Dee-Jay

HMCS or NVGs. Not both. (NVGs is not FLIR)

Just for information for ppl who might think this is a good mod in terms of realism: This is definitively not realistic and is not what we see through NVGs. Tunnel effect does exist IRL (I am not talking about monocle but about classic twin tubes goggles). Original implementation is correct is this one is the things that are well made in DCS. Regards.

... Caution light do not necessarily light up in case of over G. You may have non listed or non reported failures. (could be hung stores, bomb fuse arming wiring damaged ... etc ... airframe structural damage ... other ...)

It is not working at all.

Asked. Answered => (as expected) Is not supposed to be the case (is a bug).

Okay ... so here we go, Knife edge pass: Entry at 450KCAS, altitude level about 6600ft during 10s @ 470 - 480KCAS (could be longer as you see "pitch" attitude remains stable): We don't see much there: ... Now in DCS, clean configuration, about 3000LBS fuel. I can't maintain altitude level: Second attempt a bit faster, not better: ?t=37 Slow roll ... unable to do it correctly and not the bug on yaw resonance/LCO: ?t=116 2nd slow roll attempt, yaw oscillation are even worse. I can't complete the maneuver: ?t=138 Descending NOE to increase aero pressure as mush as possible, accelerating up to 850KCAS, still no good: ?t=227 Then 880 - 890KCAS, Knif edge pass is "okayish", but we are way am above max airspeed. (Not on the video and unfortunately, I failed to record the track, but I've also noted a serious bug on engine shutdown ... RMP below 20%, Throttle back to Idle, engine restart by its own without JFS! That would be a very safe engine IRL! ... but that doesn't exit. ;) FTIT goes off scale, no engine damage.) ... I do even feel that it was somehow a little bit better on the Stable on October 2019 (almost one year ago): Regards.

Because at key point you may not have the required speed. So, rather than aborting the pass, you can accept a bit of altitude loss. I will try to retrieve a HUD tape I've seen recently showing a Thunderbird knife edge pass at high altitude (with no altitude loss). IIRC, it was a video of a German flying in backseat.

Please read again the first post.

Hi! To know if the airspeed in HUD vs info bar is correct, ... etc ... it is easy to be checked with two points on the map (known distance), an air temperature (defined in weather page), and a watch. Regards.

Hi! Confirmed. In DCS (latest OB version) knife edge pass requires more than 800KIAS (which is obviously wrong). For info, it was less than 800KIAS on the last time I tried the Stable (something about 600-700KIAS IIRC, better, but still wrong. It should be much less than this). We have FM issue and/or FLCS (rudder authority) issues here. (Note that roll behavior is wrong also.) Regards.

Hi! *You* can. This is allowed. Domestic/SOPs procedures may recommend AB takeoff as much as possible. MCH F-16 Vol3 is only saying this: 3.6.6. Make an afterburner takeoff anytime the computed MIL power takeoff roll exceeds 50 percent of the available runway. So, anytime your ASDA is compatible with this, pilots are allowed to plan a dry takeoff if saving fuel is factor for the mission/flight regardless of your CAT or load configuration. Regards.

IRL, IFF returns displayed on MFD is not synced with a radar return (not simulated in DCS). Radar plot and IFF return are two different things (and this is why you can make a scan interrogation even with no radar return or even with radar on STBY). Hence you can not associate it to a TD box displayed on the HUD.

Nothing in HUD IRL ... IFF returns are displayed on MDF FCR page.

This is a workaround, not a fix. ;)

We can chitchat during hours me saying the glass is half full you saying it is half empty. :smilewink: My point is that A/G radar, is, the heart of F-16's FCC, and to me, has a higher priority for consistence than AGM-65 or ARM ... or ... any other weapons. But a lower priority than the airframe itself (Aka FM/FLCS, DED/MFDs, ALT Gear, HYD, Engine ... etc ...). Anybody can disagree with my personal POV which is not the absolute universal truth. And it is fine. We can still be friends. :thumbup: Kind regards!

