Dee-Jay

Lock tone? There is no "lock" tone on ALR56.

IIRC there is a 60° mark on tje STBY ADI but it does not work properly yet. Simply fly 2G in turn, you will be at 60°. Take some cues such as horizon on the top right / left edge of the HUD mount for example ...)

What is not said is the bank angle during break. At 300KCAS, 60° bank angle (which is 2Gs) is good for propper axis spacing allowing a gentle 30° - 40° bank on final turn with a -5° path during the fist half of turn. At 300KCAS (which is rather low) I suggest not airbrakes otherwise you will be a high AOA in downwing. Depending on loadouts, I recomend airbrake open on final wich is safer in case of go arround (higher RMP, less spoon up time to get full power).

What is the tone we hear ?

Nalchik's final is obstructed: ... OT: Note also ATC dare to clearing a/c to land RWY24 with a wind 060°/31m/s => 60Kts tailwind!

Depends on visibility (haze / mist / fog). ... But on the ground, it must be "level". In DCS, the 2.5.6 update has shifted the HUD reference.

The -5° approach path shown on the video is insane. Should be -2.5° -3° max. Here is the proper cues.

When you are speaking about climb rate, ou are thinking climb path relative to the ground. In flight climb rate and air path will be identical whatever the wind. Unless I was wrong during my 20y of flight experience and 5500 flight hours. I am sorry The Falcon. Many things you are saying are correct. But it is OT relative to OP. Discussion is about a bug concerning how the code is taking the ground displacement in account for aero data calculation. In flight an engine will deliver the same thrust whatever the wing direction or speed. Same apply for lift and AOA. One have to keep the ground out of the equation. That is why I say than everything else is rather "intellectual masturbation". We tried everything we could to make the point. Nothing more we can do. Cheers!

Absolutely not. (fortunately) Edit: I've read the entire thread again. I understand where The Falcon misconception comes from. He does not have the same definition of "what the FM is" than the others. Most of the time he is speaking about global motion relative to ground while the other are speaking airspeed. That is why you can't agree on what a "climb path" is (air path vs ground path) ... etc ... But speaking about "in flight FM" (not speaking about on ground and transitioning between on ground and in flight) FM is tied to relative wind around wing and engine intakes = airspeed ... (IAS, TAS, EAS) ... ground speed and wind direction and force has nothing to play with flight model performances relative to air mass reference (Wich is moving independently relative to the ground). Anything else (while potentially correct considering Enstein relativity theory) is nothing but intellectual masturbation and out of scope.

Hi! Rudder is not used during the whole landing but only at flare to de-crab. There is another method which is call slideslip and require rudder action to keep the nose external to the trajectory (slip). But rudder action is no way intended to counteract the wind. Just to point the nose outboard of the velocity vector. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosswind_landing The choice of those methods depends mainly on a/c flown. On F-16, no slieslip ... and no de-crabing is recommended due to possible side effect of FLCS. Your problem is that you are considering the ground as reference. But this is wrong because once a/c is flying, the reference is no longer the ground. In flight, ground is moving relative to your a/c. On ground, the air mass is moving relative to your a/c. The delicate point is the transition between the both. But in flight, one a/c is fully in air mass reference, wind has NO effect on it. Just as earth's rotation has no effect on you when you are standing in its surface. Your body are part of the overall inertial of the earth displacement relative to space. Gusts / wind burst can be considered similar to bumps on the roads when you are driving through a field. bbrz and bkthunder are fully correct. Regards.

Mach number is in direct relation with temperature: where a = speed of sound [m/s] T°C = atmospheric temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) You can calculate it in game and check if it is correct or not if you have some doubts. CAS/Mach/TAS/EAS Conversions : http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html ...

... that said ... of course, one needs the right charts for evaluations and correct evaluations protocols (Altitude Pressure, Temps, ... etc ...).

Hi! I fully concur. I am jet pilot myself (not F-16 though) and I don't have an accelerometer not a chronometer in my body. ;) ... I would be fairly unable to have a very precise judgement on my aircraft performances compared to another one just by trusting my personal "feelings" or physiological feedback. Any pilot "feeling" might suffer from some bias. And along the long development of another F-16 sim, with the help of several of our RL F-16 drivers participating to the validation and dev process (Greeks, and US), it has been proven on many cases, that their "feeling" couldn't be trusted. When they were asked to validate something with instruments ... the story always proven them wrong. (sometimes funny as they learned some stuff about their own a/c by referring to something highlighted by the sim!) Except on some rare cases (which could dependents on actual engine delta performances (temp, actual fuel feed adjustments of the EEC ... etc ...) the published LM charts match. Lessons learned: What matters are the numbers and the charts/graphics. Regards.

If this is confirmed, to me, it should be a showstopper as it is a major ... major flaws. Not only for FM but also engine, fuel ... combat ... etc ...

Hi! ... roll inertia, CATIII roll rate, landing gains ... etc ... It is not really a matter believes, it is rather facts. But ... it is a WIP. Regards.

Could be due to a "good" relaxed stability model but with a "bad" FLCS transcription (?).

The only things I can share is public non classified Web links (It does not necessarily cover my point above.) : https://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/Electronic-Warfare-Fundamentals.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4783/4ec45f24453d1263b94f633aa6e6bc7e2387.pdf

I understand. However, it is not a matter of being less effective ... but about being not effective at all. A flare sequence has to be precisely timed ... if not, it can be counter productive because rather than driving the missile away from you it can keep it closer to your aircraft => easy reacquire of the IR seeker.

As you said : INS/GPS ... radar vectors, TACAN, ILS, GNSS.

... and ... more basically, visual. Pilots have charts, compass, watches and eyes.

Okay I see what you mean now. Apologies for my misunderstanding. Regards.

FYI, (long story short) on most of IR seeker (including old one, except maybe the very old and basic SA-7 which has no IRCCM) only one flare will be, so to say, ineffective. It has to be a smartly timed sequence to "progressively" drive the heat source out of missile FOV. So that is why a flares sequence has to be programmed to be efficient. If only one flare can be effective in DCS, then we may have a little problem of "accuracy" of IR missile/seekers.

It has an inherit capability. It is just a matter of a point where it has lost the ability to manage the system and display FLIR tv channel due to a software update whish do also not include TFR update (because nowadays NVGs are preferred to FLIR). Anytime a "little" soft update can restore the capa.

sorry ... I don't understand what you mean (?) ... It is written black on white several time on -34 ... so ... I don't see how ED could say something different if they refer and use RL documents for development.

Calibrated Airspeed for Bugged Target is displayed in 10-knot increments below the OVRD mnemonic. You can check by yourself if you have such documentation.