deadpool

deleted

You don't need to. Apparently the AGM-88C serves as one in the hornet. Physical criteria like antenna aperture size vs. frequency and range into the wind.

what's preventing you from switching between PRE and VIS might be a Point Track with the TPOD. That prevent's it currently. But I haven't researched whether it is correct or not. HUD-Symbology and behaviour in general is very flaky and not mission capable is what I'd say right now.

No

Manually you can. Doesn't "feel" like it should realistically be necessary though.

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!

I also would like to add that - especially in VR - the graphic effect used to show the LCD character of the display of the MFDs leads to a moire effect on the MFDs .. Kinda like: It just reduces the visibility a lot further. When zoomed in a lot, of when putting your face directly in front of the MFD you can see it quite ok: but when sitting normally, you get aliasing and moire effects: (and here it's quite mild) BR, Deadpool

Disclaimer: Damn it Jim, I'm a pilot, not a video editor.

Please have a look at 53seconds into this video The upwards jolt when the radar (an older ANAPG66) scans a new bar gives you an indication of the servo speed/acceleration these things have.

Just as background information: Every modern fighter jet will have INS at the core of it. You can correct for drift using GPS, absolutely, but worst case, GPS is either toast due to anti-sat-weapons or it's being jammed or your gps receiver refuses to work for whatever reason. Think of GPS only as one source that can keep accuracy up.

Afaik the AN/APG-68(5) currently modelled has no support for switching of PRF (big oof) .. so you end up losing targets that fly away from you at 20nm sharp at the latest .. This doesn't seem to be correct, so let's hope it get's fixed at some point in time.

According to https://duotechservices.com/f-16-radar-computer-apg-66 the AN/APG-66 already had multiple PRFs .. and it's insane to think that they have butchered the AN/APG-68 and turned it into a paperweight to balance the airplane. So you will have multiple PRFs even in the V(5) but maybe not in DCS(, yet).

Thank you for the explanation. That sounds like quite a hefty defect to me. Especially in low light level environments every photon counts.

If this: is indeed as intended, then I don't see a radar lock as help in gunfights .. as you will continously battle with the radar and not the opponent and also the lagged perception gives you all the wrong shooting cues. Just googling F-16 dogfight HUD gives me several videos where this behaviour is not at all like this. Instead the lag that is visible there stems from HUD rendering during abrupt maneuvering and not from the radar update rate. BR, Deadpool