bbrz

Nope. Suggest to re-read his first post. It's about this issue: I have run into a few landings where the velocity circle and the bracket drop completely off the HUD

? Don't know what you want to show or prove with your screenshots. Are you sure that the flap position is identical in both screenshots?

Confirmed. If you compare it with real photos, from the correct seating position the pilot can easily see (at least) a part of the top from the glare panel and even the tip of the pitot. https://www.airliners.net/photo/Singapore-Air-Force/Lockheed-Martin-F-16CJ-Fighting-Falcon/5662641/L?qsp=eJwtjDEOwkAMBP/iGgpAokgXCloo%2BIBlr0JE4E62JThF%2BTt3gW5nR5qZJL0Cn7iVDOrIwSZ32lBm46dTN9MD5Z1M66bzdneszpPFqVRWDvQiyAH9/xdTWFNwWTNDy%2B7bhF1/dGgRHT1PvFYQPE60LF/94i26

And because the AoA is 1deg above optimum you should loose a part of the HUD (and sight of the runway)? Btw, optimum AoA is 13deg. Fast at 11 and slow at 15.

If he really would have been too slow and the AoA too high, there wouldn't be a green AoA indexer light. With both indexer lights on, he's within limits.

Your viewpoint is definitely too low and raising the seat is the correct thing to do. Btw, you don't need to extend the flaps manually on the F-16 and you don't trim. Looking at RW F-16 HUD videos, most pilots seem to fly the approach a tad faster, with the FPV aligned with the upper edge of the AoA bracket. I'd rather fly the final a tad fast than a tad slow! https://youtu.be/5BJP7H52_YM?t=12

If the simulation has it's limitiation and you can't get it right for that reason ok, but intentionally making the FM worse than it actually is for 'security reasons' is simply a no-go for me. I'm designing high quality FMs for other sims and e.g. I fine tuned my F-15 FM until both F-15 IPs said that it's spot on and it did match the performance charts. Same goes for a few other civil and military FMs. If I would design a jet where performance data are available and the max RPM would be 4% too low, and/or the top speed would be off by 10-15kts (my own design limit is +3kts), I could imagine the complaints from the customers. I'm strictly judging this issue from an FM designer POV and I don't see anything ridiculous here. Since the F/A-18 was only a stop gap for the F-16 for, I sincerely hope that NineLine is correct that the F-16 doesn't suffer from this artificial restrictions. But since the F-16 is also still in service and it's much more widely used than the F/A-18, I don't understand why it would be different than with the F/A-18. Btw, since I'm flying the A-10 only clean or very lightly loaded, I'm of course looking very much forward to the new cockpit! :) :) The A-10 and the F-5 are still my most flown modules by far. @ironhand, thanx a lot about taking your time to not only post the links but also for providing the time stamps. :thumbup: :)

? You still didn't provide a link and I do trust and highly value NineLines comments.

Highly appreciated, thanx :) :)

Thanks for jumping in NineLine :) In that case I would really like to know why =4c=Nikola spreads wrong rumors about Matt having Yo-Yo intentionally 'dumbing down' the various flight models.

If that's actually the case I'm glad that I haven't bought the F-16 yet and I think that I can safely delete DCS.

That makes sense e.g. in case of systems and weapons/weapons delivery, but this argument wouldn't make much sense if e.g. the A-10 flies 10kts lower than it should with external loads. Too low RPM while achieving the correct speed is simply a sign of a less than perfect engine/airframe combo simulation.

Why should you? If you e.g. don't perform the fire warning test IRL there are no consequences either, except the bad feeling that you don't know if it works when you need it.

link?

If you would have read the last few posts you would have noticed that this apparently depends on the loadout, so it could be only partially true...if you believe in this conspiracy theory.

If the joystick is off center you have to recalibrate and/or increase the deadzone. Btw, why are you posting the same problem in three different threads?

(steady) wind has absolutey zero effect on an airplane in flight. The only things that are affected are ground speed and track over ground.

But how is it possible that e.g. top speed and climb rate in clean config are matching (and even slightly exeeding) the -1 performance data?

In this case the clean performance would be lower as well.

That's likely, but still a bit strange since the DCS A-10 matches (and even exceeds) the -1 performance date in clean configuration with the too low N1.

Why should taxiing around at less than 5kts be 'earth shattering?'

Exactly

Nevermind, maybe it's a language thing. E.g. in my language such an emphasis isn't uncommon (although usually spoken).

Apparently you don't, otherwise you wouldn't run into these problems ;)

Ever heard of emphasis?