deadpool

Done, though this sadly means it's going to take ages to get fixed

I now had this in the F-16, too .. and it had something to do with the lights.

I had this today in the F-16. In sync with the strobe light, also had it when popping flares.

My wingman had it yesterday in the JF-17 as well. Different system, though WMR VR as well. Though please have in mind that it's something inside DCS, as the black eye shows on the repeater screen as well and is rendered underneath the text layer of DCS. This makes the JF-17 at the moment unplayable for me in VR!

Originally posted here:

Since there are two forums, and for better visibility and because I see this as a bug:

This is how it looks like with the ESC-Menu active:

All of a sudden I have one eye flicker black occasionally for me. This is also visible on the Flatscreen monitor's DCS window and when recording it I can see that the blackness is actually coming from underneath the textlayer .. so it seems to be something inside DCS doing this? Attached two frames that I captured mere milliseconds apart (only modification is the censoring of the SRS IP and port): The problem is amplified by a lot when turning on external lighting. When deactivated it's occuring about 95% less in above instance. I have witnessed this problem so far only in the JF-17.

with normal INS Plane ascends, baro altitude climbs, INS altitude climbs Plane descends, baro altitude shrinks, INS altitude shrinks with INS+GPS Plane ascends, baro altitude climbs, INS altitude shrinks Plane descends, baro altitude shrinks, INS altitude climbs this only happens with a fast align .. you start, ins shows you at 170ft in incirlik .. ins+gps at ~30ft .. you fly around a short while .. land .. ins will show you at 170ft again .. ins+gps shows you at +8000ft or something .. This is a video of it while ascending in flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TKiwsNeMQA This is a video after landing when I switch GPS on off again, and it goes from: INS +0170 to INS+GPS +00026 and then when I switch again to INS +00266 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C30EtrIsmAk server-20201212-223814.trk

https://youtu.be/x3NKK86K7Zc?t=74 I find it frightening that common sense doesn't prevail here. But I can understand better now why the F-16 drops chocks when switching from MRM to DGFT mode .. it makes no sense .. but I guess no one actually proved it to ED yet that it doesn't .. Not the right approach when building a realistic airplane in my book. Anyways .. to help current topic. above is a photo of an F-16 with chocks and an arresting hook which is added - most likely - because it would otherwise jump over the chocks and go. Now I just have to say that I do not know if this is particularily the model and type of F-16 that ED builds in DCS, of course that would be a good reason to disregard this and wait for a photo of the specific model and type we fly in DCS with this hook. Yet I think we can assume that this chock-protecting-arresting-hook-setup is something universal on all modern F-16s .. unlike SDBs and other gimmicks that we won't be getting because they were .. ah .. never mind .. I digress.

But then you wouldn't know whom he is shooting it at. It's broken. STT and SAM both are. There is no reason why SAM wouldn't give you a spike either, yet it doesn't ..

Probably Maverick in VIS mode.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257642 I posted that bug almost a year ago. But ed decided to call it intended behaviour. Me and someone I know who flies the F-16 in real-life now just laugh about it. What can you do.

It happens because Mavericks jump back to VIS mode all the time ... like when you go to MRM and then back to AG .. it will be in VIS mode again .. or when you fired the last and switch modes back to NAV .. might end up in VIS mode .. and that shows you those bogus data.

If wake turbulence was programmed accurately and the plane was symmetrical I would tend to agree with you. Sadly we don't live in such an ideal world. But I read between the lines and don't think I need to discuss this further with you.

I fly with an i7 4790k and a GTX 1070 and the only strain on my computer is the kicking it receives when these ridiculous wake turbulences flip the plane again.

Afaik an F-16 currently creates the same wake as an FA18 .. and yeah .. it's a paperplane when receiving it and we only joke about it anymore .. You can fly formation with someone and feel one of your wings wanting to go down either towards or away from him .. Or you are affected by wake when flying on the outside of the turn of a turning tanker .. lol. And the intensity is like being hit with a baseball bat on the side of your head at times. I have great video footage of me landing in formation with someone and the wake turbulence from landing next to him combined with the ridiculous lateral friction (a problem that has been known since a year + a fix suggested and ignored) lead to a flipover in the most benny hill kind of fashion.

The radar and the eyeballs of the AI are simplified to stupidity. You fly a Viggen between hills at treetop level .. and you can see on tacview exactly when you are in line of sight of an enemy MiG21 .. because it will turn in on you. Can't have been the radar .. so they must have perfect eyesight .. 30nm seeing a viggen at treetop level .. it's really boring.

It will come later. It's not only the seat, you're also assisted by the overpressure mask helping you breathe .. all not modelled, yet. and yeah, we all miss it.

Because at the moment what you have essentially gives you a box you can slew your TPOD on and got the emitter dead on. And again .. this is if you even get the box visibly in the Hornet in the first place. Afaik the HARM transmit an analog video signal for the HAS page that gets piped into your MFD much like the Maverick .. not really something that you can use to get azimuth etc. from easily.

The difference between a hydra 70 and an APKWS is an added small section to the missile. It is comparable to the F-5 dropping GBU-12 instead of a Mk-82. Does the F-5 have any software to support the GBU-12? .. no .. heck no .. to it .. it's just the same drop system as with a Mk-82 .. the rest is done in the bomb .. There is no interface that you need, no connector, no special HUD symbology. But .. maybe that's even too far .. the difference between Hydra 70 and APKWS are smaller. It could be compared to the impact fuze in your bomb being changed to a different type with the same aerodynamics, same interface to the plane, etc. The one thing I could think of though is that the missile is slightly longer and potentially needs type approval for the airplane you want to stick it on for that reason alone. Otherwise, I hope that ED just makes the missiles available for all Hydra-capable planes and helos by adding it as a new ammunition type for the launcher.

You don't need a supercomputer. Having an RCS lookup depend on angle, that's absolutely easy with a look up table (LUT). The problem is that the entire radar engine seems to be not working on a reasonable approach but on wtfs ... If a target turns cold on you in the f-16 .. it will disappear at hardcoded 20nm .. the whole missile guidance radar stuff is completely borked .. then if you see defects like: missile is desynced and goes active, and your RWR then gives you a launch warning of the plane that launched it, even though it's turned cold already .. you just know that under the hood it's implemented in a VERY VERY rudimentary way that's not even taking the physical or world model into account.

Had that today and can totally back that up.

A Maverick will not generate you GPS coordinates for a JDAM drop either. The seeker in the HARM rolls with your airplane and will not have the angular resolution that a camera for optical wavelengths (that are even constantly "transmitting" so to speak) has. Imagine a search radar like a sometimes on, sometimes off laser spot. Now imagine a TPod without internal stabilisation and own INS and range information. (the JF17 tpod comes close as it can't generate range information above 20nm). As soon as the radar is no longer emitting (if you even find it quickly enough) your seekerhead will drift away from it's position. Yes, it will be in the neighbourhood to quickly find it again, but you don't get a solid fricking box pointing you at it. It just doesn't make any sense. How else would you explain systems like the HTS (or the Hornets version, the TAS)? They require - in the case of the hornet - two swapped out Pylons to generate range and precision azimuth information by ownship movement. http://www.ausairpower.net/API-AGM-88-HARM.html Interesting reading material there, as - for example - the HARM in the FA18 without TAS will not be able to get range information to the transmitter it's targeting, meaning it will not Loft unless you fire it in PRE-Mode "at" a waypoint and hope there's a transmitter closeby. This means that the range of the HARM in non-PRE mode should be significantly lower than for the F-16C with HTS pod which can generate range information. But that's something for the future. If a single HARM missile - which doesn't even have a stabilised seekerhead as Wags mentioned - can provide you a rock solid, non-jittery target box in your HUD then the USNAVY wouldn't have invested in the TAS. I would really like to know from where ED got the idea for that and if it's not just a debug feature. It defies every information that is out there on the reason why systems like the HTS and TAS exist. If it's really just about showing that box, pointing a tpod at it .. using the planes internal terraion map to get the range to 0 AGL there then it could very well be automated, and AGM88s would be fired with range information and loft even in modes like SP or HAS. The fact that this isn't the case and that they build HTS / TAS systems shows you that it's seemingly not an option. So why is it that we can in DCS just slew a TPod across to the box, and have the coordinates for a theoretical PRE shot with lofting profile? The public information is that TAS generates you information that is off by a few percent. Now that's a specialised system. And the HARM is supposed to give you a solid non-jittery box? As for the Viggen, it's pod can pinpoint emission sources and then use angular triangulation using it's own course to guess it down to a box. But have you seen the ELINT exports? the "boxes" for the radar sites are quite big, and radars of the same type in close proximity are merged into one. And seeing this quote in another thread: It makes me even wonder more how the FA18 would even get the information where the HARMs seeker head is looking at so steadily for it's HUD .. if the information coming from the weapon comes over as video feed.

Is that the same reason (will it be also changed) that apparently the agm88c alone can generate a stabilised and dead accurate box on your HUD for the targeted emitter? Something that would normally take not one F16 with HTS, but actually 2 working together via L16?