Baz000

No, not really... As evidenced in my short video I made also, why is the E3 nails off your 3 o'clock when it should be remaining on your 12??

In all fairness he said that before I was able to produce a quick video demonstrating why it is such a tactical problem.

Thanks for letting me know the images I found are pretty accurate!

Look, i'm trying to be constructive... Something seems really off with the RWR display as presented to the player where you are unable to discern a forward quarter RWR nails on the outer threat ring and that doesn't seem to make logical sense in a tactical combat aircraft from a design perspective especially when the RWR is right in the front of the pilot's face

Didn't you actually do ground work on F-16's?

So, just so that we are clear... No issue here that I can't identify what nails this is? Here is what lowering the seat looks like so I can tell what nails this is: I'm going to take a brief video with Track IR in a moment too showing just how problematic this really is to see anything on the outer radius of the RWR on the forward 45 degrees off the jet (which is probably the most important direction to know of a threat since you are flying right towards it!) ADDED VIDEO:

IDK, to me it seems like a strange engineering design flaw to have partial obstruction of the RWR from a natural resting seated position... And yes, it still is an issue in VR and in Track IR because I use both of those. In the highly cluttered electronic warfare environment of today's combat environment you'd imagine that from a purely logical point of view you would want completely unobstructed view of any part of the azimuth display of the RWR to allow for as fast a reaction time as possible from the pilot if it were needed.

Yeah, but your HUD is now all jacked up especially the bottom portion.

I'm not one to question the mighty Wags but please look at my newly edited post above and the photographic evidence I have gathered as well as the words of Panther on the previous page regarding the visibility of the RWR in particular. But now, I noticed that the standby ADI should probably not be cut off by the DED display on the top half in the pilot's line of sight too, looking at the images I had compiled.

Stop telling people carte blanche to just adjust their cockpit views by saving a custom snapview as a bandaid localized fix. That doesn't fix the problem for the other 3 members of my multiplayer flight. That isn't the problem at hand, the problem is line of sight. Panther, who has actually sat inside quite a few F-16 cockpits has said ED also needs to fix it and isn't accurate to the real aircraft. In what bizzaro backwards world are you living in where real engineers designing multi-million dollars worth of equipment would for a threat warning system display, allow it to be partially obscured let alone for it to be mounted in that particular position if it were to be obscured from view. Yes the inner ring is visible in DCS but the problem is the other ring. This is something the 3D art team needs to sit down and hash out, it is a pilot line of sight issue, and out of all the instruments and displays in the cockpit inside a combat environment the RWR is the one thing keeping you alive. Here, I did a google search for F-16 cockpit and here is what was found and we can argue about camera angles and tilt camera location and fisheye lenses etc etc... But i'm not going to, the photographs should really just speak for themselves especially when you notice a pattern emerge Also, furthermore... The Standby ADI can clearly be seen TOO! Without the top half of it being cut off by the DED display... Noticed this too when I looked closer! before I provide photographic evidence, a quick word about pilot seating position! Yes, the seat is reclined 30 degrees but often times the pilot head is not!!! The pilot normally sits with head forward of the headrest of the seat unless pulling Gs like in BFM or preparation for ejection... See for yourself! Even the ground crews don't sit with their heads on the headrest (that is actually quite an unnatural position and hardly ergonomic) NOT ON HEADREST: NOT ON HEADREST: NOT ON HEADREST: NOT ON HEADREST: NOT ON HEADREST: NOT ON HEADREST: NOT ON HEADREST: NOT ON HEADREST: NOT ON HEADREST: NOT ON HEADREST: RWR AND STBY ADI CLEARLY VISIBLE: RWR AND STBY ADI CLEARLY VISIBLE: RWR AND STBY ADI CLEARLY VISIBLE: RWR AND STBY ADI CLEARLY VISIBLE: RWR AND STBY ADI CLEARLY VISIBLE: RWR AND STBY ADI CLEARLY VISIBLE: RWR AND STBY ADI CLEARLY VISIBLE: RWR AND STBY ADI CLEARLY VISIBLE:

