DoctorVixen

"but for now the hornet gets the love because of the new map and the supercarrier module." it's also first in line, so considering these things it does seem to make some sense and seems fair also. It means waiting if u want to have the full viper now. I hope new EA releases will have a bit more features where it's less noticeable that stuff is missing. So instead of modeling mandatory maverick alignments and tweaking shutdown sounds for EA releases we get updates that matter a bit more. But i get why current choices are made. Viper is a lot of fun to fly as is, it can only get better. depending on who you ask an incomplete viper is still better then no viper. The f18 updates seem to go pretty fast, once they are done i think we will see more updates on the f16 that have a bit more impact.

If you're ok with paying 80 bucks now and getting the full value a few years later you should buy it. If you want the full bang for your buck you have some time left. It also depends what you would like to fly, if you just love the f16 just get that. Honestly if you don't have the f18 or a10 and like to have lots of system implementations i would go for one of those. Jf17 is pretty nice too. But the f16 is very nice to fly, very fast and agile. Great bvr beast, but has a lot missing and the problem is that you notice it.

Thank you for you answer, impressive that you know al this. it makes a bit more sense now. as for: DCS is a bit goofy with handoff right now because it's not doing it on TMS forward release events. It should be a great workload saver requiring only a TMS forward press and release per missile instead of slewing the missiles manually which is not so easily especially during some dynamic maneuvering. i am not having any problems with the autohandoff though, tms forward seems to work for me, if the autohandoff fails i can go tms aft from tgp and retry the handoff straight away. made a track file where i handoff too early, i go tms aft and can retry, it works pretty ok. but from all the 6 missiles fired i think only 4 hit (maybe i was outside of params, not sure), probably dropping 1 cbuu-97 would have been easier and more effective. autohandoff.trk

When starting the DCS Viper cold there are two FLCS tests if you want a quiet clean cockpit. There is a BIT Test and another switch to test the FLCS found in the panel behind it Pitot heat is way in the back on the left side It's not exactly clear to me what i am supposed to learn the hard way if i don't do this. Because i pretty much don't do these things and i am not having any issues. -- basically, flip 3 switched in the f16 and you are good to go. I made a track of my f16 cabrio i use when the weather is nice. It's a chick magnet :P. 123-f16StartUp.trk

Then the missing manual on the website wouldn't be much of an issue for you, 100% agree on that. Still fixing a link seems not too hard, it might help in makings some customers happy who have less optimized ways of doing things . Agreed?

I often catch myself reading manuals in bed. Haha i know i said i read when bored and can't fly, but actually yeah catching myself reading in bed sometimes :P.

each mav has his own seeker, but i dont remember if u can step per missile or per pylon. For alignment you only need to do it 1 per pylon, which pretty much makes not too much sense if u ask me. but i am no expert. But it suggests that only the pylon currently can be 'misaligned' whereas the maverick connected to the pylon is thus always perfectly aligned, but i am sure as hell not asking for an update :P/

It's my current preference, but when they patch it it wont be anymore :P. Another preference is that i pick a cbu-97 over a mav almost anytime anyway. I am not a big fan of the obligatory alignment anyway, yeah its realistic i know. Doing all the test before startup properly in an f14 is realistic too, takes 20 minutes , if it's obligatory then nobody is gonna fly the f14 on multiplayer.

u can also first designate a target for every maverick lets say 6. then fire them all rapidly.

yeah autohandoff sounds really great but it's a bit overrated, it works fine ( with aligned mavs). You can see a lot better on the TGP, but the actual lock u won't be making sooner then just going manual on the mav seeker and lock yourself. I like the handoff anyway because it gets the mav seeker somewhat close, i can still go SOI on WPN and lock from there. Mavericks are somewhat hard on the f16 compared to most planes, it took me quite some practise but i think they pretty much work as intended and somewhere in your procedure you forgot something, most probably the aligning part if u didn't start in flight. If u still can't get it to work see if you can get it to work when starting in flight. If starting from in flight works for u then it's pretty much that u need to align the mavs and you should be good to go.

I tend to go there if I am considering to buy a module, and read in the manual to get a feel what to expect (because u don't have the manual on disk at that time). Other then that, and the fact that dead links feel like a surprise that sucks, not a big issue. Actually when i bought the game, i usually do the in game training and watch some youtube videos. I read the manual sometimes if i am bored but can't fly:P.

people can find it here [drive]:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\F-16C\Doc just checked too, its updated with updates 27th here too

Have u checked if they update the installed manual when they release an update on a manual?

It does! Great help by the community! that was however not the problem. The problem was the official manual is not available. The thing that should have happened is someone from ED responding and ED fixing a dead link. But maybe that's very complex, so it will take a while. Meanwhile they can hyperlink the official link to the link in this post

