Tango3B

Now, this thread was actually very helpful. Thank you for the wealth of input here, guys. I set my Cyclic Trimmer Mode to Central Position Trimmer Mode and my Pedals Trimmer Mode to Pedals without Springs and FFB. Also, for my pitch axis I set a deadzone of 2 and added a curve of 8. My roll axis has the same values. For rudder I use a deadzone of 3 and a curve of 10. This works like a charm and I can finally fly the Apache in a really smooth and enjoyable way. This is a complete game changer on my end. I use a Thrustmaster F-16 stick, a Virpil Mongoos T-50CM3 throttle and some rusty, old Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals, btw.

This is clearly a bug. Did you notice the upper and lower scan limits of the radar both showing negative values after you unlocked your target? This not supposed to happen. Under no circumstances. And I also noticed this while flying PvP, recently. The logic behind the auto-elevation control of the radar seems bugged as I recently tracked a bugged contact at roughly 30 nm range and even then both the upper and lower scan limits showed negative values which is basically just hilarious. Will also try to make a vid this evening to showcase that if I run into this, again.

No, you´re not mistaken. That´s actually how it works. So again, this´d be a huge increase in effectivenes for the APG-73...

I fully agree. Also, documentation on the working principle is readily available which backs your explanations to the fullest. And since the current implementation of TWS-A does not represent the realistic version of the APG-73 I´d like to directly ask the ED team here. Will we see a rework of TWS-A and if so, when? A rework is not only necessary because ED normally has a high standard concerning realism but it is also because of the complete inability to use MSI to it´s full potential. Me normally being a Viper guy I do fully understand and appreciate that the Viper is progressing at a steady and very nice pace but this TWS-A issue is just too important to be overlooked because it will drastically change the effectiveness of the Hornet´s radar. The Hornet surely deserves a bit more love, I guess...

Yup, I would like to see this as well in all Link 16 capable aircraft. This would greatly add to the overall immersion, I guess. Very good point there, WHOGX5.

Awesome, thank you BN. So, this means it is actually part of the APG-68v5. This is great news...

@BIGNEWYSo, it's been a week, BN. Any info from the team on NCTR?

You will have to wait a bit longer than two more weeks, I am afraid. Right. And as some of us discussed a few weeks ago in this very same thread, there is neither any information on the progress of the Cyrano radar or the associated systems nor is there any confirmation that the Mirage F1 has already reached a state where it is ready for the internal testing stage by ED. SIlver_Dragon who always appears to have a little more insight into these matters was also unaware of the F1 being in any kind of testing by ED. Well, this is all pure speculation on my part, of course and I might be very wrong here but personally I would not expect the F1 to be released before the end of March´22 or even later maybe. Why? Because internal testing can be quite an involved process and will take several weeks if not months. And quite frankly we actually have not seen that much stuff working avionics-wise apart from a look at an apparently working start-up procedure, slats and flaps mechanics and tons of external and internal views of an amazingly beautiful aircraft model. AERGES seems to have decided to be completely radio silent until the very last phase of the F1. Is this a good communication strategy? Not in my book. And certainly not when you tell people the module is available soon and yet there is nothing to show or any publicly known roadmap. But that´s only my 2 cents. And please do not get me wrong here. I really want the F1 to be in my hangar a.s.ap. just like all of you guys.

Sorry dude, completely different timezone for me so the ohter guys were apparently first. Ok, so your best answer (in simple words) is what Deano87 said about NCTR. Couldn't have explained it better, myself. And yeah, the F-16C should actually have that system as a core feature of its radar. Also, looking at the benefits of that system I hope you understand why I asked if we will see this system in our F-16, too because it can be tremendously helpful as you can probably imagine.

Perfect, thank you. Again, very curious what the team thinks about that.

@BIGNEWY Any info on this? I understand NCTR is a core feature of the APG-68v5 so I am really curious what the team thinks about that.

Recently, I was discussing the NCTR capability of the APG-68v5 with a few buddies while flying on GS's server and if we will ever see it for the APG-68v5 which we have in game. So, as this feature is currently missing in "our" DCS F-16C I would like to politely ask you ED guys if NCTR is actually planned for the simulated Block version which we have in DCS? Question goes directly to BN, 9L or Matt. Can you please ask the team if this is a feature which is plannend for a future update? Thx in advance.

It´s sad to hear that you´ve been through some negative experiences flying FC3 standard planes in DCS. I can certainly tell you that you´ll have a vastly better experience flying the full fidelity modules, however. But as this is not your main issue please let me elaborate a little more on why we do not see a more advanced "red" fighters - for the moment at least, as ED is supposedly working on a MiG-29A. It is very hard if not impossible to get the documentation (SMEs, also!) required for newer russian aircraft and their associated weapon systems and avionics. For example, if a developer should decide to do a full fidelity Su-35 module there would be a tremendous amount of guesswork involved in creating a lot of the systems and capabilities of it. ED certainly does not want that and I am perfectly fine with this decision, actually. The same goes for the MFI-55 which was planned for the J-11 but is currently on halt just because of missing info on some pages and functions of this display. ED has set a high standard to use only (scientifically) reliable information and this is a good thing as we all benefit from it, I guess. And this goes for all modules, of course.

