Martin2487

I did a test on the original mission from which the track is. The AWACS on my mission was the E-3A. I received the first SURV contact up to a distance of 126 nautical miles. This means that the problem still exists here. I exchanged AWACS for E-3D. Now there was a great surprise. Not only was I able to confirm your distance values but I even reached the nominal transmission distance. I obtained SURV contact from AWACS E-3D at a distance of 320 NM. The target flew in a parallel course with AWACS so that the test was not affected and it was easy to determine the distance for transmission. Really good job I think you found something interesting. I think we can say that with Link-16 itself as a protocol there is no problem in terms of data transmission distance. The problem will be in AWACS E-3A. But since it works correctly on another AWACS, I believe that the repair will be easy because it is already correctly implemented in DCS. I think this is crucial news for creators and participants of missions where they are battling over long distances. Screenshot from the test is attached. I think the thread can be marked as resolved and can be closed. I will create a bug report on AWACS E-3A.

Thanks for the test. I'll check it.

The checklist page shows a different weight of GBU-32 than in ME. In the mission editor, the weight of GBU-32 is 1030 lbs. In aircraft, the checklist page shows the weight of GBU-32 531 lbs. Evidence Two screenshots from ME. The first is an aircraft without ammunition on pylons. The weight is 36775 lbs. The second screenshot shows an aircraft with one GBU-32 on the hanger. The weight is 37805 lbs 37805 - 36775 = 1030 lbs https://i.imgur.com/JbHhndC.jpg https://i.imgur.com/LV9B9jo.jpg Next are two screenshots from the aircraft displays. The first is the weight of the aircraft without ammunition on the hangers. The weight is 36935 lbs. The second screenshot is an airplane with one GBU-32 on the hanger. The weight is 37466 lbs. 37466-36935 = 531 lbs https://i.imgur.com/TvZk2qb.png https://i.imgur.com/aovpehF.png Track link. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JVuIWeRF7GS9OG9pOqRsLDcu4LYJkJz8/view?usp=sharing

If I want to get the TGT waypoint using the HUD, the AGR should be activated automatically. This is not happening. As can be seen on the track AGR does not activate when I give priority to the HUD (sensor switch FWD). Activation does not occur automatically even if I select a weapon in CCIP. I chose a cannon for the track. As soon as I put the sensor switch forward (on the HUD), the AGR must be activated automatically to measure the slant range and radar ground elevation. It should be automatic. In the current state, it is necessary to select the weapon and press the sensor switch FWD again and then the AGR will be activated. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q3XOXAHSMlKeIANTmPt7z6qaVJH7gum_/view?usp=sharing

I sincerely hope not. 100 nautical miles is quite a bit. AWACS simply cannot fly so close to the combat zone. And we don't have another sensor (SURV) that would contribute to the Link-16 network in DCS. Even an aircraft carrier does not contribute to the network. I wonder how it is with the transmission distance of Link-4 at F-14 in DCS (from AWACS to plane)? I don't have this plane so I can't test it.

It is strange. However, the TWS radar mod in DCS performs NCTR. . On the radar screen in the TWS is the item named NCTR(boxed). So if according to your message the TWS radar can't do NCTR. So there is a bug that has a different name? "NCTR is available in radar TWS mode". Because as I wrote, if I move the radar cursor in TWS at a distance below 25 nm to the target, the HAFU symbol on the host will change. The only information that can be changed according to the ROE matrix is NCTR (an aircraft that is marked as a hostile in the library). I also don't understand why the topic is marked as Corect as is. The IFF ROE matrix is still the same in the aircraft. The aircraft receives a negative IFF Mode 4 response. And now watch out only below a distance of 25 NM identifies the target as a hostile in TWS. Based on what information?

If I want to do NCTR in TWS the SA page will not show the aircraft type. The HAFU symbol is assigned correctly, but the aircraft type is not displayed even though it is in the NCTR library of the aircraft. The track is attached. Track

Yes, no AWACS or donor. The track is from a mission where there is one F/A-18 (piloted) and about 3 IL-78.Yes, I saw the targets on the SA page. You can look at my track or test it yourself can be easily verified.

I found that when I switch the radar to AG, I am still able to detect targets in the air. Information on the speed and altitude targets is still updated. I tested the problem, the test is part of the attached track. On the AMPCD, I viewed the SA page and switched to AG with a button in the cockpit. As you can see the radar still detects targets. If AG activates the radar using the SURF button on the radar screen I see the same problem. It is obvious that this is clearly a bug. APG-73 is not an AESA radar. It can operate in one mode only. It cannot track targets in the air and on the ground at the same time. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AI-Ccg7v03yhUuDUszdNBEFHorHTVceZ/view?usp=sharing

If I make a markpoint from a TGT waypoint using TGP, I get an elevation in meters on the HSI-DATA page. However, markpoint elevation cannot be switched to feet on the HSI-DATA page. You can switch the elevation from meters to feet on the waypoint. I think it should work similarly for markpoints. I demonstrated the problem on the attached track. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bOwTrlGuPv3n5Y5JtKMMDGTklelSuV9O/view?usp=sharing

I tried it with AI wingman. I can confirm that I did not receive the position air target from him via the datalink.

Since the end of the year is approaching and a certain time has passed since we received the last function on the datalink, I would like to ask ED what functions he is preparing for us in the F/A-18 for Link 16. We have a road map. But when it comes to Link-16, I don't see much there. Thanks.

At present, I have no data that there is a TACAN at Khasab Airport in the real world, but I can ask the same question at Al-Minhad Airport. Does Al-Minhad have a TACAN in the real world? He was not there at the time the map was released and you decided to add it later. So I still don't understand why on one part of the map it has to correspond to the real world and on the other it can be fictitious?

