void68

From what I understand: once the HARM gathered enough information with triangulation in EOM mode it should have gotten pinpoint accuracy to the target more or less when it's inactive. If the radar is emitting it just rides down the beam to the target. A tracking radar constantly painting you should always result in a 100% hit if you set it to target in the HAS page. A Flap Lid painting you and you've set and launched the HARM against a "10" should result in a hit. But it does not, perhaps once in three tries it succeeds without one single HARM got shot down. HARMs are BS, far too unreliable.

No, it isn't. I already have the stable release installed, and I just want to parallel install the beta. But I noticed the beta installation doesn't want to go to C, but to the installation drive of the stable release (what is G drive). So I think there's already some "installation path".txt or .ini somewhere. We are getting closer, I think.

I just want to use the most basic installation option implemented in every other software: define where the game will be installed. DCS doesn't give me the option. What to do? I can't let DCS decide to install on c : and then move / clone it to another drive simply because I don't have 150GB free on my c :. And as I refuse to accept that I can't choose the drive/directory of my liking. Also I fear the mess up my installation of the stable version. What am I missing?

Can't help with nothing else but guessing... from thinking I have understood why it's needed at all: Even a minimum inaccuracy of a fracture of a degree while mounting the launching racks will lead to a huge deviation at 10nm or so. Trigonometry tells me that at about 1° at 18km deviation is 320m. Still I wonder why there's no tolerance in the mounting of the Mavericks to the launcher as you always just boresight each launcher. So, if the launchers kept mounted and just the Maverick are added then following my "logic" there's no BS needed. If the launchers are refitted BS needed. However... perhaps it's a matter of factory / storage precision. Perhaps they got precise instruments in attaching the Mavericks to the rail so they are always perfect aligned in the shed. And then the ... somewhat crude ground crew with big paws, greasy fingers and a worn out wrench attach the rails somehow to the wing resulting in perfect aligned Maves in a misaligned rail. Just a guess.

Each screen has to be fed with approx 1,4 times (depends on the model) oversampling of the native resolution to neutralize barrel / pin cushion effect due to the lenses' distortion.

That should be read "if you use beta I think boresighting does work and you have to re-boresight like before", sorry for that. As I haven't tested neither beta yet and thought it behaves like before where as far as I remember you have to re-boresight in the previous stable release(s) when you get a new bunch of Mavericks loaded. Can't actually test it, as with current stable it's broken.

Same here, but with all devices, depends on your motherboard and / or the behaviour of your USB Hub (no signal->turn off power), I think. Soft shutting down your PC doesn't mean it's off. There might be a BIOS setting if USB ports are still powered when in soft off. "Once upon a time" we had big red levers on the side of the case, just a flip and the PC was off. Totally OFF! Physically disconnected from the grid. There's a tiny little reminiscence on these golden times: Your power supply block usually got a tiny switch with almost the same function. Just turn it off after shutdown and your USB devices (not powered through a hub) should turn off too.

Beta? You have to re-boresight. Stable release? Boresighting is broken.

You a) lost part of your lift on your left wing and b) your loadout is asymmetric with the right wing being heavier. The faster you fly the more lift is generated on the right, intact wing so you have to trim right. When you slow down for landing your starboard wing doesn't generate so much lift anymore so the weight has far more impact on your trim causing the right wing to come down and you have to trim left. Without any speed and so without any lift the right wing would be 90° downwards (like in a 90° bank angle) taking into account the less mass on the damaged port wing and the additional ordnance on the right wing, so constant trimming is needed and perfectly (?) simulated. To counter this you might switch your fuel->engine feed on the left console, in this case I would turn the switch from "NORM" to "FORWARD", sucking the right wing tanks empty first. You can observe how much is already pumped by checking the two hands dial ("F" and "A") on your right console "Fuel". Beware that might shift your center of gravity, as these are combined "forward and right" and "after and left" tanks! If the left wing wasn't damaged you would just have to check for the remaining dummy Sidewinder's weight and suck that amount from the standard left/right fuel tanks difference but usually any A2A ordnance is no factor for trim adjustments. I do this when I got a few heavyweights left on one side of the wing. An asymmetric landing can be quite demanding...

