Dee-Jay

Hi! That is perfectly realistic. By day, floodlight or backlit are "not" visible. Floodlight or backlit are made to allow the pilot to read its panels / instruments by night without polluting his night vision ... not to be bight like a Xmas tree ;) That one of the best success of DCS-16 so far. IMHO, they should not make it brighter. Regards.

:thumbup:

Hi! Just a question: do you disable the NWS over 60kts as required? Regards.

Hi Tyrant! If you are speaking about these : https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3306819/ ... they are not all mine. At least one has been probably made by friend of mine because what you took here are not all F-16 sounds but also M2000 sounds. Some other are maybe some very old F4 synthetic sounds (FYI they are unrealistic tones) that has been replaced several years ago by my global set actually.

Hi Wicked! Is "Tyrants RWR sound Mod" still available somewhere? Regards.

Hi guys! Better wait before comparing anything, not only about DGFT. ATM, there are a lot "deviations" ... even on basic functionalities. (uncaged FPM, pitch ladder dependency, heading tape ... etc ...) Its a beta (I would almost rather call it alpha at that level). I do not expect it to be really accurate anytime soon. Regards.

Hi! I don't really know. Again, I'm just pilot, not engineer. :happy: IMO, thrust is rather alright (at least at that GW, on ground in STD ATM). Yes we have 20kts more at Non AB acc check, but ... this is not that much off (162 vs 144kts ≈ +12% ) But only one test in single condition is not enough to tell you more. Lack of friction? ... That is possible also. Maybe a bit of all you've mentioned (?) I may have a look next Stable update, or maybe, will take a look to other things if time permit (quite busy on other areas, I was just taking a pause to fly DCS a bit more and something different than UH-1 :punk: ) ... but from that point, better wait for ED's SMEs inputs. Cheers! Happy flying! :bye_2:

Nope. ;) It is a computed maximum acceleration-stop speed which should ensure a/c stop within a given distance. But here it's just a "flight test" ... we do not takeoff, otherwise a/c would be off ground at calculated takeoff speed (here it would be 153kts). So at that gross weight (27400lbs) and with that runway length (ASDA 7780 ft), runway is not restrictive, and there is no V1 ... or you can also say, V1 equals to the takeoff speed => actually, at the rotation* speed to be more precise, so: 153 - 15 = 138 kts (for AB T/O) 153 - 10 = 143 kts (for Non AB T/O) *ROTATE AT 10 KNOTS LESS THAN COMPUTED TAKEOFF SPEED FOR NON-AB. *ROTATE AT 15 KNOTS LESS THAN COMPUTED TAKEOFF SPEED FOR AB. But in both cases, ASDA will not be restrictive since rotation speed is way below the max refusal. Hope I am clear (?) EDIT: Of course, it will be way different at Max Takeoff weight on a higher temperature and shorter runway.

Hi gents! Yesterday evening tests on a light aircraft on Batumi airfield ... at seal level, STD atmosphere, no wind, empty a/c. Measured ASDA : 7780ft (for some reasons Airdrome info is not reliable?) Two Airshow cones positioned at 2000ft from brake release point for acceleration check. Test protocol conformal (see *) to checklist/supplemental data and procedure - Idle at calculated Refusal Speed. - Full air-brakes - Max energy braking * - No elevator inputs * Only deviation is that I won't wait 3s between idle set and brake action. I will apply the brake immediately after setting idle which should save about 660ft or stop distance, theoretically, a/c should stop about 660ft (200m) before the end of the runway. Two tests performed: Track files => Acc-Stop Distance Tests.rar - Without AfterBurner calculated parameters: F-16 Blk 50 F110-GE-129 GW : 27400 lbs Runway ASDA : 7780 ft Elevation : 0ft QHN : 29.92 inHg Temperature : 15°C (50°F) Wind Clam RCR : 23 (Dry runway) - Takeoff Factor (Non AB) : 2.4 - Refusal Speed (Non AB) : 175 kts - Takeoff Speed : 153 kts - Takeoff Distance : 2400 ft (Non AB) - Acceleration Check Speed (Non AB) : 144 kts (@ 2000ft dist from brake release). ${1} - Acceleration check: Passing the 2000 ft I read 162 kts for 144 kts calculated. - Acceleration-Stop distance: Passing EOR I still have about 100 kts. A/C can't be safely stopped on the runway => ejection. - With AfterBurner calculated parameters: F-16 Blk 50 F110-GE-129 GW : 27400 lbs Runway ASDA : 7780 ft Elevation : 0ft QHN : 29.92 inHg Temperature : 15°C (50°F) Wind Clam RCR : 23 (Dry runway) - Takeoff Factor (AB) : 1.4 - Refusal Speed (AB) : 190 kts - Takeoff Speed : 153 kts - Takeoff Distance : 1300 ft (AB) - Acceleration Check Speed (AB) : OFF SCALE (at least 190 kts) ${1} - Acceleration check: Passing the 2000 ft I read 195 kts ... conformal but chart do not allow to get a value at 2000ft ... we are off scale. A/c should already be airborne at this time with a 1300 ft takeoff distance. - Acceleration-Stop distance: Passing EOR I still have about 120 kts. A/C can't be safely stopped on the runway => ejection. ... With the Track Files, you will also find a .trk where rejected takeoff is initiated at calculated Takeoff Speed (153 kts). Even much lower than theoretical refusal speed, a/c can't be stopped before EOR. My conclusion are that acceleration is maybe not very accurate. (mostly with afterburner) but biggest delta with computed figures is the brakes efficiency. Could in also interesting to make the same tests with an heavier GW and/or on a wet runway. ... But I am not sure it worth the effort yet. Better wait for further updates. Of course, if you have any remarks about the test protocol, about my results and conclusions, please share your thoughts. Regards.