Thx for letting me know, didn't know it was reported already. I found these 2 stories about landing at Anderson AFB "The challenge of Runway 24" https://www.doctoraviation.com/tanker-trip-to-guam-flying-at-andersen-afb/ "We had heard tales of a few disgruntled islanders who did not like the airplane noise at night. We figured maybe one of them had taken a few "pot shorts" at the B-52." https://www.doctoraviation.com/tanker-trip-to-guam-vii-the-golden-bb/ found this cool video too:

granted this is a F-16 simulator and not the real aircraft, and it also probably has a different RWR display and for that matter may even be a completely different block F-16... But I came across this video in a different thread and thought I should post it here... You can see absolutely zero obstruction where the RWR display is from camera angle and you could extrapolate that the pilot would see from his eye height a similar sight picture because camera height and eye height of pilot are not too far off each other... https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/214887-f-16-mfd-readability/?do=findComment&comment=4687877 and in DCS the top radius part of RWR is obscured / obstructed in default cockpit view, you are missing the front 45 degrees of azimuth off the nose of the F-16! The side azimuth being blocked from ICP is questionable too in my mind... I'd imagine from the perspective of the pilot sitting straight in the seat you ought to be able to see the RWR display in its entirety without any obstruction of view? It is kind of a really important thing to have a clear unobstructed view of in a threat environment.

something that really struck me as odd (and I think IRL doesn't exist because it goes against the conventional airport markings) is the taxiway hold lines directing exiting aircraft on runways to hold until clearance instead of taxi and vice versa for aircraft that are on the taxiway trying to enter the runways... The idea being that the side with the double yellow lines has to hold and come to a full stop, where as the broken yellow squares are for the opposite side denoting that aircraft can "pass through" currently in DCS some of these markings are all "reversed" when holding short prior to entry to runway, the accepted standard would be for the double yellow lines to be facing me in this case and for the broken yellow lines to be on the runway side, so these seem to be reversed right now in Anderson AFB DCS in certain locations.

Glad to see this is reported, I was curious about this as well because a friend of mine crashed into it on final approach in MP when we both flew on Marianas map for the first time ever so we could share our first impressions.

I think the runway lighting isn't 100% accurate tho, in DCS... Why would you have raised lighting that aircraft need to taxi over top of on a displaced threshold?? Especially planes like a B-52.. Just doesn't make any logical sense to me. Also, the hold lines before some of the Runways seem reversed and also make absolutely no logical sense too.

I'm having this problem too and so far only with the F-14

My suggestion would be if the DCS user is using physical HOTAS hardware such as throttle and stick, something similar in concept to a dead zone should be implemented but it would be more of a rest zone, this would require each user to custom configure this "rest zone" type area by putting hands on their HOTAS controls and moving the throttle and stick axis around to max axis movement very similar to just doing a normal windows game device calibration. Also, having different profiles that corresponds to different modules IE: Hornet vs Viper for example because some of us use different hardware for different planes like a center stick vs. Side stick. The principal concept would be that DCS during this in game calibration would be tracking your hand gestures and "learning" on an individual basis per module, just what exactly players hands on HOTAS controls looks like for a F-18 vs a F-16, etc... I wouldn't rely on individual finger tracking for that but rather the overall hand positioning in relation to the fingers. The reason for this is I grab my stick different ways depending on flight regime, IE: doing dogfighting vs formation flying or air to air refueling. Something like that is how I'd suggest approaching the HOTAS hand tracking problem. I'd also suggest the ability to copy profiles so that you can use the same "hand configuration" profile for modules you don't change your HOTAS hardware for like for example F-18 and AV8B or F-15.

I seem to be having this F-14 missions crashing the game problem too on multiple missions loading.

It sounds way better now, and my friends I fly with agree too... I use hear like in helmet when flying so my sounds are a lower volume. Is hear like wearing helmet using different sounds in the DCS sound engine or is it using same normal sound and tweaking it with certain attenuation before playback or something? Speaking about airflow sounds- I'd love for the speedbrake and landing gear extension to have realistic and discernible air disturbance sounds. In particular the speedbrake I'd imagine would sound loudest when fully deployed and not when partially extended for example. The F-16 in cockpit speedbrake indicator window only shows if they are extended into any position other than fully closed or if they are fully closed, apparently. So some audio cue indications would help when only "fanning the boards" open and closed or when fully deployed open. Other than counting in my head right now I can't figure out how long to hold the spring loaded speedbrake switch on my throttle. All of this, mind you if only IRL such sounds and distinctions exist. Also, while on the subject of sounds... I don't know if it is the case particularly for the F-16 but I have heard about it for the F-15 and I'd imagine similar cues when turning the plane although different airframes. The difference in airflow sounds between really loading the plane up in a turn vs not to help as an audible cue when padlocked (eyes locked onto) a bandit in a dogfight to max perform your plane. What I have heard referred to as the sound of "elephants dancing on your wings" (really pulling hard on the stick to max perform the jet) vs "mice dancing on the wings."

