deadpool

Thank you for the two new skins. Any chance the internally fixed defects are fixed in that and just didn't make it into the changelog?

I reported this here already: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=283849

Jamming in dcs in general isn't emulated at any level I'd really look forward to it anyhow. But that's not ed's fault. It's just one of the most guarded secrets what techniques are used, etc.

The problem is no the rudder axis per se. In the air you need a good linear range of 0% to 100% for the real rudder. On the ground and during landing / takeoff with NWS enabled, though you can't give more than 10% rudder input or it will be a 90° rotated nosewheel. So these two ares don't line up at all. It's like driving a manual car with a really bad clutch. You land, roll out .. and the slower you get the more rudder you need to give to stay on the line. Then at a defined point, you need to switch to NWS. And at that instance, you need to immediatly let go of the rudder or it will flip your plane as the rudder input for NWS is just 10 times as sensitive as it is for the rudder control surface.

With the way that it's currently build, I am afraid to step down on my rudder pedal on one side for fearing it will rotate my nosewheel 4 times full 360°. And yeah, only plane ingame with that shenaniganz, haven't seen any written document yet, that it's supposed to try to kill the pilot during takeoff and landing like that.

Worked for me yesterday.

... until switching away from it and going back. Track will have to wait a bit. Not really on the computer just now.

I have (reported) video and incidents with the F-16 in DCS where I could fly a F-16 with activated VScan into another plane and it would lock only from like 300ft away but not before. I have reported it and stored in my head now: "ACM modes are completely broken and I'm waiting for them to fix it."

I also always have the "lock"-oval in front of my eye in NAV mode on my JHMCS. Is that how it is supposed to be?

I really like your posts, so please don't take it the wrong way, but .. edit out the letters of the other sim, or we might all lose your good posts to deletion.

I seriously have no idea why my previous message was deleted as 1.15 (referencing other products) ... But what I wrote was essentially: Yeah .. maybe those HAF datas are correct and the F-16 behaves quite close to realistic here. Maybe we have a thrust/ drag issue .. Or maybe - because the F16 has a lot of information out there publically (HAF, etc) - it's the F18/F15 FM that are off.

The use for a strike would be that you can find moving ground targets quicker. The use for us all would be that the plane is supposed to be realistic, and it's a real feature of the radar

It wouldn't matter because no a2a missile we will have receives guidance information from the tpod. Wags demonstrated this in the video he posted by the way. The A2A mode of Tpod that is.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=254640

Well .. the TFR was available for a different block but discontinued for the Viper altogether .. so if you want a modern Viper it's quite clear why you can't have the TFR and FLIR.

And SAM locks in the F-16 don't trigger RWR spikes: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=273659 (defect from some months ago)

Perfect video and explanation on what I refer to the F-16 not being snappy!

It does work to go into VScan mode .. but it won't silence your radar. Which is problematic to put it mildly ;-)

NO RAD missing reported half a year ago: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=264153

I would love to see this as well and learn from it! BR, Deadpool

Well, you have your config caution. And there's surely a checklist for what to do there. The reasonings might also be: If you're defending a SAM, would you want the risk to make it more complicated by ripping at your pylon and degrading your ammunition / tanks, potentially leading to weird asymmetric drag adding to that tense situation. AND putting people at danger by coming back home with a hung store? I know that there has been the trial of a TER AGM65 with the A10 and it burned the rear end of the wing/flap a bit. I am unaware of a similar damage done to an F-16 wing or even a test of that performed. I am quite sure of they operationally allowed that config, that it wouldn't burn your plane. Got the video out for you: Also no worries on the (cheap) shots. I am fairly opponionated on the forums as well ;-)

Sent via PM. (Roughly minute 4 and thereafter) In general, it's not consistent, though. But happens often enough to be really annoying :-)

Well, kinda, Cat III doesn't safe your plane, or stores because it is not a limiter that limits you from pulling more than 5.5g or whatever your current loadout supports. If a SAM fires at you, and you brake to the max it's still gonna give you problems. And they will / should show up on your PFL. I remember a recent video with a female pilot showing youtube the F-15 (the one without the b word) .. and they have a switch in there for an extra few degrees (it wasn't much!) of temperature allowance in the engine. And that witch had a lead seal, so if you used it for fun, you'd have to answer for it because it essentially means the engine needs extensive maintenance. Same goes for when you overstress the airframe of a hornet. Same also goes for the F-16. There are some good videos out where you can see a very nice asymmetric load F-16 doing a sideway pull max alpha and it departs from controlled flight. They were explaining how they had anticipated that and wanted to see if it catches itself again, but they didn't anticipate the beta accelerations involved, so they had to check that to see what they did to the airframe in that instance. It sadly has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-15_Flight_3-65-97 I have seen this documentary with F-15s engaging Zeros .. so good that we can do that in DCS, too! I know I am feeding a troll, but: Sadly we won't get SDBs though they would not be good for targets with a probability to move. Also you can get a target into your TPOD and then begin your run in at a speed you feel comfortable with, getting the AGM65s seeker on it and then go nose down a bit to get it into the keyhole. I am not aware of any restrictions that would prevent you from firing it at 15.000ft at 400kt or something. Imagine you have a low cloud, and some Tunguska protected asset in a moving convoy. (Essentially making you overflying the target at below cloud cover risky) Valid tactics in DCS at the moment are: - Toss bombing and lasing a GBU - Having a buddy drop a GBU on coords from above the clouds, hoping it catches your buddy-lase and goes into target (risks a no-track GBU that might hit a school). - Having a maverick I know which option I'd like to have :-) One of the features of the HTS I am very excited about is it's ability to cross correlate targets using L16 and other HTS equipped Vipers, producing GPS coordinates of the emitter in a short time. Ideally you'd be not using (only) a HARM then, but also some cluster bomb or potentially something more precise to take out the other assets that make up a SAM site. Also there are situations where you want to go towards a (moving) target, fire your weapon, and get the heck out as quickly as you can. Not wanting to stay the half minute or more to do the lasing. The AGM-65 absolutely has it's purpose!

Can you elaborate on that game plan?

Experienced the ACM Mode Vertical scan go completely unhelpful again today: 15000 both contacts heading straight for each other. Radar in VScan picked up the approaching target just before the inflightcollision. I expected a bit more from my radar :-(