Confirmed. Brake efficiently is very far from nominal.

I would dream about being able to generate some of those using Audacity or any other software! ...

Search for Electronic Warfare Fundamentals. There are more than I can explain. ;) ... Well ... if you want to make it roughly okay, would need three: "Search" "Acquisition" "Tracking" ... maybe "Guiding" also for some system. (Note also that some systems are out RWR band range , invisible so to say. ... Or ... ambiguous with other radars.)

Is it the settings you are using during night flights?

Hi Sharko! ARL-56M is how described above. My opinion on that: Out of scope. And considering that posting any link or quote from RL manual is firmly and strictly forbidden (for good and comprehensive reasons), I do not imagine having real PRFs freq taken in account in the sim anyway (if even known!) ... I would rather stick on synthetic sounds or samples from audio tracks as I did trying to be as much accurate as possible without falling into sensible things. Real PRF or not ... whats the different for the player. They won't be able to know the difference with RL anyway. IMO, no big deal here. Especially when we know that a given radar antenna can use various set/ranges of PRF, RF, Pd ... depending on modes, distance of target, relative speed ... etc ... than a given radar is fitted with several emitting antennas each using difference signals ... that RWR efficiency is directly tied to libraries accuracy and so, depends on quality of lintels ... etc ... etc ... I would rather hope for a non perfect/non magic RWR models with possible EID ambiguities, angular ambiguities ... etc ... making RWR not a magic tool giving a perfect RL picture anytime. IMO, this is what is important over having real "sounds". ("real" means nothing anyway ... it can just be consistent, depending on situations and considered systems). Same about IFF. ... IFFs are far from being a perfect tool. Just my two cents. Cheers!

Yeah ... it is obvious on Google Earth also https://www.google.com/maps?ll=41.62825,45.03294&z=14&t=h m vs ft in Airport Info ... are they known issues? (Existing bug reports? I guess yes!)

Yep sure , that is what I did. But I was a bit confused by the "Airdrome Info" about runway length ... Now I understand: runway length given is not the real/full (available) runway length as the one published on Jeppsen or DOD publications but the distance between center threshold markings or QFU markings. On QFU13 ASDA is rather 8846ft (less on QFU31): Actually, I didn't wanted to quantify a precise distance. To start with, I just wished to know if I can stop the a/c before runway end by initiating the abort takeoff procedure at the calculated refusal speed. For ppl who have the supplemental or checklists, here is the parm I used to calculate the refusal: For ppl how has what they need to check on their side, here is the param I considered: (running on the DCSW Stable 2.5 version) Engine: F110-GE-129 GW: 27400lbs (Empty configuration) Runway Elevation: 1500ft ASDA: 7842ft QNH: 29.92 Temp: 10°C (50°F) Wind 135°@4kts Runway slope: 0% RCR 23 (Runway dry) Full AB Takeoff Factor => 1.5 Refusal Speed => 180kts Refusal speed based on: - Zero taxi energy - No braking above max brake application speed*. - Brakes applied 3 seconds after idle selected. *180kts near the max application speed for that weight within those conditions. But I don't now if Brake Energy Limits is implemented yet in "DCS F-16" ... (easy to check => Hot Brake => Later) So for the test, I start from the very beginning of the runway so I have a little bit more margin in distance. Apply 90%, brake release, engaging AB ... at refusal speed, - Throttle Idle - Air-brakes full extensions (overriding the 43°) - Maximum effort braking - No elevator inputs Here is the track (.trk) for results : https://www.dropbox.com/s/5u99r4bf7x03pz9/Acc-Stop%20distance%20check.rar?dl=0 ... This test do not demonstrate that braking effect is accurate or not because thrust model deviation would modify the distance to reach the refusal speed and so the distance remaining for a/c to full stop. It just shows that real charts can't be used (yet) to calculate the refusal speed in those conditions (maybe it works at higher GW?), and demonstrate (if my calculation and procedures are corrects) that something is not accurate, either in braking effect, or in engine thrust, or tires frictions ... I don't think it worth to dig further yet. Maybe better wait further updates. However, what Tom Kazansky said is right: "You might like to focus more on calculating Short Field Landing Distance - bit more relevant." Much more relevant indeed for breaking effect tests. Maybe tonight ... it is fun to play the test pilot (awaiting more combat functionalities). :pilotfly: (Who said that we can't enjoy an EA? ... I have to confess that I changed my mind :music_whistling: ;) ... lot of fun indeed! :yes:) Not a bad idea ... I will consider it! good hint! ... but results are so off that I don't need to be that much precise on that one. Maybe later. Is the Anti-Skid implemented yet (?). F-16 is still big WIP. ... See ya later! Cheers!