I was always wondering, why are they automatically set to off at night in DCS?

A lot exists for MRM A-G loads, i'm really curious about USAF A-A loadouts for air based threat type missions. Normally scouring over the internet for any NATO Vipers I have seen the most common as 2x2 aim120 and aim9 and x4 120 with x2 aim9 sandwiched between. Have very rarely seen x6 120, seen a few x4 120s... They seem much more common than x6 120s. Seen a ton of mixed A-A and A-G together, mostly 2x2 and x2 HARM and wing bags. Seen also at times x3 120 and x1 aim9 on both mixed and A-A loads. Out of all of them the x6 120 loads you commonly see people flying with on servers is rarely seen IRL, even in actual combat operations. A lot of internet USAF Viper pictures I have seen is mostly mixed loads, exercise or actual military operation.

Sometimes the forces of seat ejection proves to be fatal to the pilot, and can exacerbate already existing bodily injury from battle damage.

For me the clouds in VR look pixelated on the edges on clouds far away, at higher altitude above the cloud ceiling this is drastically less pronounced. And the definition and contrast and overall quality of the clouds looks absolutely nothing like how epic they look in 2D, even when set to ultra. The one really good thing recently is the cloud warping and jittering is drastically reduced to almost zero. I still notice some strange cloud movement but it is really only noticeable on clouds far away. This has been my observations in VR with HP Reverb G2.

Oh, I too would love some more Have Glass skins in DCS... Here is one from Nellis for example, apparently flying as aggressor. and an article: https://theaviationist.com/2018/01/29/check-out-this-f-16c-from-nellis-air-force-bases-aggressor-squadron-wearing-the-have-glass-v-paint-scheme/

Seriously, this shouldn't even be a Wishlist item and I don't know why it is... It should go as a bug report to ED... I agree with Panther who actually is former F-16 ground crew and I know has been giving input to ED on the DCS F-16. Why should I try spending my time to fix something on my end when my friend I fly a 2 ship of F-16s with has the same problem and if he gets spiked, he can't relay to me what is spiking him on RWR because he can't see the whole front azimuth quarter of the panel to give us any SA?? Conversely however, if I get spiked and I setup a snapview (which is not ideal anyways because it messes up reading other things like the HUD, or sight picture for landing, etc, etc... ED has way more resources to combat this problem than I have by saving a snapview that just screws up other things like reading MFDs or HUD for instance.) Anyways, Conversely same situation... I could look at RWR and immediately say MUD 6 spike 12 o'clock. Time is of the essence here in virtual combat flying, the faster you can see what is spiking you and from where the more likelihood of survival you have. And then you can hear your Wingman say over the radio "Stroke-3 defending SA-6" as opposed to "what's spiking you?? Or some other derivative" C'mon man, forward azimuth of the RWR being completely obstructed in the cockpit both in 2D and VR isn't a good problem to have and would be critical to get fixed soon. Yeah, we could all fiddle around with saving some snapview of some cockpit position that causes us many more problems like you can't read the bottom half of the HUD and every end user can have something completely different than the other. Or? We could have some kind of universal fix for this implemented by ED so that everyone is on the same page and on the same footing when flying. I honestly don't even care if ED just removed that 3D floodlamp model right in front of the RWR as a fix. Maybe that floodlamp is in the completely wrong place for all I know? Or maybe it is the wrong scale? Or maybe the wrong angle mounted to the bottom of brow panel? There are a lot of variables it may be. You guys who are here just saying "just go make a custom snapview" and parroting that constantly in such threads (I have heard this same argument many times for other modules too) IMHO are doing us a great disservice because instead of allowing us to project a unified front that there may be an issue of some type, you just want to inject doubt and discourse and lower the probability of ED actually looking into this if many users are complaining and then just simply retorting them with "just save a snapview" which basically is just like telling us "no problem here folks so just buzz off quite frankly." I mean someone who has been in the USAF and worked on F-16s is saying there is indeed a problem and the RWR azimuth display shouldn't be obstructed (which honestly would seem like common sense in combat aircraft design) and that from the normal seating position without doing any body or neck acrobatics you should be able to see and discern what is presented on it. so yeah, while we all are looking forward to HTS, and JDAM, etc, etc... If this issue persists then all those new toys won't be any use when you can't tell WHAT is locking you from in front of your 3-9 line... Like say a SA-10 and that is not the SA-11 you were trying to engage or were expecting in your briefing, anyways food for thought...