deadpool

Some general things: - If you go for a notch, your ECM pod won't do you much good. It's not covering your 3/9 line. It's covering your front aspect, and maybe your rear. - marking missiles would be awesome - With all the desync shenaniganz going on and ED having taken over all weapons dev from all third party devs, why are missiles not simulated as little "AI" aircraft on the server? This makes it much more predictable for everyone involved and the data transfer barrier from client to server would add a proper dimension of datalink to missiles.

In the old F-14 radar (also in DCS) it would remove that filter (MLC) if the target is sufficiently above the horizon. In the F-16 (in DCS) and more modern jets, tankers can notch the radar when flying above you at ranges where I can even do LIDAR with my cockpit flashlight. This as well as the AIM-120 in general is somewhat broken right now. And has been for ages.

- Put a cold F-16 on some apron - Autostart via Win+POS1 - After the Jet is aligned and autostart has set the INS Knob to NAV, go to the INS page (LIST -> 6) - Press SEQ a 5-6 times and suddenly it will trigger an IFA, and at the least mess up your alignment.

HUD projection in front of the new clouds is also kind of the same deal in VR at the moment.

I was exaggerating a bit. But in the Hornet the AGM-88C will magically indicate the emitter with quite some precision on your HUD. so you just have to slew your Tpod on it and are good to go for whatever. There is (or used to be) a thread on the hornets forum about how physics involved for typical radar wavelength, aperture size of the dish inside the 88C, etc. and what the angular errors would be.

The Maverick (not unlike the AGM88) feeds a video stream to your video processor in the plane. Yet you will still see big differences in behaviour between airframes in DCS (A10,FA18,F16). HARMs have an inbuild HTS in the Hornet, Mavericks do auto-boresight alignment in the A10 / FA18 / AV8B. Maybe they are really this different between airframes, maybe some day we will have consistency, which in turn can pave the way for trust in what's modelled. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Radar servos are very, very fast. This is from an old AN/APG-66 and you can see the vertical barshifts happen with very low repositioning time. (53 seconds in)

The reasoning for why the nozzle was opening and not going for a more optimal constricted form that I have heard is that this would cause pressure and more importantly temperatures to climb too high inside the engine.

All good, mate.

This is essentially a list of changes (excluding minor fixes for things) of end of 2019 till now: As you can see the big ones are (as were promised) New waypoints on the go + Litening Tpod + Mavericks and Harms in 2020. Those were "our" three big updates. Now it's been 8 months since anything big hitting the F-16 (minus the clouds, which are awesome, but more of a general thing). We haven't had such a "calm" period since ever ..

Bittersweet, dude.

You could google for AJP 3.3.4.2 as a document. You have a described catalogue of rendezvous procedures ranging from ground based radar, using ranging information together with your stopwatch to figure out an approximate derivation to target, ownship radar, etc. But if you can ask AWACS, easiest thing. Otherwise a good kneeboard would contain also the trackinfos of the tankers, or you even had a steerpoint or two to spare. Heck .. later into early access you'll even be able to draw the tanker track as a fancy dashed line if you feel so inclined.

Technically one side would need a rotating antenna for that. (or multiple antennas which are electronically steered to "fake" the rotation without the moving parts).

I think in this case you have been classically razbamboozled

If the F-15 (F100?) was with full cockpit you'd also have everyone pull the VMax every time.

True for IRL and thanks for pointing this out! Not much support for some of the RVs in DCS sadly. Yet within the constrains of DCS, the tankers seem to have the (electronically) rotating bit of the TACAN-installation as well. It should be removed for realism sake, yet if it is left in, it should work correctly, which it didn't.

Personally I would consider flying beyond Vne if I otherwise die. It would be not on the top of my list. It would be a conscious decision. Very much like overriding the G-limiter in the Hornet or vmax in the F-15 (irl). In the F-16 you are not being pampered, you are the brains of the operation, you need to keep it in shape. You have no G-limiter, but you yourself have to know the loadout remaining and it's G-tolerances and fly accordingly. Same with speed. If you want to fly realistically, start doing all the stuff that's not required, but realistically good for you now. Check cabin pressure when climbing, keep an eye on speed, keep an eye on Gs, etc. Do that fighter pilot stuff. It's incredibly rewarding!

My intention with this thread was - contrary to some other postings of me - not to be passive aggressive, but just to give a feedback on how I subjectively were affected during a mission that was aiming to be realistic. Just to help ED with seeing how even small bits might interconnect with other stuff in prolonged missions. I am sorry it took such a turn tbh. Even though I can understand the individual posts.

I have the problem in the HUD as well though. Not only HMD.

It's a given that FLIR isn't perfect. (We don't have any of the environmental effects of desert, etc.) but it's weird how different it is from airplane to airplane, even with the same pod. And my suspicion with the F-16 is that it's the "raster" effect on the MFDs that also plays a huge part there, together with what Antialiasing and other things do with the textures then.

Part of the problem is the weird autogain at the moment / contrast setting, but also the moire effect that comes from simulating a pixel display:

We try to fly realistic missions. Today a whole lot of fluid situations developed, so the F-16 flight of which I was a part of had some changing tasks, which made it interesting. One consistent thing was, that in almost every phase of the flight, you had problems nagging you, culminating with something big time in the A/A-engagement that was midway. Here is my writeup, of what I'd usually present my crew chief with (in a different form of course): This is just a writeup, I understand that not many people will be interested in reading this, but let this be a documentation of how the F-16 is currently experienced by those that try to fly realistic missions with it and not go airquaking (which is just as valid of an occupation!)

Just don't take 4 HARMs then. But HARMs are generally a weird product. On one plane they behave like you read, on another plane they give you magic and physically unrealistical HTS-functionality. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