Nice ... ! :thumbup: But this is "not difficult" to make as they still are synthetic tones. (Grab Audacity or any sound generator => generates a given Hz tone for each radar modes, that's it!) What I mean by PRF "music" is something like this From (I am not talking about the "7 bip" missile launch tone ) And a given radar can produce a lot of (completely) different "musics" ... Except by sampling tracks, it would be hard to dynamically generate such things in a game unless by using "Microsoft Radar Simulator". ;) ... I have a little idea why it got removed from the website. ;)

Hi Harker! Honestly ... The picture is exaggerated (over exposed). From my POV, curent implementation is quite accurate (MFDs could be a bit brighter indeed) ... but other lights and lighting are very accurate IMO. For info, in simulation, many ppl a really badly using HUD brightness, cockpit lighting, back-lights & floodlight bby night. IRL, the worse for the pilot is to a Xass trees effect and aim is to dim the light as much as possible to the minimum applicable just to make instruments readable. What is to be avoided at all costs is to pollute the night vision. For example, that kind of lights level is fine at dusk/dawn on high altitude IFR flight ... but would be WAY way too bight by night in combat. This is just to share it with you because it is not something intuitive in simulation world on computer screens. That said ... form some ppl it is just a matter of taste regardless if it is realistic or not. This is something I can also understand of course. Best regards! EDIT: Hi Greenmamba! ... DIAP: very nice place! I hope to be back there someday! ;) Regards.

OFF DUMP and RAM does not do the same. DUMP is only opening the outflow valve to external pressure but does not turns off other systems such as OBOGS ... G suit supply ... etc ...

Thank you for reply. Refusal just because I takeoff before landing ;) ... indeed, it is not good to test only the brakes because any trust deviation will also have a big effect on results. But is it also interesting to check it and see if I can use still my old checklist ... Hope to be able to dig it further tonight. I will also investigate a bit more on (1) and try to understand wind given in weather report since I am not always the mission designer. Thank you again.

Same here. Damn ... never trust a feeling. I've made a quick test tonight ... but I am not 100% confident on pram used for computation of refusal speed. I will post my procedure tomorrow and see if/what I've made wrong. It was just a quick test using the Instant Mission "Takeoff" ... and it wasn't successful (maybe better creating a dedicated flight for such as test?). But first, few questions: 1 - The wind given on Briefing page, is the wind direction displayed on weather data where the wind goes ? ... or the bearing => direction where the wind comes from ? (as I would expect in an aero weather report ? I am asking because report shows a wind : 135° @ 2m/s (4kts) ... but my a/c is initialized on RWY 31 (with 2m/s tail wind then?!) 2 - Any ways to ask ATC for the wind? (there is no wind sock on this airport I think). 3 - What is exactly the distance given in Airfield data on Map info (F10) -> Is it supposed to includes overruns? 4 - Do you confirm that runway length is in ft ... not in meter!? (7842m ... mmm ... I don think it is meter) 5 - Elevation ... in ft also right? ... not in meter as showed on the Airdrome data window... (altimeter show 1500ft, Google Earth shoes 1450ft ... so I've considered ft ... it makes sens but I prefer asking if there is not something I don't know). I will explain my results later on once I am sure I took the right distances values, wind and temperature for calculation of refusal speed ... Cheers! PS: I love the ejection sequence!

Actually, both, "natural" then synthetic tones when clamped and when radar signal PRF is no longer in the audible range. Out of scope IMO. It would be a huge task ... to ... get something wrong anyway (unless some ppl feed the data with RL restricted and confidential parameters) ... well => overkill. However ... one can get close to ... ;)

Because it would be unsafe to "unlock" the canopy during the flight ;) ... especially if cockpit is still pressurized and ΔP not zero! ... On some other aircrafts I've flown ... canopy lock and canopy seal inflating command is not the same. Here is on Alpha Jet (more or less the same on Mirage and Jaguar) : "Climat" switch is turning ECS "ON" and inflates the rubber seal ... ... Red handle is just locking the canopy.

Thank you sir! :thumbup:

Which engine is simulated?... is it the F110-GE-129?