AMRAAM right to the face because you can´t bug your bandit and shoot back until the exact same conditions are met. Is this fun? Hell, no! This is a major bug, guys. Easily reproduceable for everyone, I guess. Also, easy to see. So again, why is this? I mean, I know there is a white paper coming on the APG-68v5 but seriously, I am really curious as to what the scientific justification behind reducing the engagement range of a very capable Gen4 multi-purpose radar with good A/A capabilities to basically crude and illogical behavior might be and also why there has not been any hotfix on this stuff, yet. And please don´t get me wrong, I do not want to argue about the maximum detection capability of the DCS APG-68v5, so let´s keep the topic solely on the behavior described above. Link to vid: https://youtu.be/HmkQlR87sJk F-16CM APG-68v5 look-up or down problem still exists.trk

Capoti, is, in your opinion, what you are seeing the issue kind or like the issue described in my thread: "DCS F-16CM APG-68v5 look-down issues and also weird AIM-120C behavior?" If so, we can merge these two threads because there is an issue. **And yes, by any means please try to include a track and/or a vid backing your bug in the future. Only then is ED able to take care of your issue and/or understand what you are tying to tell them. This is really crucial...** No, it didn´t. And 9L, please have a look at the "APG-68v5 look down issue" thread which I started yesterday and you´ll see what he means. This is actually a very seriuos and sadly a very big issue. If you guys need someone who can provide you with his professional opinion than feel free to contact me. I try to help where I can but this is definitely not right. I have a Typhoon background, by the way and "some" F-16 experience. Just so you know.