Yup, you´re absolutely right. And apart from the CRs I would also love to see those Iraqi EQ.5 & EQ.6 versions but you have to somehow make a point at a certain stage, I guess. And that´s ok in my book. If (and that´s a big if) AERGES should decide to do the EQs and also the CRs that would not only be simply amazing but the most hilarious module package in DCS so far. For now, though I am more than happy with the portfolio they have to offer. Especially the F1M will be very interesting and I can not stress enough how happy I am with the decision to start with the F1CE as the older versions of the jets simulated in DCS genereally get a little less love, it seems. Apart from the F-14A that is, of course. Anyway, this is THE highlight of 2022 for me so far. More Mirages means more fun! ;-D

I see. Yeah, all good. The four versions they´ve already in development are more than a dream come true for any Mirage fan, I guess. And it is also a very ambitious project for such a small but apparently very gifted team of people. Must be quite a journey for them. Again, the best of luck to AERGES for 2022 and I hope you all have a nice party tonight.

Yes, I think we know about this plan, already. And personally, I also wish them the best of luck and whatever is needed to complete the F1CE in a very timely fashion as this will be a go to module for me - well, apart from the F-16 that is. Anyway, without requesting a timeline a brief update on the following topics would be very welcome. Which items still need to be completed on the F1CE? Is the Cyrano radar already in a well advanced state? Is the F1CE already in internal testing? I will say it again, all of this will align and manage expectations without putting AERGES under a certain unwanted pressure.

Nice, glad we could help you in this thread. Yeah, it´s surely annoying Chaofei but there´s nothing ED can do about this issue, I´m afraid. It is totally hardware related and I can tell you my old Warthog HOTAS does the same stuff (tested it - also needs a deadzone) but I already bought a new one and this one doesn´t have any problems or is in need of a deadzone. It is what it is, I guess - stuff gets old and problems arise...

Chaofei, you need to check if your cursor on your throttle needs a small deadzone. Sometimes when your hardware gets older you have unwanted motion in certain axis that you can eliminate by setting a small deadzone. I heard from other people that they were able to eliminate that problem this way. Also, there is another thread related to this problem in the F-16 section. I also see no bug so it has to be hardware related. Please report back if setting a deadzone for your cursor helped.

Yup, CMS aft and right on the control stick are used to activate and deactivate ECM transmission. You need to bind these to make ECM work as intended. Keybinds for the ECM panel are not yet available.

Thank you for the heads-up, buddy. ;-D So, in this case it's exactly as I expected. Very strange, indeed. Well, then we will actually have to see if there's a big surprise update clarifying all those things or sadly a much longer time to wait. Fingers crossed, though...

Yup, you´re probably right with your guesstimate. What we know for sure, though is that for the most part of January there won´t be any updates because of ED´s well deserved holiday period. Also, we do not even know if the F1 is already in internal testing. @ Silver Dragon: Can you please enlighten us here a little bit if you´re allowed to tell us? Do you know if the F1 has already reached internal testing stage? THX in advance... ;-D

Yup, absolutely right. Without asking for any timeline it would be quite nice by AERGES, though to make a statement on what still needs to be completed on the first F1 version to be released by them. And by actually doing this before the end of 2021 AERGES would wisely manage and align the expectations of many people following the progress of this beautiful module on a regular basis. Especially a small heads-up on the progress of the Cyrano radar would certainly clarify where we stand with this module at the beginning of 2022. Merry Christmas to all of you, guys!!!

Yup, you´re right. And this has also been reported before. Actually, it has been reported for ages because the problem with the "steering dot" exists since the launch of the F/A-18C module. Will it ever be fixed? Well, a few weeks ago I read that there will be an update to steering dot logic in the F-16C and I believe that this might also somehow affect the F/A-18C implementaion-wise. So, there is certainly some hope that we will finally see a fix for it. Fingers crossed. Maybe BN or 9L might also want to add some new info on this?

Yup. I noticed that, too. Seems a bit off to me, too. Might indeed be related to some exaggerated range loss modelling in a look down situation. Actually, the loss of range one might experience in such a scenario isn´t that big of a factor with modern FCRs in real life. I remember this being a topic in another thread a while ago related to another radar problem in a look down scenario and if I am not totally mistaken I think GGTharos was the one who provided some files to some ED official to back this statement. So, I think there is a good chance ED might already be aware of this and that we might see an improvement of this behavior, soon. Let´s see what BN or 9L say to this...