TheBigTatanka

Also a 135 guy here.... I've gotten the DCS tanker to do a delta RV with "unit in zone" and "go to waypoint" commands... But it's a pain. What we really need is a tanker module for the sim. Being able to go get the fighters, or to hold near them on the edge of your refueling area, and then turn to put them 3-5nm abeam your jet as you turn back to the anchor....that's money. A smarter tanker AI, and better GCI from the AWACS are two things i would love to see. That, and fix the weak/back-lit light on the right side of the tanker position lights. Sorry, didn't mean to steer the thread in another direction.... Controlling the bank angle of the tanker, as well as other features would be awesome. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

That right light is sooo hard to read! I think it's because of the backlighting on the right side. Even at night it's impossible to see clearly. A standalone would be nice. Good idea. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Does changing the UTC date on the DED fix the DATALINK? If you make it match up with the local date? Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I've been having a pretty regular experience with F-16s in my flight (other hot started human controlled jets) dropping off the fighter to fighter DATALINK and becoming green instead of blue contacts. I'm also experiencing the intermittent DATALINK info from AWACS, but do expect that is because of range and aspect of the AWACS. Is there any guidance on how to set up the AWACS in the editor to provide the best coverage? Would two AWACS help? Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I really wish there was a way to improve those tanker lights. Maybe they've gotten dim over the years. My dad was a 6k hour fighter guy, and said the lights were much much brighter back in his day (he also flies DCS now). It's one of his main gripes with the realism of DCS. I'm a KC-135 pilot, and I wish I could tell you, but those were always off during walk arounds, lol. Seriously though -- I don't understand why they can't be turned up, or for someone to figure out what texture / effect controls them so they can be modded by the community.

I agree with the original poster -- having such a tool would make the life of mission designers and server managers a lot easier. For example... We could have one flight of 4 with unlimited ammo and they could be for BFM practice (missiles respawn). Then we could have another flight with limited ammo for going to the bombing range and dropping your 6 mk82s and strafing. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Rad, I'm showing the same problem you are. It's as if the bullseye location changes to be the bugged target. Cursor bullseye works fine, until you lock a target, then that target becomes the bullseye. I can't believe no one caught this in testing. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I started this discussion over in the hornet forums because it was about Hornet sustained turn rate with pylons vs without..... I was just looking for numbers on our DCS Hornet. Somehow it turned into a hornet vs viper rate flight model discussion, and an admin merged it with the viper roadmap thread ...... Which i regret, lol. One thing we've asked ED to do is, when the flight models are done, is to publish EM diagrams for the jets in game (as they fly in game). That would give us a good starting point to continue this discussion, which at present has gotten a bit ugly. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Hey guys.... Original poster here..... Thanks for all the feedback and thoughts on this. The question i asked had to do just with how pylons affected performance in sustained turns. Last night we went and flew 6 F-16s against 6 Hornets in a series of 1v1 BFM high aspect sets. We were all 2x2 with one bag. Hornets had 2 pylons. Everyone was pretty competent in terms of skill level. The results were that the Viper was able to patiently out-rate the hornets after beating them down on energy within about 3 merges. The hornet was very dangerous if playing to its strengths, but not so much when the opponents are aware of the sight pictures that lead to misaligned turn circles and hornet gameplans. Thanks everyone for your input here. Bottom line is that the lot 20 hornet can rate about as well as an F-16, unless the hornet is carrying 2-4 pylons, which generally checks with what I've been told about the real lot 20. Thanks. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

