Deano87

Nosewheel steering OFF at 50 knots, as per the real thing. Makes life much easier on takeoff.

TACAN and map grid reference would be the fallback if the INS/GPS system died for whatever reason.

Actually they don’t, pretty much all of the modules I’ve tested have tires that are way too grippy laterally. The F-15 is impossible to land at its crosswind limit for the same reason as the F-16. But yes. I’d like lateral tyre grip to be sorted out at some point in the F-16 so landings at the crosswind limit we’re actually possible.

The Hornet is much more complete than the Viper currently, Imho it’s a must have. And getting carrier ops right is significantly harder then shooting circuits at a normal airfield. Very satisfying a a lot of fun when you get it right.

They will last just fine. I’ve been using my PointCTRL very regularly since I first got it last august and I have had zero problems. The buttons to not feel cheap or at all give you the impression they would fail any time soon. If you look at most micro buttons like this from electronics suppliers they usually have design lives of 100,000 actuations or more. And regardless, if any of them should fail I’m sure Miles will be able to help you out.

I’m not seeing this. I’m sure you’ve tried this but it’s worth asking. DCS Repair + Delete Fxo and Metashaders2 from the saved games folder?

The triple rack for the Maverick was at least tested in that configuration and is at the very least "plausible", TER for GBU on the inner pylons isn't and has never been a thing on the Viper. It's not the same comparison. Sorry Bud, it's just not going to happen. If you're looking for a GBU truck then try the Hornet. Or take GBU-10s on the inner pylons and hope splash damage takes out more targets.

Red means unknown, you should treat it as a possible bandit, IFF it a few times and see if you get a Mode 4 response. If you get nothing you’re probably ok to engage. But it depends on the aircraft and if the person flying it has remembered to turn their IFF on. You should not engage based solely on the colour on the FCR/HSD you need to confirm using IFF.

Regarding your quick turns with thrust vectoring etc. Yes of course the aircraft decreases in airspeed and requires more energy. But that is not effected by steady state wind in any way. If the a Sukhoi does a Cobra in perfectly still wind, or a 30knot wind or a 200knot wind, the aircrafts energy state at the end of all of those different scenarios will be the same. It should end up with the same Airspeed, in all 3 cases the ground speed will be different, but the energy state of the aircraft, IE it’s ability to turn, or climb will be the same in all 3 cases. Doing a quick turn downwind is no more dangerous then doing it in perfectly calm wind. Providing that we are talking about steady state wind conditions.. obviously the higher the wind speed (usually) the high the possible gust change, which of course can result in sudden wind shear. But this is Not what we are talking about here. In cases of the 5 pilots talking about pitching up when turning into wind... I don’t know what to tell you, but they are wrong, there is no physical way this can happen under steady state wind conditions. Where does that energy come from? It’s not like the aircraft wasn’t being blown downwind at the same speed when it was flying crosswind 90 degrees earlier in the turn... as long as the wind speed hasn’t changed then there is no energy addition or loss to the system = No increase or decrease in airspeed = pitch up or dive when turning into or down wind.

No. Just no. That is not how it works. Your kinetic energy is relative to the air the aircraft is flying through NOT the ground. If you are flying along at 100mph airspeed into a 100mph wind your ground speed would be 0mph, but the aircrafts energy state would be 100mph. If you pull to the vertical from that 0mph ground speed situation you will be going upwards vertically at 100mph. If you do the same manoeuvre while starting off flying downwind, airspeed still 100mph, with a ground speed of 200mph you will still only go vertically upwards at 100mph, not 200mph. The only time an aircrafts energy state is relevant to the ground is when it’s interacting with the ground, so takeoff or landing.

Yes loft cue is not implemented yet. I haven’t seen any issues with the bomb physics. I’m able to loft mk84s and 82s a reasonable distance. What kind of ranges are you expecting?

Bbrz is an experienced IRL pilot. And unfortunately you’re incorrect, Steady state wind has NO effect on the way an aircraft flies once it’s left the ground - apart from it’s obvious changes in ground track and ground speed.. There is no such thing as the “downwind turn stall”. All the aircraft cares about is how fast it’s moving through the air, It doesn’t care if the air it’s moving through is stationary or moving at 100mph, as long as it’s constant. And that has nothing to do with it’s ground speed, it does not care how the earth is moving below it. Aircraft are NOT bound to the inertial reference frame of the earth, it’s understandable to think they are, because as pilots we care greatly about not hitting the earth or navigating to a certain parts of it. We also spend a lot of time watching aircraft from the inertial reference frame of earth. But once an aircraft is airborne it only cares about the inertial reference frame of the air that it’s flying through, that air could be doing any speed, and as long as it’s constant and smooth it makes No Difference to the way the aircraft flies, it does not alter its stall speed, it’s turning ability or it’s maximum climb rate. And the aircraft certainly cannot gain or lose airspeed out of nowhere by turning in steady state wind. Now as I’ve said, wind will greatly alter its ground track and ground speed. But that’s all. You can fly an aircraft into a 100mph headwind at 100mph airspeed (ground speed of 0mph) and make a rapid 180 degree turn with no issues. You will not suddenly fall out of the sky.

Yep! Don’t know any way around that currently. I tried putting the file in the correct file structure within saved games folder and it also didn’t work.

I'm just a bit bummed that this workaround no longer works in the current OpenBeta build. :(

You have to go through each line of coords and confirm them with the ENTR button on the ICP. This only needs to be done on a full 8 min alignment. If you do a stored heading alignment it doesn’t need to be done.

IFF cannot come back “Red” you either get a green circle with a 4 over the blip on the FCR and HSD which signifies friendly or you get no response. If you’re seeing red contacts on the FCR or HSD that is a datalink contact. This is a different and distinct system from onboard IFF There is a current bug where datalink can show all aircraft as either friendly or hostile depending on what units are in sim. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269934

Are you sure the FLCS would notice that amount of vertical acceleration? I mean a change in 1000fpm accrued over 30 seconds is 0.017G, I don't know if that would be enough to elicit a response from the FLCS?

Don't try and run before you can walk, If formation flying is still a challenge for you I suggest putting a bit more practice time into that, You can even fly it with the refueling door open so that you're using the same AAR control gains as you would be while you are actually tanking. Just spend some time flying off the tankers wingtip, the better references of the wingtip in your vision should help you with throttle control etc. Once you're feeling nice and stable on the wingtip and you've got an idea of the throttle bracket you will need then slide over and try refueling. Be aware though that AAR and formation flying in general does fatigue you quite quickly as it requires a lot of concentration, its easy to get frustrated and end up overflying. My brother always says that you have a finite supply of "formation juice" and when you've used it all up its better to go off and do something else and come back once you've made some more. ;)

You missed the part where I specifically mentioned that the reference frame was the aircraft. In the vertical axis of aircraft (lift vector) then if in a constant 45 degree dive the air frame will not be experiencing 1G of lift loads. The pilot will be experiencing 1G of total gravity yes, but part of that will be towards his seat base, and part of it will be forwards towards the instrument panel. The G meter, which ONLY reads the component that is pushing the pilot into his seat will not read 1G. If you're in a steady state vertical dive, the aircraft has 0G lift loads, the G-meter will read 0 and the pilot will be hanging in his straps towards the instrument panel, presuming that you aren't accelerating. No. In an aircraft with an FCS that tries to maintain 1G of lift loading on the aircraft it doesn't care about the portion of the G experienced by the pilot in a 45 degree dive that is pushing him towards the instrument panel and will command a pitch rate to attain 1G of lift loading on the aircraft. Please I suggest you go and try these 3 tests in either the F-18 or F-16 in the sim. Fly low level at max speed. Pull to 45 degrees nose up, note the small forward pressure required to hold 45 degree climb, not the G meter reading (less than 1G) Now release the stick, note how the aircraft starts pitching up to attain 1G of lift loading on the aircraft, the aircraft will continue to pitch all the way up through the vertical until its inverted if not prevented. Now fly a 45 degree dive, notice the forward pressure required to hold 45 degrees, note the G meter reading (less then 1G) Now release the stick, notice the pitch rate the FCS will command to return to 1G of lift loading. Now fly a vertical dive. Noticed the G meter reading of 0, release the stick, noticed the pitch rate the FCS will command to attain 1G. Note that all of the above will hold true regardless of if you are accelerating or decelerating as long as you don't end up too slow and entering the Pitch Rate/AoA FCS regimes found on both aircraft. A "straight non-curving path" 45 degree dive, will not place 1G of lift loads on the aircraft, and will not place 1G of separation force on the bombs, which is what this thread was all about.

This isn’t an F-16 related issue. This is related to the core DCS package. It’s probably better posted somewhere else rather then the F-16 section. Such as this : https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=509

Not implemented yet. No air-ground info in HMCS yet.

How cool would it be to have Jester get more on more worried about fuel until you hit the "Bingo acknowledge" Jester command lol. "Come on man, we've gotta land this thing, we are WAY low on gas!" :lol::D

I don’t think he’s arguing with you...

That’s a very old open beta. Btw. 2.5.6.47404 Is the current version.

I don’t have a Stable install currently unfortunately. But all of the bugs you mentioned in the first post are no longer present in Beta as far as I can tell. I would however suggest you check that in your gameplay/realism settings that everything related to simplified systems, game avionics or anything sounds similar is turned off, as that can often cause strange bugs.