Dee-Jay

Hi! Does this fix allow to continue the UN Pilot "Campaign" ? Regards.

Hi! Wake turbulence is different than Jet blast. I don't know is jet blast is implemented yet, and wake turbulence is extremely exaggerated (on F-16 at least, I don't know for other modules). Regards.

L16 update rates depends on networks/receivers settings and are customized for a/c type; mission type; ... depends on needs. (higher rates are needed for fighters more than transporters or helicopter, or UAVs for instance ...)

Check your VVI/and ALT. If it is correlating with the FPM going up/down, it is FM. If not ... it should be only HUD display.

If is it what I think, it is not simply a HUD issue but a FM issue (major FM issue) ... And it could also explain why the wind act on engine thrust.

Can't be SPI, it is not implemented. Coordinates ok ... but what about elevation? ... Is the ground elevation properly set?

Be careful. Do not thrust what you see in cockpit, the landing gear handle (the lollipop) is bugged (or let simply say: has a wrong behavior)

Anti skid is not implemented. Or at least, is do not work. You've probably missed this thread:

TACAN is helpful when no precision approach are available on airfields (no ILS/no PAR). It allows to have an instruments approach even if minimums are higher than precision approaches. Is also a backup for navigation/positioning in case of IRS/GPS issues. TACAN steering on HUD ... not needed at all.

Anti Skid is not implemented.

Good catch SCPanda! I didn't paid attention to this before. You're right. Normally, during aerobraking we should stay on landing gain pitch rate command (until 10° then goes into blended mode). Something is wrong in FLCS and/or goes into ground gain mode to early. EDIT: Track: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxdduacivqjjy1w/Landing Gain.trk?dl=0 Nose should (more or less/roughly) remains stable (hands off) below 10° pitch on ground. Elevators are not on LG mode on the ground (do not "stay on position" => do not try to maintain commended pitch) after landing before meeting GG conditions. (LG/GG logic seems non existent). Side note: Landing gear handle (lollypop) it still working wrong. Regards.

Hi! If you say it, I believe you (so it may depends an counties/pilots habits then). Because wheels are "analog" (no switch pulses) so it is "easier" to get intermediate positions ... but stick trims are not supposed to have such an "all or nothing" effect. (On the jets I have flown I never had wheel trims, only stick trims, it wasn't a problem to perfectly trim the stuff). However, a better answer/recommendation that shroud have been provided by "SMEs" about the stick trim issue should be : as long as DCS will simulate the trims that way (1) instead of something like (2) or even better, something like (3) it won't match a correct stick trim. Regards.

Same here (and I do not think. I am sure), especially because of: (... !? I wonder what kind of "SME"?) Left panel is not "fine" trims. It is backup trim (called "Manual Trims" but both stick and wheel trims are manuals) in case of stick trim inpo or "sucked contact" (is also the reason for the Trim/Ap Disc switch). Regards.

"Betty Switch" on the right console just "below" the stick to shut off all Betty calls (if correctly implemented in DCS).

Well ... I do not have the same experience here. It's okay. "Takeoff & Landing" track (Nevada) : https://www.dropbox.com/s/dlropgjslebk4ly/Takoff %26 Landing.trk?dl=0

Correct. No automatically trim for asymmetric loads. (Nor on M2000 nor on Rafale (out of any AP mode)).

Hi! Sure he does. This issue in DCS is not about the rates (witch looks okay, I didn't measured them) but the implementation of the trim input/pulse itself. It is all or nothing (1/0) with no progressiveness/trim acceleration. That makes trimming "difficult" (quite often too much or not enough) and rather unrealistic on DCS F-16. Regards.

Really!? To me this is the strict minimum to pretend it to be an F-16 FLCS. On my side I am deeply disappointed by the wrong behavior in roll. :(

The strongest effect is at wing tip but on a very small area (few inches diameter) The futher away, the larger the area is, but it gets weaker weaker with distance increasing. Only an a/c of a heavier mass can "rock n roll" a lighter one. Jet behind jet, wake turbs are less noticeable than the jet blast of engine (which makes airflow turbulente but without vortex) If both a/c are the same category, it won't be as seen in game.

Hi! There is nothing you can do to "smooth" wake turbulence in formation flight. It is perfectly true that what I am saying it only opinion since I've never flew F-16. The only thing I can swear, is that on AlphaJet, Mirage2000, Jaguar and MirageF1 it is far far from being so strong. Passing behind a C5 or an An225, probably (?) but not through the wake of the same category aircraft. I also fly DR400, please do not compare light a/c with small/medium fighter jet, wing loading is not the same. Same when going to the category above. I do not experience the same on than what I used to know on AJet. Regards. EDIT: I am not saying that your experience is not relevant of course. I've already said also that I had the same than you when I was flying a behind a C-160, about tree minutes after its takeoff, reaching 1500ft AGL I suddenly rolled 3/4 inverted with absolutely no control to counter it. It lasted about two-three seconds ... but it was freaking.

Hi Furiz! Not taking someone's words for it, is sain. But I just have two questions: - Who would invent what Scrape said? and mostly: - Why would he lie? Regards.

No it was for other ppl. We are pointing the same: Edwards test center

Look at tail markings.

Thank you for this sir! So you confirm: AGM-65 Maverick (all variants) can not be employed on Stat 4/6 ... Correct?

Hi! 8 AIM-120 ?!? ... on F-16? Regrads.