sk000tch

To answer your question, the roadmap lists JPF as a 2021 project. I don’t know where damage modeling that would include any JPF capabilities is in the larger DCS roadmap however. As it would be just a couple ddi screens and graphic effect until that happens, I suspect this is why it is listed as a late stage project. Time delay or void sensing is pointless if the effect on a structure is the same as inst. Same is true for terminal trajectories, jdam airbursting, etc, until weaponeering effects on structures and some type of risk estimate distances for different units are modeled there’s not much reason to build it.

Couple things to note. The NIRD is a normalized display, meaning, the Rmin and Rmax will always be at 2:30 and 6 o’clock position, respectively. Rne will move in accordance with Vc, range, aspect, among other things. Whether due to how you are employing or degraded sensor, there are a variety of things that can cause Rne to not be displayed. Because Rmax and Rmin are fixed, they will almost always show up. I don’t know about the other comments re: overlap. When range to target is below Rmax, the attack format will display max aspect value between 0 and 18. Max aspect is the degrees/10 that a target would be required to turn to defeat a shot. Thus, Rne is the by definition the same as range where max aspect is 18. So, from Rmax (fixed at 6 o’clock) to the dynamically generated Rne, will correspond to a max aspect increasing from 0 to 18 as actual range moves from Rmax to Rne. All that said, the hornet is not without a few bugs, so it’s possible the MC is doing something odd where 0 angle off Rne is being obscured by Rmax. But like I said, there are other things that can cause Rne to not show on NIRD. Radar isn’t required to employ aim-9s obviously. Whether tactical offensive considerations or being jammed, if employed without radar assistance (or AOT), NIRD (and steering cues, etc) are not necessarily shown. If the seeker is uncaged with no L&S, such as when using HMD with 9X’s or Boresight, then no range or steering cues are shown. IIRC, if a l&s exists when seeker is uncaged then range cues should still be displayed (but not steering cues iirc... If I wasn’t on phone I’d double check, might have last two backwards). Point being, the seeker tones provide an audible indication of lock to you and sms, but are only indirectly related to range. Even then the minimum tone can be overridden via OVRD if trying to lock up a target at long range or low heat signature (not sure if this is in yet). If you are being jammed and radar cannot resolve range, symbology will be degraded as well. Might still see ASE with partial NIRD, such as fixed Rmin and Rmax but no Rne or ownship to target hash. This wouldn’t explain your experience given 18’s radar not susceptible to jamming yet, but point being if you are uncaging seeker and radar is not resolving range and aspect, you won’t have Rne carrot on NIRD.

Not sure about that first question either... On the second, however, you can drop designations by quickly selecting guns (entering gun Acq) then undesignate to RTS. Reset is the book answer. and better in certain situations, we need to see the az/el implementation, how bump acq is done, and see where its at. The third question is more interesting. There was a post that referenced HOTAS functions that were not in game yet in that monstrosity where Kate posted a roadmap. Some of the functions listed weren't in our OFP or were from E/F variants. However, it was possible to go to TWS in later releases, i'm not sure exactly when that occurred.

Its a sim, not RL, but I have spent too many hundreds of hours drilling eyes up outside the cockpit into student pilot's heads to willingly strap anything on my face than requires me to fixate on any instrument. Center image clarity has diminishing returns at a certain point. What is completely undervalued and not discussed, is the large FOV (vertical included), coupled with edge to edge clarity. I can maintain formation with one eye on #1 while I adjust DDIs in peripheral vision in an index, i can't do that in a reverb (I had both for a while, also rift S). That's just one example, point being I am able to fly realistically with quick instrument rotations while head up outside cockpit. For me that's huge, because the ultimate in realism is a system that does not require you to fundamentally change how you fly in real life right? But, everyone has different preferences, and I don't think you can really go wrong with either given level of support for both. If I could suggest anything it would be trying both if possible (realizing for many it is not), as for me it wasn't close using both side by side. Others have arrived at different decisions, however. I have not tried a cosmos fwiw, Varjo FOV is disappointing given its price. Frankly we are still a gen away from the truly killer human eye resolution wide AND tall FOV VRS + Eye tracking HMDs. One potentially big factor is whether you do anything besides sim? HL:A for example, is very different on WMR vs. Index.

frequently, usually when i forget to switch back. No doubt solid 60 at 120hz looks better/smoother than 40/80, its just a matter of what you can maintain. I've been playing at 90 most often, as I can get the new lighting effects and msaa x2 and hold 45 but not 60. With things changing as frequently as they have been, it seems I have to re-evaluate after every patch... so my answer could be completely different next week But ya, like almost everything, more is better

Not sure I catch your meaning on that "What?" aspect? But you're right, I should have ignored the post or been more gentle, dismissed it and restarted my question. However, I was asking a legitimate question to a product manufacture (that many others have asked), and dude was following me from thread to thread replying to my questions with his irrelevant opinion on the quality of the stick. Weird and annoying, but my response further detracted from the point. Back on track in a post entitled "Man what happened," referring to the initial hype:

Why are you following me around defending Winwings quality? Do you work there are you just the self appointed #1 fan/ass kisser (perhaps stick slobber is more appropriate given subject matter)? Neither throttletek nor bugeye sell to consumers anymore. And, once again, you are completely missing the point.

All due respect, which I gave Winwing in both deferring to their judgement and complimenting their product, you don't know what you're talking about. For the price a a RS force sensing base and their F-16 grip you can buy winwing's complete hotas, some crosswind pedals, and fly the family to Hawaii (airfares are cheap). You're missing the point anyway fainboy. Nobody is shitting on Winwing, we are merely suggesting they allow those of us with a pile of flight sticks that don't need another to buy just a throttle. Thanks for opinion, but with a few thousand hours in single seaters I'll keep my own counsel...

Your company, your choices... I get it. But, there is not a b-school book in print that would advise forcing a bundle on buyers and thus actively turning away customers when attempting to penetrate an existing, and notoriously finicky, market. Many of us have thousands of dollars in flight sticks and simply do not need another. Option A- Force full hotas or nothing, lose customers to more established companies that are actively developing throttles (VKB and realsimulator) that you currently, but temporarily, enjoy a first mover advantage over. Option B- Allow throttle only purchases and develop your unique replaceable grip strategy. Have larger installed base upon which to market future product as they become available. Certainly this f/a-18 stick/throttle isn't the only product you intend on making? Eventually, at least, when you increase manufacturing rates to meet demand you might want to reconsider. Hopefully you will not have lost your first to market advantage by then.

This x1000 You’ve got to kill it to win in enthusiast level stick market. There are too many excellent choices. But throttles are all garbage. You simply cannot get a pro-sumer level throttle- e.g. something like RealSimulator’s fssb R3L w/ f16-sgrh but a throttle, for any fixed wing aircraft (there are helo collectives). I totally disagree with the too expensive comment. The market is loaded with <$200 choices. Perhaps they aren’t not as nice but welcome to life and economics. It was an awful business decision, they should have leveraged the initial hype to get their equipment is as many simpits/homes as possible, and build off that initial penetration with more products. You can’t hold anything related to the virus against them, that hurt every business and I can’t imagine what it was like for Chinese manufacturers. Ironically it presents an opportunity for them. RealSimulator announced they were exploring a consumer version of their professional f-16 throttle. But with the situation in Spain it’s very likely that is delayed to some extent. Winwing releases that throttle stand-alone now they can salvage some of the repetitional harm their release caused, continue refining stick and working on their unique alternate throttle grip strategy, and get out in front of realism, VKB’s eventual throttle release, and the potential that virpil ever figures out how to make a throttle with detents and an analogue ministick.

I am legitimately surprised by the amount of complaints. I mean, there are always complaints... If ya’ll gave away every ED module and map for free and just charged for missions and campaigns, I’m sure some one would complain that 3rd party stuff wasn’t free as well. But the ratio surprises me. Nobody is arguing that DCS is flawless, or that development isn’t frustratingly slow at times. With ambition comes failure — or at least delays — and DCS is nothing if not ambitious. But everyone I’ve met there takes tremendous pride in their work, and is there for the love of aviation. It’s a tired cliche but it seems like a labor of love; I’m sure most everyone could be doing something else for more money (Nick could stage WWII LFE/red flags with his own hangar, I’m sure Wags would have no problem finding a program mgr gig that didn’t require 11pm conference calls and 9line has developed some serious anger management skills that I’m sure are in high demand among his notoriously angry countrymen). In all seriousness though, Kate’s post here (and the follow up) is proof that the efforts at improving communication and transparency have been a success. No doubt the sim and sim related tech (certainly VR) are in a bit of a transition period. While that roadmap is clearly investing heavily in the future, I have an absolute blast with the game in its current form. I am no “make a wish” story by any means, but due to an injury and subsequent surgery I was unable to fly for most of the past year. The 200 or so hours I didn’t fly were made bearable by an unfathomable amount of sim time. Maybe it’s because I’m new to recreation/desktop sims, but DCS in VR blew my mind when I was introduced to it... and the future (albeit perhaps a bit more mid-to-long term than we’d all prefer) is pretty bright. I’m no ED apologist but some of ya’ll need a little perspective I think... out of nowhere they announced the Typhoon, yet we completely lose our shit over clouds?

my late night phone post was a bit of a mess, but med prf is pretty good at everything... high is better at long range detection of high closure rates/frequency shifts, but that's it. And that is just detection, high duty cycle results in significantly more range ambiguity. Not criticizing - standard WIP disclaimer... Not picking but just fyi RCS for modest load can more than double RCS of Hornet. Also, figured my "its wrong" was a little vague, and implied more was wrong than really is. I cannot provide a source, not here, so you'll just have to take (or not) my word for this. I won't nit pick the difference in detect range except to state the obvious, that, provide the detection occurs at less than the theoretical maximum, larger RCS should be detected sooner. The relative difference between detection ranges i'll defer to game mechanics. A 50% Pd range is not realistic but not going to nitpick. Looks to me like they are applying a proportional benefit to high PRF based on Vc against a clean background. So, same reason as above, chalk this up to game design or whatever. This is where it starts to go wrong. Vc is same as above just opposite vector, yet identical detect range? No reason to even have high prf on at this range, but in terms of radar physics frequency shift occurs on positive and negative closure. Should be no difference here. Look down is where it really comes off the rails. HPRF produces more nose that must be filtered but it won't filter 1100 Vc. Absolute value depends on a lot of variables but high PRF, while more susceptible to filtering returns, won't filter 1000+ kts Vc. Bonkers. Vc is almost irrelevant looking down, what matters is relative background. If target's in the notch HPRF won't pick this up at all, MPRF could miss this as well though Vc range would be smaller. Looks consistent with theory above that game is interpreting a difference in negative closure vs. positive, and while there is a difference in radar modes not yet implemented, for purposes this discussion its not relevant. +500 or -500 doppler shift still works, and 500kts is not going to get filtered out at 15 nm. Even where Vc = 0 and there is no frequency shift, radar will pick this up against moving background (earlier in MPRF than HPRF). So this is broke too. Nice work though, results do seem to suggest source of the problem (or problems, as the case may be).

no, its definatly wrong. High PRF due to high powerr output with high Vc and no clutter will provide substantially greater detection distance, though range resolution is poor relstive to mprf due to pulse time. Requires more filtering due to high power, particularly against clutter, thus more susceptible to notching. Med prf is better at all aspect/lower closure rates and requires less filtering, less susceptible to being notched, better range resolution. This comes at expense of high Vc detect range Vs high prf. There are too many variables to discuss numbers, and OP did not include any info about range resolution. However, should be clear that, at least according to OP results, proper relative peformance is wrong. RCS of ordijance doesnt appear to be modelled (i've obsserved thisnresting as well - hornet rcs can easily double with moderate payload vs clean).

Fighter heading effects ATA and cut, but TA is dependent on bandit heading and bandit bearing. I would write up explanation of intercept geometry, as it’s much like BFM in that there is a core set of concepts I think many DCS pilots would benefit from understanding, but I am not physically up to it rn. I’ll send you a pm with a link or two.

No idea about bug, but just a heads up- changing heading does not change TA

You’re right dude, my apologies. Saying it was dumb made it personal. It wasn’t my intent to make a personal attack or take your comment out of context. It was the comment I was calling dumb, to stress that there are rights and wrongs. BFM is treated like a one in a million skill around here like professional athlete, when it is really just another perishable pilot skill - a set of procedures, visual cues, geometry, etc., that must be practiced to maintain proficiency. Surgery comment made me laugh btw, I have had a lot of time watching tv while perusing forums on my phone – with a euphoric confidence – that has caused me to bless everyone with my wisdom whether they like it or not (woah... deja vu). Fwiw went well, proud owner of two prosthetics. I’m also the first to admit that DCS Is much different than RL, so RL tactics may not – actually, in some cases definitely are not – what works best in the game. Similarly, everyone should play how they want. I get a little riled with some of the statements make like facts that are totally wrong, because I think it does a disservice to others. But at the end of the day it’s a game. No lost friends mourned. For those of us not so lucky, given the right chemistry, you might understand how an abnormally impassioned response could arise. I do think you misunderstood what I was saying though (I wasn’t very clear). If you somehow allow yourself to be surprised by a bandit deep on your six <4,00ft range, your absolute priority is to defeat any weapons employed and create a BFM problem for your opponent asap. But it’s a shit situation with limited options. I don’t get the AOA comment either (not yours), though not trying to pick more fights lol. AOA is not your friend here. We agree that speed is life. Get slow and you lose. We just disagree on the numbers a bit, and perhaps some of the absolutisms. I’m not... maybe we don’t disagree? Maybe I disagreed with somebody else but decided to pick on your quote? Unsure... But since we're playing- At 400+ knots a break turn will cost you 100-150kts depending on whether you are defending guns or throttling back for DICM. The f-16 is blessed with a forgiving corner speed that is more of a plateau than a peak. But that plateau still has a lower end. So long as you can stay below maybe 20 AOA at max G you’ve got a chance, though <15 is better. I barely recall video, but he was really slow, and slow means high AOA. If your pull for G and you’re at 25 AOA don’t bother, you’re skidding. Wasteful excursion with no positional gain, sight picture at high AOA changes, gets disorienting when already fighting G. Situation is now worse. I don’t know to what extent/how well DCS models this though? The skid not Gs... Defense requires solid understanding of offense for a reason. Defensive BFM is just extending time to kill, for help or an error by opponent. Of all the BFM problems you can create against your attacker, closure is usually highest risk in this situation. Perhaps you are lucky, flying against AI that pulls lead for guns after your break. If that happens by all means, maintain tally and jink off gun nose, put LV behind him pull and roll over onto his 6, be thankful for the gift reversal and free drinks. Matched opponent will pull lag though and move aft on canopy. At which point hopefully you got a look under wings as you have a decision to extend or turn, neither of which ideal. Such is the nature of an even fight, if you’re looking over your shoulder and pulling you’re losing. Hopefully its training and all you’ll need is surgery to repair your DSM/CSM when you’re old. But fast or slow go vertical and God takes his G, it’s just worse slow. You lose rate & airspeed, radius increases up long side of egg, and unless you pulled into sun bright blue sky killed your DICM effectiveness. I’m not talking about when your offensive/neutral and you building a little vertical turning room for next pass. When you are truly F’d w/ severe positional disadvantage and not enough energy for break turn – you can make an awful choice, a bad choice, or extend time to kill and redefine. Aggressive flares, roll, pull 90 nose low and roll LV out in front of bandit to create some aspect/angle off. Try to minimize alt loss before pulling level else your just gifting room. Ditch follow is difficult against f—16, they are hard to see from high aspect against ground, might get lucky and benefit from an error. Be able to get some speed and rate fight, or ditch again. If no room, max perform angels for angles with whatever you’ve got, try to pull him forward into 2C and you got a chance. There are a lot of things that can happen but point being, if fight starts with bandit on your six with energy advantage, equal skill/plane there you can trade position/energy for RAC problems but if he counters without mistakes eventually you will lose. Worse, maybe was DACT against a hornet and you never got off his nose, or HOBS made sensor nose ~ 180 and he sent you a heater knife edge from high 6. This is dumb argument anyway (not you bro), SEM is where fun is at. Funny thing is I have zero viper time, just applying BFM principals to what I know about her. So like sig says – just some dude probably doesn’t have a clue, wondering why I’m awake… Sorry again if you took offense, wasn’t intention. Perch sets with 9-mikes someday sounds fun?

I have in fact done the first two several times in real life, usually on purpose. I have never dropped a smoke bomb on a runway... I’ve dropped pumpkins on a grass landing strip (well, off to the side at least), while many mostly/fully naked people cheered. Many shenanigans take place, less now than the old days but plenty of fun to be had still. And while the naked pumpkin thing was during a gig hauling skydivers to build twin time, I’ve heard some pretty absurd happenings during combat sorties as well. Cant say I’ve ever lagged but I’ve fell behind many an airplane... I get what you are saying though. That’s party why I suggested finding someone to show the ropes in discord or the newbie the hoggit does. MP can be frustrating, the fun:frustration ratio sometimes is frustrating. But when you have a really solid group working together, or just a fun wingman, it’s an experience SP really can’t match. Lag sucks, but if big servers are lagging MP missions are very find as well.

I will 2nd/3rd whatever the notion of finding someone online, you can hook up with someone in game or discord, Reddit, here. It might be easier out of game. Personally, I enjoy well done campaigns or missions, especially if short on time, but there is absolutely nothing that compares to section tactics with real people for pure fun in all of DCS. My best friend of going on 10 years, shit stick and rudder pilot yet somehow managed 15 years active + ANG in eagles. We fly together often and it’s an absolute blast to bait tomcats to intercept a solo hornet only for emcon wingman on the deck to hit silent for a single sweep, bug em both and send a couple zero warning AMRAAMs from rear quarter. Another friend without a ppl is just learning the A-10, and when he learned how to mark and/or laze listening to him acclimate to the brevity and laugh as GBUs fell on his target was awesome. Both are a blast. My point is it just doesn’t matter whether you’re an expert or just learning, 99% of people are cool. MP is a little intimidating at first, you need some software and setup, probably a few things to learn. But it’s the same sim, same plane (minus a few FPS and a little lag), and the rewards are so vast. There are certain fundamental skills a fighter pilot needs- gotta control the plane, understand formations and their strengths/weaknesses, be able to manage task saturation, employ ordinance and understand what your avionics are telling you, carrier ops, even BFM - a popular topic around here - are all just building blocks. Brining that all together to fight in an airplane effectively, as a team, is the one thing that DCS does that no other sim I’ve played can (I am new to desktop sims in fairness). Human GCI are another thing, it is such a massive difference compared to the sterile and repetitive pop-up BRA calls. BVR is SP is awfully boring, 2vX with human GCI is a blast. Even refueling is fun as a team (blame the lag). Maybe try hoggit, lots of faqs and such on how to get started, I think there is a learning server there too for people that aren’t comfortable yet with the main GAW/PGAW servers (which are pve fwiw, just more going on).

This is just dumb dude, there is absolutely BFM errors. They, among other things are how you fail b-school, or eve BFM Syllabus in primary. I can show you instructor flight evals with failure to recognize break or ditch criteria at 4+ (any X on 4s are fail). failure to respect and/or respond to sensor nose as 4+, both of which would fail you, both of which happen here. Shitty AI opponents do not validate poor tactics, to steal a line from someone smarter than me - always assume your flying the goddamn Red Baron, he feels no pain, never runs out of heaters, and does not fear you. To the poor souls watching this; with a bandit deep in your six, when you are too low on energy to break - preferred maneuver but it takes a 150-175 kts bleed (energy AND positional disadvantage is bad news), your only choice is to redefine. Roll over and pull, engines idle popping flares aggressively. Don't roll perfect 180, you get get some room before you roll your LV around (take a little practice, but turning room is life). As I said, on 90 downline put lift vector in front of opponent. Re IRCM - watch for missile at all times in this situation, sensor nose has become massive since HOBS, but even before all aspect heaters this was a perfect shot. If you see a missile, break, idle/flare. Missile will kink if it takes the bait, if azimuth does not change its tracking you and you have seconds, if that, to try against. But please, don't ever pull nose high with bandit deep in rear quarter unless you are certain you have an energy advantage. It will slow you down by going vertical, it will further reduce your options and make you easier to kill. The overspeed comment above is a bit weird... if nose high 90 like that first to roll over is usually dead, if he doesn't flame out pushing jet too far into accidental tail slide. As he rolls over with either elevator or redder eh's going to lose sight, given his 6 to opponent, and still needs to create a RAC problem asap. I am not saying fight 2d in a viper or a hornet, if you're hot and going to overshoot, better to convert those knots to feet than just bleed (though extent into lag is more modern approach, remember, once you get decent as BFM, SEM is next, and SEM requires engaged/support roles that often relying on altitude separation). To video dude's credit, he excited proper lv control in that post hole which ultimately won the fight (that and the apparent ordinance discrepancy helped). Anyway, surgery was yesterday and already home! I'll be airborne in no time.

Agree it's definitely not a named maneuver, looks like just a low speed spiral after the vertical maneuver. On my phone so its hard to see but looks like ias is under 120 at the top? about 300 when he pulled? Can't see his stores but it's likely prohibited maneuver, at a minimum risk of departure. Results notwithstanding its a BFM error. Its an error to initiate nose high out of plane when low energy - period. With bandit in CZ and nearly 0 angle off its worse. Fortunately AI is bad. By the book defensive BFM tactics would be to get some angle asap and defend imminent IR missile. Can't see speed, but if it's anywhere near rate band and can't' make sun a factor, brake turn at idle to get off his nose and pop flares, pickup visual and assess whether he's moving forward or aft on canopy. If he moving forward, max perform with nose low to gain energy, maybe you get lucky with AI cause an overshoot. Against a human with you that slow on his nose you're not going to pull him forward, he'll go lag or extend as needed and you'll lose visual. Realistically best bet is to redefine, roll and pull 90 nose low (idle/flare), rotate lift vector to be in front of bandit and max perform to level keeping lift vector in front of bandit and check for reversal criteria. But different tactics work in DCS so who knows, definitely not me.

Short answer - yes, but what everyone else is referring to is bump acquisition, which is not yet implemented and is the method you would typically use in ACM Mini lecture on proper hornet AA habits (topic has come up a few times, forgive cut and paste tired of explaining but always seems to do someone some good) There are three acquisition modes, TDC depress over L&S is a bad habit. Just take a moment and consider what you are trying to do and press the correct button once. Harder with sim sticks because buttons are not as deliberate, and button mashing tendency of games (not a tendency in aviation, fwiw). Chuck's guide is awesome but it's not super clear about this, the manual is better in this case. Fast acquisition is "standard." Assuming you display radar on right DDI, with cursor over a raw return or L&S, SCS right will command the radar to attempt acquisition. This has come up in the past here in reference to using TDC depress to acquire current L&S, which prompted discussion of precision, how radars work and range accuracy of different duty cycles, precision figures of merit and how radar error + how trackfiles are extrapolated estimates with direct correlation between frame time and accuracy, how important it is to know current frame time and why adjusting aging to be slightly longer than frame time, but search function is good for that. Auto acquisition - entering auto acquisition will attempt to acquire any trackfile under the cursor (this is essentially fast acquisition), or L&S if one exists. Important - Entering AACQ will attempt to acquire to highest priority MSI trackfile. This is why meld procedures are important as it increases track quality. Note undesignate will now cycle through ranked tracks (thank you ED), so if you are in BVR this should accomplish what you are trying to do. Bump acquisition - In BVR AACQ modes, bump will reject current STT and return to search and attempt to acquire a new target. In ACM modes, which is what i assume you are talking about, SCS in the direction of the correct ACM mode (i.e. bump SCS up if in bore) will exit STT and re-enter previous ACM mode, excluding the previous target for a few seconds (length depends on what mode you are in). Bump is not particularly useful in BVR but in ACM modes it is much more so, or if using JHMCS. Manual mode of TDC depress on raw hit enters STT is black boxed in the POH, but while RL reasons why it isn't used don't completely apply to DCS, there are valid reasons in game as well. Obviously a track file or raw hit with long frame time can have significant location error. If you are good enough in the Hornet where you are employing section tactics that rely on AEW MSI trackfiles and silent modes, the awacs dome takes 10s to rotate, and (Not sure if this is modelled), you may have a datalink delay of a few to as much as 8 seconds if the frequency is congested, or more if you are low and missed an update or two. For example, if in silent mode you can press Active option to command radar to make a single sweep, enter AACQ and employ an armraam with no launch warning and at most trigger a brief RWR presence indication (must be in LTWS). DCS pilots fixate, if they are preoccupied by another 18 on their nose.... doing so manually would take substantially longer and be more likely to reveal yourself.

Not sure I follow your question, I suspect you might not understand either what I'm saying or how link 16 works. Link 16 is just one of many communications protocols under tactical datalink penumbra. There are many, with different characteristics, meant for different purposes. F-22s and the X-37B use IFDL, for example, because of the very low probability of intercept and low probability of detection. The terminology is used loosely, and NATO is a little different than USA, so it can be confusing. Link16 is just US shorthand for data transmitted and received in the TADIL J message standard with JTIDS Compatible communication terminals. Even then its always evolving, before our Hornet and F-16 they moved from JTIDS Class era (like 2H, 2M) aato MIDS LVT and MIDS FDL, the latter being flight datalink. What we have. F-16 was MIDS LVT(1). Air defense and THAADs were MIDS-LVT(2). But hey are all "Link 16." But in addition to link 16, you might have link11, link 22, VMF, SADL, JREAP, MADL, or IFDL. Some, like EPLRS are mesh networks, like zwave or zigbee, can self heal and relay messages from one point to another. SADL is like this, which the A-10 has as it is superior for CAS. The way it works is actually quote cool. 16 uses a TDMA principle where JUs are assigned sets of time slots in which they can transmit or receive data, each slot is 1/128th of a second. There are about 50 frequencies, but the frequency hopping (every ~2 time slots, so like 10 ms) means in practice about half that can actually be used without interference. I'm sure you can imagine time sync is pretty important, though there are many ways to handle this depending on tactical situation. Still, if you are off link for a several hours and have no NTR, your Time Quality will degrade (like INS drift). The link runs in different modes, think wartime vs. peacetime. There are significant restrictions when in over US, as it can interfere with navigation and communication equipment of commercial aircraft. Anyway, with science lesson over, generally crew on an Aegis will operation the Link Management Systems that present a full real time tactical display of information on the different TDLs, as well as handle time slow assignments, participation groups, and the relay, gateway, gateway management required to keep everything functioning properly. Because link 16 is nodeless, taking out an aegis would not take out the entire network. Though taking out a high altitude gateway would degrade the ability for participants around terrain to transmit and receive. Anyway, I envision a day where DCS evolves to come closer to the scale and complexity of a modern battlefield. Every sensor has value in post CEC Navy, where every sensor - on every ship, plane and drone is integrated into a real time fire control quality picture. Where C2 assets have value beyond points, where TDL assets are attacked and produce a tangible negative effect on network quality. Instead of 2 Hornets with HARMS being a sead mission I want 50 TALDs to light everything up in front 2x2 4-ship f-16s with sniper pods and HTS, that autonomously generate and relay ISR data as they cataloguing location and type of threats while engaging priority threats with anti-rad, where ISR is relayed to the squadron of F18s with JSOWs to take out launchers, C2, and any emitters that didn't power on. Adding more sensors gives those ships value besides force protection, and thus good mission targets. Not talking two weeks or anything, but DCS already simplifies many of these systems already, a simplified implementation provides something to build upon. UAVs too, fwiw. There are no where near enough drones. Did I say ISR? And Network enabled weapons? Walleye is cool but a bit vietnam era-ish. Or what about UUVs? ya'll got any idea how many underwater drones we got?

I was reading past weekend updates and noted the Arleigh Burke addition with supercarrier. With a few SPY-1s in the CSG, will the DD's be datalink donors? I know that they are CDL-N hubs and more complex than airborne control, but the simplified donor system used for AWACS would work fine for Aegis until/if more robust air tasking order/combat order systems are in place. Even just redundancy if AWACS is shot down, or perhaps integrate their BMD function with tasking orders with the scud launchers coming in. Would allow for some cool missions.

Patch wrecked me to, seems likely it’s the lighting. Looks good but it’s a resource hog. Came to see what other people were doing for settings. I took supersampling down enough to keep msaa at x2 with index at 80hz (mostly stable 40fps), it’s OK... but definitely a big hit from the patch, less clarity in cockpit is a bummer My issue is a weird flickering I can’t seem to get rid of? Not an AA flicker, like full screen. If I define gpu OC it’s less severe, it I’ve run this card at the same speed in DCS and every other game for the last year. Seriously bugging me I don’t understand what you got going on though. What are your full settings (steam included) and actual FPS?

USN did though. 18c1 was spiraled in 2005, which added smart rack capability. Operational need due to long flight from north arabian to afgan and high demand for JDAMs. Also, somebody said something about F-16 and litening. That one is pretty absurd I agree. HTS R7 was only compatible with Sniper. Sniper had optics for the range required, but more importantly had the image processing and pod data link and automatic ISR. HTS locates emitter Sniper locates with JDAM/JSOW quality targeting, categorizes threat and shares image & info w/ other pods in flight, or maybe rivet joint. Remember HTS isn't just for guiding HARMs. Actual strike might involve large number of MALD decoys to light everything up, Viper's build picture and start engaging w/ anti-rad while 2nd wave of Vipers engage with stealthy JSOWs, maybe couple JASSM for C3. Then there is the ECM aspect but we don't' usually get much of that, suffice to say even MALD are linked and haver active jamming now. But ya, litening doesn't do that. To be fair I think this is probably at request or documentation related, still, does make you wonder how its going to be simulated?