The TACAN station has disappeared from the map. I recently found out that the TACAN station, which had been there for a long time, disappeared from Khasab Airport. I am aware that some other TACAN stations have been added (such as Al-Minhad) but I do not know why the TACAN station was removed from Khabab Airport. I understand adding new things, but when something is removed, we should know if it's a benefit. And I honestly don't see anything beneficial in removing radionavigation equipment. For the map of the Persian Gulf, for example, the author of the Papi series FLIP charts is created,https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wvFmgldvNmaGwgORQykxH3h81aSuyQar/view which includes a procedure where the TACAN approach is at Khasab Airport. These charts are also part of LotAtc. These charts reach practically professional standards and I think we should not frustrate the efforts of people who have devoted enough time to this product.

I have similar results as BIGNEWY The only difference I notice is that BIGNEWY has a slightly sharper image on his radar. At least that's how it seems to me. I attach my screenshots. I don't have as bad results as Harker. @Harker try to do the usual procedure (repair and cleanup DCS) and test it again.

@Harker It is interesting. I can say that it is much better than when I wrote a bug report. I am able to detect 1 tank, which was completely impossible before (at the time when the A / G radar with exp modes came out, but after the update it was not possible). I'll look at the mission I gave Harker. So far, I tried to put 5 pieces of 2S19 Msta on the asphalt, which I was able to detect without any problems. I will try to gradually test the other units in your mission. @BIGNEWY Thanks for the pictures, it looks amazing.

I fixed the links to the screenshots on imgur.com. I hope they are already visible to you.:)

I see three screenshots. I use to insert a screenshots https://ctrlv.cz/en. I hope this doesn't cause a problem. You really do not see the screenshots?

After an update (DCS 2.5.6.54046) that changed the rendering of the A/G radar, is practically impossible to capture ground units. Model situation, for the first case, I borrow a screenshot from a colleague diditopgun https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=284442 from his bug report. A total of 9 T-80U tanks, in a column formation of three pieces. After the update with the same parameters of the A/G radar setting (EXP 3) distance of approx. 5-6 nm, I do not see either a normal T-80U unit or a static unit(Persian Gulf map). Just nothing, see screenshot. Screenshot from bug report diditopgun My screenshot Track https://drive.google.com/file/d/1geFvvlRGikYLVcr8z7iXI1J5utY7fo2G/view?usp=sharing I did a second test with a larger concentration of units, the results are really very bad. Some reflections are there but they are quite slight. It also seems that some units are not captured at all. The test included columns of 10 vehicles BRDM-2, T-72B, BMP-2, BTR-80, Smerch, ZSU-23-4 Shilka, Ural-432031 Armored, Kamaz 43101, SA-13, SA-15, SA-19, SA-8. The attached track shows the situation. I changed among others and contrast to try to demonstrate the ability zahycení goals and their reflection / contrast on the radar. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xxHrymmbkYuv5FVnMi6QcF3qKRqMzO9-/view?usp=sharing Track https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d_PBWMMUgKzBuXaOXGDhX8RaY_a8XEIp/view?usp=sharing Mission file Screenshot from test

Yes, this format supports Hornet. See HSI-DATA if you press PRECISE the coordinate format will be expanded. It even supports DDD.MM.MMMM. The basic format is DDD.MM.MM after pressing PRECISE it expands from two decimal places.

If I switch to AA mode (using the button on the left side of the cockpit) while AG radar and its EXP3 mode are being used. I can't change the radar scale in RWS mode. The scale value from the AG radar, eg 17, will remain on the radar (see attached track). https://drive.google.com/file/d/13jcbWK3NhvZD7JsSHmgPDu_e_dAmWLkc/view?usp=sharing

Font marks on TGP (meter stick, north arrow) is blurred. The attached photo shows that, unlike the other symbols, the meter stick and north arrow symbols are blurred. The display resolution does not affect this, the font is blurred by all users.

There is currently no way to extend the TGP coordinate format by one or more decimal places. The basic coordinate format(DDD.MM.MM) is too inaccurate for JDAM (one decimal place is missing). When I say inaccurate, just for example, the coordinates in the format as on TGP (DDD.MM.MM) have an accuracy of 18.5 meters. If you want to pass on the coordinates for JDAM to others, TGP will not provide you with the necessary coordinates. My guess was that the format would expand after pressing PRECISE, but unfortunately the coordinate format will remain the same.

Based on the contribution of Santi871, I found out that laser ranging is not implemented. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4387824&postcount=15 But based on the fact that you are writing no evidence, I would like to know how it will be implemented when the laser is out of range. I agree that the symbology may be different, but I am sure that the pilot must be informed in some way that the distance cannot be measured with a laser rangefinder.

Thanks for the response and data transfer to the team. But what is the result? Do you consider it a WIP or a bug? I understand it won't be fixed in a week. But there is some road map F/A-18 where it also datalink Link-16. So I think it would be good if it showed up there. As I wrote, the current distance is really insufficient. I'm not saying that we need tomorrow the distances as they are listed in the materials I sent, but I would like to see a gradual increase in distance. I can see friendly contacts that send PPLI over long distances. But I can only see contacts that send AWACS via datalink at distances of +/- 100 NM. What's stopping it? I thought it was just a parametric change. Would it have a significant impact on performance? If this is a problem that requires major code changes, I think it would be a good solution to increase the number of resources that are able to send contacts to the Link-16 network (Arleigh Burke, CVN, Patriot, Hawk).