TheBigTatanka

It depends. It's an operator limitation vs an aircraft capability limitation. It's not unlike the old discussion that the jet was too fast on the deck -- people wanted ED to take away thrust or otherwise modify the top speed of the jet, because it was exceeding the limit of the canopy glass. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Perhaps someone will create a mod to enable HARM on 4/6 -- it would be like running the viper with CFTs. The community has proven itself more than capable of fixing mistakes and improvising solutions before ED gets to them. While the 2007 ANG vipers don't have the wiring for HARM, it wouldn't be that difficult to install the wiring; and other partner nations have it. The best thing I read in regards to this is a comparison with the Hornet -- hornet pilots IRL don't use the over-G paddle switch, nor do USN hornets use the Spanish litening TGP -- But there they are in DCS. Maybe those things should be removed for realism. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

It's frustrating, it's technically possible to use smart weapons on 4/6 with a wiring modification; nothing in the design that prevents it. As far as ferrying HARMs on 4/6 -- that would be cool if we were in a whole-world sim and had a totally working INS system and a persistent dynamic campaign with warehouse system. I'm just frustrated by this move to limit one jet for "realism" while allowing complete fantasy in other mods. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

They're talking about noise that could cause deflection of the cursor axis, not stick axis. In SP mode, with TGP as SOI, and in CCRP with a bomb selected, you can TMS Up or TMS Right to stabilize the pod on the ground. Infinitely easier to use a steerpoint though. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

It is indeed a problem on the final 120 off your rail. Thanks for bringing it up. We should probably post a quick track. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

In terms of pitch trim, it is modeled correctly. One click of trim on the stick will adjust your trim by 0.1 Gs. The FLCS uses G demand for anything less than 15 AOA. Applies to the trim as well. So you can let go of the stick, and see that your Gs are 1.3 positive --- 3 clicks nose down will get you back to a 1G jet. I think it's pretty awesome that ED figured out how to code that part of the FLCS. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Those are all valid questions, and ones that we need to do a better job answering for guys who are new to the module or the hobby. And it's hard to keep up to date, since things change all the time. Luckily.... This sim has a lot of passionate people who really dig into the details of how things work and what that means. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

For sure. Not trying to assign blame, you guys are doing your job and doing it well in an often unnecessarily tough environment. Please don't think that I'm not supportive of the work the mods do around here. I think for those who flew the jet in real life, or have access to the real docs -- it's often easier and safer to just say "go check out how it works there -- it's something like that." It's also said with a belief that ED will get there eventually, and go beyond in terms of realism and functionality (as it already has in a few fields). No one wants to imply that just anything should be a source of data. Some things, however, can be a useful reference when trying to explain a pretty complex world to guys who maybe just entered the world of combat aviation. I'm often thinking of ways to help guys who just got into flight sims navigate the complexities of employing early access modules -- thought and resources have to go into that from the community so that they get hooked the way that so many of us did 20-30 years ago. So, when a poster, like the OP here, asks about a switchology issue or had a switchology problem, i think it's often a context-problem with situating the jet within the broader arena of theater level air war. So, when people here write something like "go check out how this stuff works in this other thing".... It's really the difference between how you can develop tactics and employ an aircraft that is early access vs one that isn't. Perhaps I should make an informative video showing some of the tactical uses that the current version of the jet is great at, as well as mission sets that are limited by the current EA state. To get this back on topic to the OP -- One's expectations of the jet have to be adjusted to the current capabilities of the module. You really won't get frustrated with the module or the TGP, of you build your tactics and missions around the current capabilities of the jet. Sorry for the long post, 9 years of graduate school broke my ability to be brief. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

It's not untrue. Fysa, moderators on this forum can be pretty sensitive to any comparison with other sims / will say the thread is off topic and lock it. It's their forum, so we can't really complain. It doesn't always adhere to the standards of civil discourse we are used to in our culture. As far as ease of use of the TGP (or any other sensor) -- i really think the issue is that aside from the HTS, the viper isn't the best tool for dynamic targeting where it has to generate coordinates from the pilot's eyeballs. A more realistic dynamic targeting scenario would be where you get a message from a controlling agency that such and such a drone or sensor has detected some activity at X coordinates or bullseye location, and asks you to go take a look. You could then punch in the cords and go look. A more recent version of the software (not sure if this existed in 07) has a PRE page in the DED where you can punch in a "threat" by bullseye location, set the size of the ring to display, and label it. Theoretically you could then hook that on the HSD and slave your sensors there. Maybe just slaving your HSD cursor there and making a mark point would be easier -- I'm not sure what's the best answer -- i fly big airplanes and probably over complicate things. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

No, it won't take them currently on a stored heading alignment. Whatever you type in will be kicked out, and the location where the jet started will be displayed again. You can re-enter your current position if you do a full INS alignment. The -1 has a procedure for shutting down the jet where it will be ready for a stored heading alignment the next time you start -- but it doesn't take in DCS. If memory serves me right (which it probably doesn't) -- you are supposed to cock the alignment by going from NAV to Stored Heading for 10 seconds and then to off. I honestly don't remember, but i spent a few attempts doing the checklist procedure from the -1, and DCS always replaces where you should be with where the jet started in the mission. Not sure if it's a "Bug" or another half-implemented system. I'm holding off on making a bug report until the team starts really working on the avionics. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

