Deano87

I thought this was fixed a while back but clearly not. I will create a thread in the verified bugs section and try and get it reported it with a track etc.

I suggest uninstalling the F-16 and redownloading it. Go to the module manager inside DCS, go to the installed tab and then hit the trash can next to the F-16 row to uninstall it. let it do its thing and then once uninstalled restart DCS and then come back into the module manager, find the F-16 and reinstall. You should keep all your keybinds and mapping etc. I presume you aren’t using any mods for things like MFD readability or brightness that have been released in the past? If so I recommend removing those as they tend to break things with updates. let me know how you get on.

No. You misunderstand. In the past any mission with the pressure setting set anything but default had altitude errors on waypoints. It was nothing to do with your altimeter setting in the aircraft, it was to do with the pressure setting IN the mission. Check it in a mission with default pressure and see if it has the same effect.

This particular bug is not FM related. It’s simply that the FPM is showing Incorrect information when drift corrected/caged. It’s exacerbated by banking the aircraft. Set up a mission with a strong high altitude crosswind (60knots for instance), spawn an F-16, put it into a 30 degree bank and set altitude hold. It will fly a perfectly level circle maintaining altitude pretty accurately. If you cage the FPM while you turn you will see it shows you descending on one side of the turn and climbing on the other. It’s all because when you bank the FPM’s rotation is based around the position of hidden uncaged FPM rather then itself. You can see the problem clearly while banking one way and the then other in crosswind. The FPM can move up and down 10 degrees while your actual vertical speed stays consistent. - Edit to include pic again from earlier in this thread -

Possibly effected by mission pressure setting? I know in the past the QNH setting set in mission editor has changed vertical location of steerpoints etc.

Just checked and this is still unresolved as of 2.5.6.58125. Is there any chance we can get this bumped up the priority list? This is one of a basic features of the HUD that should work correctly. I makes flying accurately in crosswinds a real PITA with the FPM dancing around all over the place. Specially crosswind landings where the wind is strong enough for the FPM to be outside of the HUD. Cheers D F-16HUDissueDec2020.trk

Gear Limiting Speed on the Viper is 300kn btw.

LoL. I've read the whole rest of this thread, I understand your position. Nope, they don't lol. It's their show, they can do what they want, and they don't NEED to justify it to you or anybody else. Its of course nice when we get to know the reasons behind decisions, but it's not required. You seem incapable of understanding that the same 2007 aircraft in 2016 would have undergone all of the upgrades with the rest of the USAF/ANG Block 50 fleet and the aircraft we have in the sim would not be representative of a 2016 aircraft. Yes the same airframe exists, but the software and some hardware inside would not be the same. No.. again, its their product and they can make whatever decisions they see fit, even if it doesn't fit with your idea of logic.

if you haven’t tried it already, give this a go. Go to the DCS folder (or DCS.openbeta if you’re flying the beta) within “Saved Games” which is inside your user files folder. Find the the two folders “fxo” and “Metashaders” (or Metashaders2) and delete both of them. Next time you launch the sim it will create them again, they are just caching folders and should be deleted with every update to avoid weird issues. Next time you launch the sim it will take a little bit longer to load as it recreates these folders. let me know if that has any effect.

Ah... Fri... Never one to use 3 or 4 words when a couple of thousand will easily do I don't have time to read all of that. But let me simplify things for you. Decisions made by a company don't need to be explained at all, they can decide to do something and offer no explanation for it. Its their product, its their perogative to develop it exactly as they see fit. ED don't owe you an explanation, especially when its above and beyond the already promised feature set. Regarding the aircraft itself. The aircraft modelled is from 2007. APKWS Didn't exist in 2007 If you were flying a Block 50 F-16 in 2016 it would be quite different from the jet modelled in the sim, Tape upgrades, A-GCAS, Aim-120D, Aim-9X BkII etc etc. So if you flew our 2007 jet, with a weapon from a decade later, it would not be a realistic scenario, regardless of the mechanical capability of the aircraft to employ that weapon. It would be just as unrealistic as our 2007 era F-16 using the Aim-120D or Aim-9XBkII because it wouldn't have been something that would ever happen with that aircraft in the configuration that its modelled in. Lastly, ED has given you a decision on the subject so further pleading is literally just wasting your time.

I think you've got the answer that you've been looking for, Its not going to happen. I get your logic as to why you think it should be added regarding backwards compatability. But a 2016 Viper would be different from the aircraft we have modelled anyway, so yes we have to fly a "2007 F-16" frozen in time regardless of the date of the mission.. oh well.

That thread was literally last updated yesterday...

Anything over 300kn is overspeed, so if you're in a light jet you can very quickly exceed that if you keep it in blower. You may need to throttle back or climb to stay under that speed.

I'm seeing this as well. Brightness of the MFD pages change from page to page, its very odd. Is most obvious when flying in the dark. Do we still need a track for this?

An F-16 would absolutly jump the chocks in Full AB, regardless of model. It is however a massive waste of the developers time working on something like this when there are a million other more useful systems they could be working on. IMHO

Derp. Of course! I know how those work IRL and I didn't even consider that they had added the functionality in lol, Its a shame they don't default to max brightness or something sensible. It'll be nice to be able to turn them down though as the AOA indexer was BLINDING at night and in NVGs before. Thanks for your help! Cheers D

Hey all, I fired up DCS for the first time in a while (after updating to latest open beta, and clearing out fxo and Metashaders before you ask ) and went and did some night AAR practice and night ILS circuits to get myself back into the swing of things. For some reason my AoA indexer lights and the NWS, AAR lights on either side of the HUD are completely black? I carried on flying and didn’t get a chance to get a screenshot or try again during the daytime, but I’m just wondering is this a known bug or something I need to investigate further and report? I spawned multiple times and it was the same every time.

Yes. It means it’s free like the VARS Edge 540.

Why are you using NWS on takeoff? It should be disabled as soon as the rudder has any authority, 50knots usually.

Holy Necro-posting batman. This issue hasn’t been around for a long time, thankfully lol.

Thanks for the info Panther!

You need to be aware that people noticing this issue might not have the experiance with the aircraft that you do, the technical knowledge or the vocabulary to be able to explain what they are seeing, so are never going to satisfy your request for detailed proof. Regardless, I found a Block 50 video exhibiting the same movement as ALL the rest of the F-16 retraction vids I've seen, which leads me to believe that the main gear retraction rate slowing at some point during the swing is indeed normal and should be replicated in the sim.

Reported already. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269191&highlight=QNH

It still changes speed at 50 seconds, harder to see because of the camera movement. But its still there.