Hi Fri13! Topic is about F-16. I don't speak (nor know) about the AV-8. Yep. But still drift with time. Not speaking about possible future star-tracker systems, how will you update you IRS/EGI by night/bad weather without a ground mapping radar (not even always possible with a radar, but much easier/versatile than finding visually then overflying a preplanned landmark ...) Considering an average normal drift of about 0.5Nm/H (which is already fairly good), what kind of air to ground attack tasks can you still consider if you can't update your position before your attack run? ... visual CAS/SCAR in permissive/semi permissive area ... what else? ... (this is a real question, not a rhetoric question?) Regards. EDIT: Good weather only. Only way you can still BOT without a direct visual is a radar assistance. (Of course, list of possible targets is much shorter!) Good point. But I do not feel concerned. All I need is my drawn chart, compass and my watch to be on TOT at +/-30s. What other ppl can do or not "is not my concern". ;)

All what I am reading about "radar is obsolete" ... is "true" today on limited operations scenarios against "terrorists". Everyone bet on TGP (good weather only), L16, JSTARS ... etc ... ok ... All those stuff are working, only, and exclusively IF you have GPS available (or equivalent sat positioning systems) ... Think about it. Suppress/deny/spoof/Jam GPS ... instantaneously, radar and eyeballs MkI becomes (again) the primary sensors.

Agree. Radar is the heart of the F-16 weapon system (after upgrading it from pure dogfighter role to multirole) which has been designed in 70' era. No TGP, no GPS, no L16 ... A/G radar was the main sensor for targeting and navigation updates (INS updates). Radar (and associated A/G radar modes) is the bar bone of F-16 weapon system. F-18 A/G radar looks promising. F-16 will probably benefit from its core code.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the RL documentation about it. I am gonna ask a driver about it.

Yup! ... My first computer was this ... ... my first PC was that. :smilewink: Ed "advertised" that their F-16 module won't be a FrankenViper. So I don't think they can simulate a LANTIRN pod on a BLK50/52 Viper. ... And I think they have waaaay enough work to achieved to get the module to a descent standard Blk 50/52 before considering anything like this (this is my personal POV of course). For the moment, the F-16 module is at a VERY early stage, uncompleted and quite not accurate on some existing aspects. ... Step by step ... Maybe someday they will consider a Blk40/42 ... Who knows ... maybe a 60 ... 70 ... ?! Cheers!

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4452918#post4452918 ... that I agree with DrBackJack when he is saying that nowadays AN/AAQ-13 is obsolete (beside the fact that is it not integrated on F-16 Block 50/52). Nothings more.

I trust you. ENVS is maybe not working on the same wavelength then (?) But if LANTIRN so "so perfect" under bad weather conditions, I do not understand why a Wescam MX do not see thought clouds and provides a crappy picture when weather is misty (?) ... Please note that I mainly said "badly" ... I mean: not that much better for nav purpose than NVGs. So I maintain my point: Does night ops nowadays requires heavy FLIR equipment mounted on PODs such as AN/AAQ-13? ... I am not sure. And this is maybe why it is not that much used nor development on F-16. But we are not obliged to be in accordance. We can disagree. It is fine. :thumbup:

Yep. I Know that. Which is not and never been the case for M2000D pilots who are flying with TFR without any FLIR nor NVGs (in the past, now they are using NVGs) ... not only by night, but also all weather including fog. I do fly at below 500ft AGL up to night level 4 under NVGs (no FLIR no TFR). EDIT: FLIR "do not" (badly) work through clouds/mist/haze/fog/rain.

Well ... I am "using" both of them (I am saying FLIR but I should say ENVS, however, I do not use EVNS for flight but only for ground ops). ... so I may have a little idea about the difference in term of use for navigation and night ops. But maybe I am missing something (?) It is true that FLIR is allowing a different vision (in IR spectrum), but for navigation purpose, it is roughly the same except in night level 4-5 where FLIR may be more efficient in some ways except that it doesn't allow scanning. So for NOE flight by night, NVGs is for sure my preference. Now, there is also the the PNVS of the AH-64 allowing FLIR image in monocle ... but we are speaking about something not existing on F-16. And for C3ISTAR mission, of cource, a Wescam with FLIR channel will do the job where a pilot with NVGs and "eyeballs MkI" can do nothing. Of course, we are not talking about the same suff and differences between FLIR and NVG are fundamental here. So my conclusion is: If I were an F-16 pilot, for low level night ops and furthermore CAS type ops, I prefer by far an F-16 blk 50 with NVGs rather than F-16 blk 40 equipped with WARHUD an the LANTIRN suite.

Hi! Yep. But what DrBackJack said is correct. NVGs made FLIR obsolete. FLIR is heavy device requiring specific procedures, maintenance, cost a lot, allow to see only forwards ... etc ... NVG technology made the entire FLIR pod completely useless. Regards.