greenmamba

This is a persistent bug, sometimes the comme vanish totally. You can talk with ground staff but not the tower. Sometimes none of them. I had to use easy radio as a fix around it.

The SAM system probably did stop emitting between the time you fired and when the missile arrived in the general area of the SAM. SAM's do not continuously emit anymore as before. This is why it is important to keep the SAM emitting while you have a HARM in the air.

It is a serious question. Like you said it is computer based. The other user is also flying from his computer, all he will see is a behavior, and behaviors we all see them at airshows where we see how fast an F-22 comes around the turn, we see how the flight controls of the Rafale and Eurofighter move at slow speed ... we can compare those to how the flight controls move for a MIG or Sukhoi and understand the generation of flight controls. But i got your point, and no matter how much i disagree with the way your team goes about the F-16, i appreciate the updates and way it has come along the years, thanks for the work and putting up with us.

I don't really get it. How is a complete flight model going to train others the fly against it ? In the civil world we have level D simulators, which are supposed to represent the real deal and train us, well it is still a lot different than the real thing. It doesn't move the same, it doesn't feel the same and it does not react the same. The details which make the difference, those details count. DCs is computer based, you are not going to train anyone to fly against those systems. In that case, do not reproduce the Hornet high alpha capacity in slow speed. You may think that i am being very salty against ED, it may be true but again, those are excuses why not to do it right. Also, if all of this is true, when real pilots do test your modules on youtube, then please comment below the videos by saying that it is not accurate on purpose.

@Rudel_chw and @Abburo, i figured it out, i was not understanding that some files needed to be updated and then placed in the tech folder. I have it figured out now, thanks for your quick reaction and help guys :).

Hello guys, I am struggling to install the mods, big time. I installed it in my saved game folder, under MODS and tech subfolder, but it just won't show up in game, or when it does it is not visible.

Thanks mate

set to ramp, ah i should try on ground ? I want to place an F-16 under a shelter, but i can only set it to takeoff from ramp. No "ground" option for airplanes, only choppers i believe.

I am trying to Place an aircraft, a flyable one under a sun shelter. I do that via the editor and it looks fine there, once i enter the 3D world the aircraft is spawn somewhere else. Looks like you can not place static aircraft under the sun shelter either. Same issue goes for the concrete shelter.

I had a false target return, but while being on the ground, on the Afghanistan Map and i also had it in the air while i was looking for the tanker, datalink helped me confirms it wasn't what i was looking for. Introduction, still wip. But nice.

The internet is going to explode

That if your engine is damaged which means you won't fly very long anyway with an oil leak. Hydraulic is more plausible to happen and you keep flying.

The other issue here that i see, well i am not even sure if this is an issue, but to me, ED really needs to understand that the F-16 is an iconic aircraft, it is not just another module where you can make profit off. This airplane is like the F-4, it made generations dream and still does. Having an aircraft like that not being taken care off like it deserves is hearth breaking. The F-16 constantly feels like it is hiding in its own shadow in DCS. This is also one of the main reason why people are so upset.

Guys, it’s a game. It is supposed to be fun and entertaining. It is just postponed and in the meantime, the game still works.

Next week it is then.

@BIGNEWY I am sincerely flabergasted by the constant non sense excuse of this public data thing. We have an Apache that has more detailed systems than the F-16C. We have an A-10C that has more complete systems than the F-16C. We have many other platforms that have more complete systems than the F-16c and yet you still have this same lame excuse. Why don't you guys just admit that the F-16C is something you want to distance yourself with because of some obscure reasons. You Ed are telling me that you produced an A-10C with complete systems including the same TGP and you can't get the F-16C to a descent state and you call it almost out of early access ? Just admit you did not do the A-10C by yourself, the team that worked on the A-10C is not the same that worked on the Viper and Hornet. Just stop with the excuses please.

with the latest implementation of IR picture ... the angle of the sun and light conditions i still find the Maverick to be kind of work intensive. especially in terms of heads down. works well for easily recognizable targets such as buildings and such, but when it comes to Tanks, launchers, radars etc ... i find the heads down time too much time consuming.

In a modern threat scenario, the more i think about it, the more i find that the maverick is a demanding weapon to operate that takes your focus away from your situation awareness and from flying the Viper. It is nice in a low threat environment.

stupid question ... is the laser on ? Do you see the L flashing ?

so i guess i need to reduce the sensitivity of my rudder pedals and brakes, thanks for the inputs.

Starting at 2:50, F-16 landing ans use the aerodynamic braking by keeping the nose high. In DCs starting at 140+ knots the nose just falls down to the ground when actually you can keep it up to 100 knots for C models and 90 knots for A models, rough numbers.

Hi, Sorry, my bad .....uploaded the wrong file, here is the file. Landing test.trk

Here, this is a short mission, clean jet, caucasus map, no wind, no weather. At rotation i am pulling the nose up to go search por the 10°, then while i do that i raise the gear and you can see the pitch up tendency, not my input. On landing on purpose i tryied to butter kiss it, tried to keep the nose high, impossible unless you rip the stick and the desk with you. Once the nose came down i applied brakes evenly, as much as i could and see how the airplane veers off to the left of the runway ...without any inputs and i release the brake pressure completely, no rudder inputs and the aircraft makes a pirouette on the runway. test.cf

Okay i will show you my track, from there we can maybe look into things. No, not overweight, i land with maximum 3000 pounds of fuel in the tanks.

Hi, I am not an F-16 Pilot, whar kind of evidence are you asking for from me ? except that i can tell you that an airplane does not skid off the runway like that ? That an airplane does not require such differential braking to not skid off the centerline in no wind condition ? apart from my real life airline pilot experience on Airbus i can not give you any kind of evidence, i can give you a track, but it will be the same as for the rest of the community.