Just faced it myself yesterday. With Release Angle of >0° it works better, with RA 0° it's a below 50% chance. Several straight and level attack runs on a site, enought time for INS and TGP to stabilize on target. Perfect view, no obstacles or clouds, no hard banking and even managed to maintain a constant TGP fix on the target most of the time. GBU-12 and CCRP, what else. While in the attack run (straigt and level), the Dynamic Launch Zone bracket appeared, disappeared. Turning around (with sight on the target), the DLZ was suddenly there, then vanished without any reason and did not come back in time. If the DLZ was shown in the HUD, the bomb released almost 100%. Without DLZ it does not, of course. I was in the right parameters for the attack on the static ground target. I did 10 attack runs with perfect parameters and was able to release 2 GBU-12 which hit the target. Interesting fact and in contrary to the above said: Once there is a DLZ bracket you can release your GBU as long as the marker is in the bracket, no need for pressing and holding prior to the drop circle flashing but I have to investigate that a bit further so don't take my observation all too valid. No track recorded cause it was on a restricted multiplayer server and... I already did so much testing on the bugged CBU-97(fixed), bugged Maverick boresighting, bugged CBU-105 and now the GBU-12 that I am kind of fed up. Just fire up a GBU-12 mission in Mission Editor and check.

In 2D: In the cockpit, Cockpit Panel View (CPV) toggles between normal FOV and a closer panel view. There are some strange behavious if switching between external views and Cockpit and CPV, but ok. In 3D: Works the same as long as you aren't switching to external view. Once back in the cockpit (F1) view there is no CPV anymore. I don't recall if thes setting stays with the extended "zoomed out" view or the more narrow view closer to the panels. The CPV toggle / key doesn't do anything anymore. From what I think how it should be used apart from that it's broken: Normal view -> CPV -> Zoom -> Spyglass and you get 4 zoom levels. Current stable version used.

VR surrounding - so how do I map my mouse view in external to the mouse XY axis on my FLCS analog joystick? While the throttle grip's radar cursor joystick works as expected I can't find a DCS' input entry possibility for "Camera left/right", "up/down" and "zoom" for any controller other than the mouse (routed to MouseX, Y and Z). I tried to edit the .lua, but I just find keyboard.lua and joystick.lua, but I need to take a peek into a mouse.lua for the correct syntax. In "controller settings" in DCS the approbiate cells in the table are "greyed out", well, in fact they are in a different blue than in the mouse controller column meaning they can't be activated for any joystick device. What's the use of not letting the user decide what analog input they want for camera movement? How do you force DCS to accept the joystick's mouse as a system mouse? I don't want to use workarounds like "define controller's analog stick as mouse" etc like it was possible with the Warthog a century ago. Also I don't want to turn the analog stick into a simple 5 way hat with digital output. I want to benefit from the analog output.

Thanks, but Maverick thread was already there, CBU-105 also. CBU-97 was corrected with last stable patch. Maverick is corrected with beta before the current beta but there hasn't been a stable release for months.

Well, like Exorcet said... it's nicely simulated on first sight. But there are quite some unnecessary bugs that tear my hair for a year: TGP problems, Maves not boresighting, inprecise precision ammunition and lots more. Still it's a superb aircraft to fly - you should definitevely try it and join the band of the desenchated... the more money they got from us the more they owe us!

Check for the "DATA" text on your HUD once your teammates have sent you some interesting information and look for the "+" or "x" sign on your HSD. Verify your XMT button (right upper button #6 or #7 I guess of the HSD page) is set to L16 or something and not "OFF". I don't recall the exact terms, I am not in my F16 ATM.

Did you perform a "check program integrity" or an update (perhaps a hidden one)? That defaults your .lua.

You proved me wrong... No, I have none, not yet, but you just made me a new project. However the starboard side is my cockpit entry, and it's already cramped like hell, forces me to stay somewhat "slim". I fear I have to climb a ladder into the cockpit soon...

No, it does not work. Not at all. Not with the current stable version. If you like open beta, then you will get boresighting.

Sorry for confirming my own opinion / knowledge :), but I got the usual "full movement stick" accessories (or better: for Force Sensing removed parts like cams and springs) in an extra package. I don't recall if it was the extra package with 3 different cams and springs or just the spare parts. Also telling from Winwings h/p you can change back to full movement stick. However: Winwing wrote that they don't recommend installing the MFSSB on your own, in fact it came installed. So it looks like it's a one way street. Once back you are lost. No knowledge of installing the force sensing module myself. c) option just gives you the movement within 5mm range, i.e. 5mm range for full deflection of rudders, no matter how much expo, that's insane. And no, that's not like in the real F16. It's option a)

There is a "cheat" mode like "MFD / HUD only view" (CTRL+F1 or so, can't look ATM) with a full front view with just the enlarged MFDs and the HUD visible. I use this a lot, cause in VR the MFDs' content is even hard to recognize and identify. Also you can do a Zoom Into for better resolution. Still it's hard to find targets through the ground clutter like trees, rocks, buildings. I think that simulates real life problems - your targets will do almost everything so that you don't see them. Same with IR (or radar), the days are gone where vehicles are so much hotter than their surroundings. If you take a parked truck the IR signature will match the surrounding temperature but the black, in sunlight heated up tyres will shine bright in (WHOT) IR. Impressively realistic. Try an (IR) Maverick - D in plain daylight desert and the seeker gets a pretty hard job finding a proper heat signature. That's what the MFD's brightness, contrast and IR intensity (and radar gain) switches are for. Play around with the settings in WHOT, BHOT and TV mode and you will notice that a proper setting will result in the target gets killed rather than you. With old, more arcade like flightsim times an IR sensored weapon "saw" every tank all the time, it was always the best choice (even in the old Falcon 4.0). With the actual F16 / Mavericks I prefer TV guided most of the time and choose IR only for night missions (well, I don't use Maves at all ATM due to broken boresighting) or in winter conditions. I still have to figure out if vehicles change heat signature in relation to cooling down after travel. SAM launchers (the launcher ramp) are pretty cold, as they just sit and wait and are powered via a remote generator with litte "garbage energy" like heat losses. A tank in full speed is a very hot target. The right mode, the right sensor, the right weapon, that's the key.

Boresighting was messed up with latest stable release. However it seems it has been fixed again in the actual beta but I can't confirm (as I usually don't play betas... usually but nowadays I hardly find any software that isn't in lifetime beta stage if applying last century's standards...)

I think it's for convenience: First usually we aren't trained F16 pilots and some of us are pretty limb in their arms. Imagine pulling a 10l iron bucket of water upwards each time you do a high G pitch... second real life F16 got an armrest to support your just back-for moving arm while I doubt that even in a simpit anybody built an armrest for support and help pulling 11kg out of your shoulder / upper arm joint subscapularis muscle. And 7kg for rolling, power originating only either out of your hand joint or elbow or the same, now doing inefficient rotational work subscapularis muscle... that's quite a lot.

From the Winwing site, haven't found the original quote, however. Telling from my experience I can confirm that the extra movement comes in quite handy.

I might be wrong, but itsn't it meant to move that 5mm for microcorrection, hit the boundary and then it's only the force "on top". You need very little force to move the stick what makes it fine for ... fine tuning, while after a certain amount of movement you need force? I think that's exactly like it's in the F16? Perhaps we misunderstand each other. Well, give the Winwing a closer look into its configuration, perhaps it might help :).

That's a feature. You can choose between 3 different settings: a) 5mm movement like a default stick and then force sensing b) no movement and only force sensing c) just movement (I think, can't verify at the moment) I read that a) is the real steel feeling of the F16 as they noticed that pilots like micromovement over micropressure but that can be wrong(*). Telling from personal use a) works very very well. Can't say anything negative about the Winwing yet apart from the lack of a proper programming software other than 3rd party. It's still compatible to usual "movement" joystick behaviour by deconstructing the MFSSB and put the different springs and CAM back into the body. China quality seems to have improved to somewhat... menacing. Complete F-16 set throttle and stick for 770€. edit: * just read at the RS homepage itself that my assumption is right. There is real movement, so Winwing (and RS) is reflecting this correctly. Also the Winwing FS can be adjusted on how much force input is needed for what output.