What would be great is if we could cock the jet for a future stored heading alignment in the same session. Right now, If you shut down using the stored heading alignment, and then start the jet back up, the stored heading coordinates revert to where the jet was when you started the mission. So.... What you can't do is fly across the map, shut down, and then fire back up after eating lunch to fly back across the map using a stored heading alignment. It would be nice to see that modeled. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Right now, the viper works great as a strike fighter. Set a steerpoint in your target area if you don't have the exact target coordinate, and use the TGP as you approach the target from medium altitude, or use it in your pop from low-altitude to fine tune the target location for weapons employment. It also works great in dynamic CAS with a JTAC who gives you coordinates that you can punch in. Both of these things require a little bit of mission planning and in the case of CAS, some friends to JTAC for you. When it comes to single player, just roaming around a kill box looking for things to blow up isn't the viper's strong suit. But, if you think about the design philosophy of the aircraft.... It makes sense that it wouldn't be. Dynamic targeting is complex, and we don't have the network of resources that would make it more viable in DCS. Now, If you could get a lat/long to check out from some other agency -- that would be different. FREDERF knows what he's talking about, he is very well read when it comes to this skill set. It will get easier when it is further along -- and if, for now, you always use the jet in relation to steer points, it's a beautiful system. That air to air TGP stuff sounds awesome -- approaching a poor man's sensor fusion. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

It would seem it depends on when we are talking about, and which partner. What I wrote above is correct for most USAF jets in at least the last few years -- but recent avionics pubs from other nations show other things. And i don't have the US pub for the 2007 time-frame software that DCS is trying to replicate. Time to Impact on the TGP is helpful though when coordinating simultaneous attacks. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

And you checked for sequential numbers in Datalink 2 page? Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

JDAM Attack cards are FOUO. I'm working on making some of my own with stuff that applies to DCS only that can be shared. And yes, missile engagement zone. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

You can cycle through them to make sure before release and check the LAR of each one. But yes, you would want to do that ahead of time and have a range in mind for your parameters. Jdam attack cards have a slot for that range information based on release parameters. Much better to know that you can drop at 7nm at 25k feet and .9 mach, and still stay outside of a MEZ. Not as fun to try and figure that out using the DLZ in the jet. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Yes, but it's better to have your own set of data than trust the DLZ in the jet. Especially if it's a pre-planned deal where you have time to figure that out. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

As long as you are in the LAR it's fine. You can make some charts based on trial and error for certain altitudes and .9 mach and 90 degree impact angle to see about where the LAR is. Then use those in your planning. As long as all targets are within that range from your aircraft when you start your attack, you can drop, switch, drop, switch, etc. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Some things to consider with the own flight symbols on the HSD.... It can be broken by the mission designer based on how they place the F-16 units. F-16s in the same flight need to be added in sequence in the editor for them to show properly on the HSD. For example, a correct placement would be to place the lead aircraft, then modify that jet how you want with payload and other options, then add 2, 3, and 4 with the right carrot in the unit count. Improper placement would be to create a flight lead jet, then copy paste the group to other places, then go back and add the wingmen to each group. Another thing that would break the own flight symbols is removing wingmen from the flights then adding them back. I think the logic here is that each object created gets assigned a number, and then the F-16 looks for sequential numbers in its flight for the Datalink own flight symbols to work. I don't think this is necessarily a bug, but more that mission designers don't know about this or don't pay attention to it. If you go to page 3 of the F-16's Datalink page, you'll see the values assigned to each jet in the flight. If you don't have sequential numbers there, you are going to have issues. Maybe someday that whole system will get modeled so we can edit those values to affect the network, or create our own networks by jumping net times together.... But that's probably a ways off and will require a lot of education for the typical viper driver. Anyway, if you notice a flight that has an issue, report it to the mission designer and have them delete the flight, and re-add the vipers in sequence. Lastly, there is a limit to the SURV tracks that can be displayed. I think it's 30 or 40, but if you exceed that number of aircraft in the session, it can start to rob you of own flight symbols as well (this was tested about a year ago, and I'm not sure if it still does that). Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

You have to be within a certain number of degrees of the desired azimuth angle at release for it to work too. It just has to do with weaponeering stuff, which isn't anything we have access to determining to any degree of accuracy beyond frag vs blast vs penetration, because we don't have the computer programs that do that. And, ED doesn't really require anything close to weaponeering because of how the damage models are close -- but maybe someday. For that to happen though, they will have to give us guidelines related to things like how to best kill people vs vehicles vs buildings vs armored stuff. I'll also say, although you can input the angle down to a degree, the bomb isn't going to be that accurate. There will be a window that it can hit. I'd focus more on the impact angle than the azimuth angle. Azimuth angle seems more critical for low impact angle deliveries. This JDAM stuff is a lot of fun. It's been working great -- today we flew a 3 ship in the viper and took our 10 targets after "weaponeering" them as a group. It's neat. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Comrade, How is development going? Your software will be in great demand now that the viper has JDAM capability. Very much looking forward to being able to hand my buddies a list of coordinates to paste into your program and populate their F-16s with. All the luck!

Always appreciate your knowledge FREDERF. Thanks for sharing. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Very cool! Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

This is going to be great. Pretty stoked about the attention the viper is getting. Everyone start making your jdam fallout matrix! There's a lot i don't know, but the video didn't give me any cause for concern. It would have been nice to see him target off the TGP just to have a warm fuzzy that it's working now..... But i think only good things are coming. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Why don't you see if you can replicate this in the ~350 knot range. At 500+ knots you may be asking the system to do something it can't consistently do. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk