void68

FYI... laut Werbung ist der A9 kompatibel zum Winwing F-16EX. Pustekuchen! Bei mir wird er nicht erkannt, wenn ich PS/2 Stecker vom Stick in die PS/2 Buchse von der Base stecke ("disconnected" unter Cockpit WW16) und der Emailsupport laviert herum, behauptet ständig, ich bräuchte einen mechanischen Adapter, damit er erkannt wird. Nur: den gibt es nicht! Ist aber auch nicht das Problem, weil ich mir problemlos einen eigenen gedruckt habe. Für die Erkennung des Joysticks ist aber die angebliche Notwendigkeit eines mechanischen Adapters absoluter Blödsinn, es sei denn, da ist ein Microswitch versteckt. Es geht um die Software / Elektronik. Das versteht der Support nicht / will es nicht verstehen. Der Discordsupport erzählte ähnlichen Nonsens ("overseas sellers plan to ship WWF16 adapters"), nachdem ich denen aber erneut haarklein und schon penetrant insistierend das Problem geschildert hatte, war er immerhin bereit, die Devs / Engineers zu fragen und sich in ein paar Stunden zu melden. Warum die die Kompatibilität bewerben, dann aber a) eine Adapter voraussetzen, b) diesen Adapter aber nicht verkaufen, c) es diesen Adapter nicht gibt, d) ein mechanischer Adapter das eine, die elektronische Kompatibiliät etwas ganz anderes ist und e) es im Endeffekt darauf hinausläuft, dass der WWF16 nix anderes als ein totes Stück Metall mit der A9 sein wird... das ist mir schleierhaft bzw. wirft ein etwas unschönes Licht auf die Seriösität von Moza. Ja, irgendwann läufts dann vielleicht. Ich finde, das sollte man beim Kauf vom A9 bedenken. Sonst ist das Teil nett, vor allem die FS Funktion wie beim Orion2 in der F-16 ist gar nicht mal schlecht gelöst.

Same problem here. WW F16EX doesn't fit mechanically (male on male) and isn't recognized by Moza Cockpit software. Mechanically mismatch is no problem as I 3D printed myself an adapter. The electronics is the problem. Facing Moza support with the problem they keep telling me "buy an [mechanical] adapter from dealer". Which one? Moza hasn't got one, Winwing hasn't got one (just a male/male adapter for Thrustmaster to Orion, but I need female/female). They are dodging to give me a correct answer, as when the stick isn't recognized by the software after being plugged in how can a mechanical adapter (whoever sells this!) help with this? The support and selling policy is FUBAR. The base seems to be not compatible with any Winwing stick, other than claimed on their homepage. If they don't prove me wrong with the next answer. edit: got their Discord support: There should have been an electrical adapter for the Winwing in the package to solve the problem. So the Winwing should be compatible.

Will this be implemented like promised or is it off the list? Waiting for this tiny change for a year or so.

Tthere are several compressed texture files in mods/F-16/whereever (currently not at my home PC) that should be in high res. Or just buy a Winwing ICP for 180€ or so. Less complicated.

Thanks, yes, I used similar software before I used Bodnar boards to program keys.

I (and several others) asked this a couple of time already and at least a year ago, still no change for >4 updates despite it was promised to implement: Homepit owners with a working ejection seat handle usually can only once press a DirectX key, the usual setup for the handle is that it's connected to a rod being pulled and activating a switch. This switch with an interface sends a single keypress to DCS. But single keypresses can't activate ejection, you have to press it three times - at least in the F-16, the F-4 just needs one. As I can't imagine that this change would take more than two lines of code if ever... will we see this change in the near future as promised? Ruining a lot of immersion sitting in the cockpit in VR, trying to muscle-remember where the keyboard with CTR and E is... or pressing three times some unused hat (there is no unused in my setting) on the stick.

Any updates? I plan to buy the Prime the coming months.

3.) yes, after each update I moved the backup joystick file back to the original location. I understand I overwrote updates in the stock joystick.lua. So I will have to edit my modified lines into the stock. I will edit the stock lua with the new settings and report back. edit: you nailed it. Works now. Why the Anti-Skid Parking Brake got a totally different subsumption is incomprehensible for me.. A big "thank you"!

That would be more than I can ask for... I uploaded both the joystick and keyboard .luas. default.lua default.lua

That was a quite interesting newspaper article giving the guys "on the other side" a face. In the more abstract world of DCS it needs pics, names and RL actions to add that much of immersion by pointing out that there's a whole team of specialists trying to take you down with all possible means (and for sure they do know their job) to finally make you feel very uncomfortable flying up there in a >40 year old plane even in a PC game .

Isn't that exactly the problem as I described it and there is NO solution but has to be corrected by the devs? At least in german localization? Just to clarify so that this thread / problem doesn't vanish even if Nezih gets his problem fixed. It's still an issue the update cycle created 2,5 turns before and what has been working prior. I still wait desperately for the promised fix for 1,5 updates!

Thank you all for the answers, giving me really a better overview on the HARM complex of problems.

Ok, so far so good, but even with a pinpoint accurancy waypoint just on the site the "non-beam-riding" HARMs of the 2nd flight (180° off) fired at the waypoint just ignored the waypoint and flew straight line, no descent till they ran out of kinetic energy. It was no miss due to INS inaccuracy, it was as if "no interest" in attacking the waypoint.

I admit I haven't read through all postings very thoroughly, so perhaps it already has been posted, but for better SA there's a helpful command for VR players, and even the Crystal (I can tell as I use the 8KX) will benefit from it. There are two VR zoom steps somewhere in the settings, put them onto your HOTAS and you can spyglass the area you want. This zoom even "cracks open" the dot into the 3D model.

I'm an active 4 wheeler driver and had quite some times driving 14h straight in a bucket seat. Never needed sheepskin neither and I am a spoiled prince on the pea. But it feels so cosy and charming to my butt in winter.

Descriptions / explainations on how a HARM works are both incomplete and contradicting, so I try to recap what I think I understood: The POS modes (RUK, EOM and PB) require a waypoint the HARM flies to and then (depending on the mode lets say 15nm) activate its seeker to pick up the programmed emitter, let's say either "SA-10" for the FlapLid TR or "BB" for its BigBird SR. Even with pinpoint accurancy of the waypoint exactly on the mentioned site the HARM will miss (other than by luck) as long as the radar didn't emit - while the longer the emission the better the HARM will track and hit the target, right? Each Pof the three POS modi seems to work the same with just different off-bore, range and accurancy parameters. So why does the SAM site just turn off its emitter once it detects a ARM in the air? The HARM is fired from 20nm, roughly 40s to impact. Just turn off the radar 10s prior to impact and the missile will miss and no F-16 will get in Maverick range / bomb toss range of 10nm in that time including detection time of 7s of the FlapLid. So, as I need confirmation that it's not a bug, but a feature: yesterday a flight of 2x2 F16 from 180° different direction attacked a FlapLid. While my flight was painted by the FlapLid and four HARMS really rode that beam down in a nice pop-up then downwards track (ok, three of them predictably got shot down while one came through but missed) the other flight with no TR beam illumination on it got its HARMs fly high and straight across the SAM site with no intention to even hit at least the waypoint. No beam active, no HARM will be done? If so, I should consider the HARM really being more of a SEAD, "DEAD only by luck"weapon. But what's the use of a 360k$ missile that could be rendered useless by just pausing your emitter for 10s? Wikipedia tells me that the C got just poor INS and no GPS so it's pretty inaccurate the longer the unguided flight while the (inofficial) F16 manual tells me the more accurate the POS waypoint the better the HARM will hit. I would like to add "as long as the radar emits most of the flight", right? In the given scenario: if the BigBird operator had decided while all eight HARMs in the air that the other flight ingressing dangerously close would have been a bigger threat and turn his FlapLid to this flight these AGM88C would've homed? When / at what distance does the HARM decide not having to rely on emissions anymore but be 100% sure about the targets location? I remember to beat a SAM with anti-radiation-missiles you have to establish a constant lock on you once the missile is on the way - by posing such a threat to the SAM operator that he can't risk losing his sight on you.

Great, as lecuvier already described the problem and provided a possible solution in this exact thread.

No change with actual update, no change with hotfix yet. When will it be fixed?

Load CBU-97, edit Burst Altitude, Arming Delay and Release Angle. While AD and RA are updated in SMS, BA is set to something like 4631ft. Whatever you enter, it's always the same value. However they seem to burst at the set altitude. What about the malfunctioning (broken in prior patch) Parking Brake switch when flipped by an external device (f.e. Bodnar Board) and what about ejecting with just one keypress (for homepit users with an ejection handle) instead of three? No update yet, no info on when this will be fixed. I don't believe that squashing these bugs requires more than two lines of code.

Set BA to 800-900', so "wind exposure" time is at minimum. Check the "bomblet chuting down time from different BA" by observing the Weapon view. Below 800' the CBU might dud. Check wind speed and direction (at 0' AGL, not always easy to check, but then take the wind at your current altitude). Then for every second of "exposure time" you add (approx) half the knots in windspeed in meters / 3,28x foot windwards. That's your new aimpoint. Example: 20kts for (lets guess:) 10s chuting down with wind from 0° = 20kts x 0,5 x 10s = 100m / 328' north of the target. Either do a VRP / VIP for a reference, do some quick maths to shift your long/lat coordinates 100m (cosinus in it, have fun ) or do a rough educated guess either with your TGP for CCRP or your eyeball for CCIP. CBU-97 in high winds is no real fun, best is doing a <=1000' spacing between two serial released bombs right into lee- or windward and aim for the center. If I remember correctly the burst pattern is 1000' long and 300' wide so with a reasonable BA you don't have to worry about even the strongest wind, 10s chute time x 0,5 x X = 2 bombs x 328m <-> X = 2x 2x 328m/10s <-> X= 128 kts. 64kts is 12 Bft. 128kts is a windspeed you might face on Jupiter, I think, not on earth. Just an extreme example. So a single CBU dropped directly from lee- or windward direction will help a lot due to the shape of the explosion ellipse. Is there a mistake in my calculations? If not you can "translate" that into offset angles, again with trigonometry. Two updates ago when the CBU97 was bugged you can imagine how much anger I built up when my calculations just did not match DCS' math...

Can't check ATM, but go to your FCR in one of your MFDs, hit FCR OSB (#2?) again and you should be able to choose also GM, GMT, SEA even in NAV mode. Not 100% sure, but give it a try.

Well, understanding the "why do we boresight" is essential and I've already written the answer in 3 other threads already. Simple forum search would have helped.

Man, these links are pure gold. Looking for that for years but to lazy to do the searching...

No, and I hate that. TACAN isn't a fair equivalent as most or all of the time it's offset to the runway, makes it a bad choice for an IFR landing (without proper charts) as it pulls you down right into the ground way off the runway. Ok, ILS may help with this if the runway got ILS. Mark Point is bad, as it will be overwritten easily. I would like to being able to copy / erase WP.

@BIGNEWY Will you report that problem / probably solution to the devs?