For sure. I'm talking within DCS thiugh as it is currently modeled. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Thanks everyone for your answers. I was just looking for answers about sustained rate with pylons vs no-pylons. I only fly against guys in controlled environments and they aren't pulling the paddle. I'm of the opinion that BFM isn't combat training, but an exercise in maneuvering your jet and recognizing sight pictures after having a plan based on EM study -- hence why I needed to know about pylon impact, but it sounds like no one here has hard numbers. I don't have the hornet installed at the moment, or i would check myself. Thanks guys. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Yeah, this guy was not using the override. I think he hit a max of 7.6Gs. i was just impressed with his energy management and ability to retain energy -- but i hear that's how the hornet should be without pylons. Different story with them on. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Hello all, Does anyone have data on the impact of pylons on the sustained turn rate ability of the Hornet in DCS? Is it a measurable difference between having your 2 AIM-120s mounted on the cheek stations vs having sparrows mounted on a pylon? I'd go and check, but I don't have the hornet installed at the moment. How else have recent flight model changes impacted the hornet? I recently flew BFM against one in DCS, and was impressed by its ability to hold onto energy in a clean configuration (but i hear that's accurate when clean). Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Read this a few times until you can visualize it.... If the aspect angle you see is greater than the angle off tail, then the bandit is stuck in lag. If so, keep your rate fight up. If you see lots of the top of his jet, and he is only 20-30 degrees off your tail.... He is stuck in lag. If his aspect angle matches his angle off tail (up to ~45 degrees)... He is in the control zone. He can only threaten you when his intakes are pointed at you (ignoring the HOBS threat for this discussion). But, if his jet rotates to point, you must honor that with the appropriate reaction. Beyond a gun wez, pull it out of AB, flare, and limiter pull to stuff the bandit. Be ready to jink as he approaches gun range with lots of closure. Inside a gun wez, Jink as his nose rotates to lead. Jinking downhill or a full 360 degree tuck-under jink is best. To maximize your rate, keep the bandit 10-20 degrees above the horizon and make a smooth floor transition. Don't 1 circle reverse unless you see a close overshoot to the outside of your turn circle. You will see neck-snapping line of sight, where you have to look over your other shoulder. As others have said, never give up. The goal of defensive BFM is just to stay alive. It's not combat training, it's training to max perform your jet. As soon as you are neutral or in a stalemated fight, end the fight.... You survived, good job. If you ever were in a combat situation maneuvering in relation to a hostile.... You would just have to stay alive defensive for a few seconds while your wingman killed the hostile from out of sight. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Hello fellow flight simmers, Since the last update I've had many instances of the viper FCR dropping lock while in SAM mode post-shot. It happens when I'm in the crank (bandit 50 degrees off my nose). Of course, because this happens well before A-pole, the missile goes stupid and lofts into space. I've set the AI bandits to not use Chaff/ Flare (and they aren't) -- so that's not a part of it. STT has worked great and maintains lock on shots taken between Raero and Rpi (around 40nm in my scenarios). Has anyone else had this issue? I'd love to hear about it if you have -- and then I'll compile some short tracks and post a bug report -- a quick search of the bug reports hasn't mentioned issues with SAM mode since early July. Cheers

I will say this stuff has changed a lot, from tape to tape. I have some of the current version export guides, and they go up into the 900s. If you look at squadron created materials (I'm thinking of a bombing range card from the B course), the targets are in the 400s. It's got to be tough to nail down exactly what we are "supposed" to have for this version. Not totally steerpoint related, but I was talking to a friend who flew F-16s, and he told me that the software is always changing. For example, if the Israelis shared intel with the US about some SAM system's emissions they detected near Syria, that frequency info would be updated into all F-16s and F-16 sims ASAP. with that capability to change things very rapidly, it's got to be amazingly hard to create a 1:1 with any particular F-16 of any year. That being said, i think we are going to end up with the best all-around F-16, that tries to be as close as it can to a USAF F-16, of any entertainment level flight sim. It's happening pretty quickly now, and this last patch shows great promise in that direction. Here's hoping the road map keeps the course. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

There's so much good news in this thread. If most of these things are achieved, viper sim-pilots will have a viable module for the next decade, at least. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Godspeed on the work! Let us know if we can help in any way. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Oh, for sure. Lots of practical reasons to not do it. But being practical is not the test of whether it can work or not. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Hawkeye is correct here. As for that "SME" that was quoted above on the T connectors; he said this week that the wiring of 4/6 is possible, he just hasn't seen it, and the USAF has no plans for it. To me, given the other evidence, it sounds like at one point it was connected -- kind of like how our DCS Viper once had that capability. :( Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

First of all, let's be clear that we are dealing with a video game, and not a true simulator, regardless of marketing. All modules in DCS are symbols of their class, not 1:1 models of an individual particular machine that existed in the world. If the block 50 viper is capable of carrying smart weapons on 4/6 -- which it is, either in the service of other nations, or with some modification in US service, then it should be represented in the game. We're not going to get MLU Vipers, nor are we likely to get A model vipers -- so whatever ED makes needs to stand in for F-16s both past and future. All the other jets in the game are amalgamations and symbols of a class. Look at the F-15C for example, should its early representation allow the carrying of 120Cs? Or the MiG-29, should it be able to carry three types of missiles the way it now does (it shouldn't). Should the US hornet carry a Spanish TGP? This game is all about compromises, and like any simulation-game, requires a suspension of disbelief to be fun. So we know that what ED is trying to model here could carry and use smart weapons on 4/6 with a wiring modification. We also know that as a symbol of the viper, it gives the most flexibility to players to have the system stand as it was -- and that doesn't interfere with anyone else's enjoyment, and if it did ... That can be limited server / mission side. Part of this issue is guys coming in here asking for options and capabilities to be removed from the viper, when we really need that dev time spent on important system implementations. You don't see guys in other forum sections begging for capability to be removed from other jets for the sake of "realism." Remember, authenticity and realism are moving targets, they change at the same rate they occur. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

100% agree. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

That's true. I was told about a month. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Because at the direction of the operator, the wiring was removed -- but that's a reversible decision; and not all that difficult in the scheme of things. We're talking about one wiring harness here. And the plane was designed with the ability and intent that this feature be used. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Right, it should not be a module restriction if the jet is capable of it /was capable of it before 2007 -- it's an operator limitation. I've flown 4 jets in my career, 3 for the USAF -- There are always capabilities or features that are not used procedurally that once were or could be again. If I were making a sim (and I'm glad I'm not, and I'm thankful that others are), i would not tie people's hands behind their backs because of an operator limit. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk