deadpool

All screenshots taken and enhanced by TAW_Nomad All screenshots taken and enhanced by TAW_Nomad

According to the supplemental budget in FY 2007 this capability was only requested to be funded in 2007: https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/08pres/supplemental/FY07_Supplemental.pdf page 251. This would put it outside the 2005 timeframe.

I fail to see the bright side .. - ECM is oversimplified and would only be acceptable for a game from before 1990 - Chaff is oversimplified and would only be acceptable for a game from before 1990 - Having the missiles be simulated on the shooter's clientside is very questionable - Missing proximity fuses in MP is a joke - AI immediatly knowing what and when you shot at whom is a joke - The current "notching" logic where you pull it through once (if you're AI) or hold it in the notch for a few milliseconds and then it's trashed forever and never reaquires is quite boring and caters very much to Airquakers (imho) ... it feels like strafejumping in Counterstrike back in the days. Nonsensical, but it gives you one more mechanic for esports. For AG the list would go on: - Healthpoint based system would be acceptable for a game from before 1990 - Missing splash damage is a joke - Low-update frequency of laserpoint tracking is also quite bad

This list is missing a distinct DCS: World 2.7

Another bug on the same DED page is: - Go into BI field and type the 0 button a lot of times, this will not fill the field visibly with 0s as they are rejected. - Then try to enter a number. It will not be accepted as the non-visible background buffer is "full" with the 0s. This bug was reported in Dec 2020 .. would a track file from back then even still work nowadays with all the changes to the F-16?

You're seeing a mixture of two problems: - Splash damage is not modelled correctly in DCS. Tanks just don't care that 1000lbs just went of next to them. - The laser point update frequency has it lag behind the target at higher speeds ever so slightly. So even with the non bang-bang steering that those GBU10/12s have in DCS they hit behind the tank for that reason. You can observe this by doing a continous LSS from a second plane and see it lag behind as well. What I haven't tried,yet is marking laser + NVGs to see if that also lags behind at higher ground target speeds. But I wouldn't be surprised.

Take a black pencil and draw an absolutely black sillhouette into the screenshot and you have how another F-16 looks like in NVGs. Ever since the "great night lights and ground lights" update the F-16 is coated in a super light absorbing material that makes it a black hole even in NVGs .. if you want to see them, you crank the NVGs up to full and look for black holes in front of the sky. Black space sends out more photons than an F-16 skin will reflect in DCS.

I have not flown a F-16 for real, but any interview with people that flew it you will find will tell you one thing: - It was/is a damn good dogfighter Now let's leave out that currently in DCS the FM doesn't really seem to do that justice. I don't think having to fight the FCR before you get to fight the opponent is true. I don't think those people in the interviews praising the F-16 had these sorts of problems this frequent. And I do not think that how it's modelled in DCS is correct. No other airframe has these problems with their dogfight radar modes. And I will keep adding my opinion and add more arguments to this side of the story to this thread until: - someone makes it technically impossible (e.g. by closing it. (which would be a slap in the face until this is fixed)) - or that humiliating, slap-in-the-face keyword "correct as is" is taken of this thread.

Wrong link on my account: This is the correct one confirming it:

no chaff in my video.

M4 tape From this tape onwards the first release was already a subrelease starting at MX.1 M4.1 tape Introduction of advanced short-range missile, as a replacement for the current Sidewinder (AIM-9X, IRIS-T) Integration of advanced Link-16 functions Integration of SNIPER targeting pods M4.2 tape Integration of the latest HARM Targeting System (HTS) and its R7 software Integration of SNIPER targeting pod and its S3 software (capable of cataloguing, storing and relaying target images using the Link 16 data-link. M4.2 gives the capability to use the HTS and Sniper ATP on the same aircraft) This tape was the first common software for USAF CCIP upgraded block 40/50 airframes. M4.3 tape "Clean-up" tape (intended as correction to imperfections found in earlier phases) M5 tape M5.1 tape Integration of capability for stand-off weapons (AGM-154) <-- (We will get this as per ) Introduction of more advanced A/G weapons (EGBU-12) Introduction of advanced Stores Management System and Joint Mission Planning System Introduction of an improved GPS/INS system (more accurate and jamming proof) Introduction of new Link-16 message standards to improve interoperability between different aircraft types Installation of AN/ARC-210 VHF radios to enable radio contact with FAC’s on the ground <-- (We will get this as per M5.2 tape "Clean-up" tape (intended as correction to imperfections found in earlier phases) Now according to https://military.wikia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants#cite_note-Blk_50-52_F-16.net-5 let's quote: Now with all of this combined, we should: 1.) either don't get the AGM-154 and neither the AN/ARC-210 radios .. which the 2 pilots that ED talked to said they had in 2007. 2.) get the AN/APG-68(9) radar and more importantly and way cooler for DCS, the proper L16 interop with Hornets, etc. Of course I am still cursing that there won't be SDBs, but hey ..

That's not quite true .. We are getting the AGM-154 and we are getting the AN/ARC-210 radio. That is MLU M5.1 stuff. And what came with the M5 OFP? The AN/APG68(9) radar!