I've done some testing, but it seems the lock often becomes stable a lot at about the 42 mile mark, resulting in instant lock loss because its switching to the 40 mile range , in which i can't seem to lock until it is well within the 40 mile range again. Have not noticed the lock being any better after switching from rws to tws either. i am back to the old workaround, just using tws only seems to work best. yes i am losing locks, but in RWS i am losing even more locks. I would be interested in a video though. Note i fly a lot on growling sidewinder, everyone always hiding in the mountains so keeping lock is hard anyway. And so is actually hitting, because of this. We have been waiting long and we need to wait longer. We can be nice and say we need to wait a little longer but I think we need to face the facts. The fact is that this bug is years old and reported numerous times, and that we hate this bug and want to see it fixed. The other fact is that ED knows about this bug but doesn't find it important enough to actually fix it. I mean c'mon it shouldn't take years to fix a bug, they have done 0 work on it, while saying they are working on it. Putting this bug at the bottom of some list is not my vision of working on a bug. About the priorities: This bug was here before the anouncement of for example the apache module being worked on. That their priority is making money and getting new customers and modules out and therefore don't see time to fix bugs existing customers are facing is no excuse, at least not for me. I get it, fixing bugs doesn't make the bank account bigger, it should however have priority. Good foundations can be built on better and faster. bugs in existing code find their ways into new code, that's just how it works. It's then even harder to fix then it was in the first place. Technical debt is called so for a reason, it IS a debt and it will bite you in the ass and demand payback sooner or later, we all hope later. Releasing a new early access (full fidelity ahem) module is what brings new money, and we all would buy it the day it's released, (and then wonder why the f*** this is sold as full fidelity, because we all know there is no such thing as early access full fidelity, it's just early access, and it might be full fidelity someday, but it might be early access for 10 years too, that's 10 years flying in a full fidelity priced low fidelity model) Actually the FC3 modules are also full fidelity, they only have to say they will implement the clickable cockpit someday and tadaa early acces full fidelity man. quadruple the pricing! That said i have no doubt that if ED says they are making a full fidelity model it will be so, and in the end you get quality. i bought the ka50 ages ago, i still play it, heck i started with flaming cliffs 1, 2 then 3 it's still here. There are no other games that are like that, so considering that, modules are really good value. the price is 100% worth it. so good thing and bad things. mostly good! Personally I think ED should be aiming in a different direction. We have Jets, Helo's and Vehicles now. The multiplayer aspect should be the focus together with the existing modules, and the work on the new engine and the clouds. It should do some videos promoting multiplayer, and some advertising. It should not matter if use steam or not. The multiplayer and flying together is the thing that has the greatest potential to let the playerbase BOOM ( and with booming playerbases come booming sales too). Compared to few years ago DCS is becoming something more and more people have heard of, flight sims in general are very popular at the moment (2020/2021). There are great opportunities now

Hi i noticed the floodlighting is pretty much invisible in the f16 if it is daytime (even on a dark day). I don't have this problem in the jf17, as with most jf17 stuff it just works as expected. Also when u start early in the morning the mfd's are not readable, for some reason the brigtness of the mfd is lowered when hopping in a warm plane at dawn. I always need to fix the brightness.....it makes no sense. invisibleanduselessfloodlight.trk invisiblemfd.trk thisisvisiblefloodlight.trk

i found not using any filters from dcs helps a lot, i put these filters on but from the nvidia geforce panel. also the latest windows feature update helps against stuttering especially when people are connecting to a server.

First of all i would like an actual full fidelity model of the f16, it's advertised as such but in reality its NOT. Same goes for the unfinished supercarrier i bought. Also bought the ka50 ages ago, also work is not continuing on that. Second the Apache is coming and the Hind ( finishing the f16 would seem more logical ), but if that means its coming in 2021 and will be full fidelity somewhere in 2027 as with the f16 release then i am not interested. Learned my lesson. I wont buy early access modules coming from RAZBAM or ED anymore. I hope RAZBAM and ED learned something too that will make me change my mind, but will have to see. i am not too optimistic. If i had to place a bet, i'd say we get the same as the f16 a fully clickable cockpit with implemented functionality of a FC3 module and a lot of promises. You should finish wat you start, ED is starting too much and finishing too little in my opinion. I wish for focus. start a module and finish that before starting 10 new projects. I'd rather have 1 good module then 10 unfinished modules. It might be complex but if DEKA can do it then it raises questions why ED with 20+ years experience in the field has not been able to churn out such a successful launch. ED should evaluate their development pipeline and do some comparisons with the development pipeline of DEKA.

it can help to move all controls to the max outputs when starting a mission. also don't mess with the time speeding the track. But yes the track file's are very iffy, lately on top of the last 10 minutes missing in track files on multiplayer you cant see enemies anymore (i know its a setting from the server), but it makes multiplayer track files completely useless. on some server u can download a 400 mb track file like a day after. Obviously thats very annoying as well.

thx, i wasn't doing it exactly as u pointed out, not needing stt is a big plus so ill practise the workaround as you just told me.

Hey thx for the extra info. Btw i haven't heard of these missions before, i play a lot of multiplayer lately, it has a different vibe, and i am starting to develop some bad habits. I should do some proper missions some more and i haven't really used the nevada map much, and now i seem to have a nice use for it. thx again

I noticed also that all missiles seem to overshoot the target slightly, however in still in range of the target so it does receive damage from the explosion. Is this similar to how the real missile behaves?

do they set a waypoint especially for this and do the slave onto some landmark at that waypoint, or do they setup some object to align on? Or do they align on the intended target during a first recognition pass? Just interested.

...in the meantime..i've gotten used to aligning the mavericks now, and it doesn't take me very long anymore. U don't have to do it either, u can slew the first target manual, and press bsgt before u fire, then the next mav on the same rack will be aligned at least. Also in multiplayer it could be a bit of a chore, but if u land your plane you dont have to realign again after rearming i think. I am wondering though, do the pilots align the missiles normally or will a technician do it?

I am sorry , while writing all of this i went into rant mode (apologies). I love what ED is doing and i also love the f16, so much so it can get me into rant mode, so it's actually a compliment when i rant like that :). But i have had some disappointments, i could have read it was missing many features, but i wouldn't be able not to buy it anyway. I've been here since fc3, the first ka-50 and then dcs world.... The thing that keeps me coming back is the realism. But how deka developed this module is pretty impressive, there are some tasks u can do two ways yourself or via delegation, in wich the latter is faster and easier. Every client can decide how he would like to play and it doesn't affect the realism in my opinion of a full fidelity model.