Wing

After the requested evidence was posted as shown above, why is this thread still mislabeled "correct-as-is"?

Aircraft should auto-sync with GPS time upon startup. Even from a cold and dark state. This is how GPS system time works in general...

Strangely no response...

I will be honest, the FCR/HSD Radar Ghost bug is really becoming a nuisance. (if a target breaks lock, it stops updating the track position on the FCR and HSD). Both times when doing TMS right long, TMS down, And TMS right long again to switch back… DCS froze. Does anyone else get the same behavior? Also squadron members reporting constantly the DL/FCR update issue. Yesterday, leads PPLI was 30nm from where he actually was… It’s been like 4 months now where this ghost bug is happening, and it’s super common now. To the point where you have to use the TMS long right every time in cold ops to ensure things are reset and not bugged while attempting BFM sets. Another example - you can currently lock someone on an IFR departure, as reference, then drop the lock... and until you TMS right long, recycled MIDS and locked someone else, he appeared back at the last point at an inaccurate alt and position. Little issues like this need to be sorted before DL continues to get more confusing for the Viper fan base.

@BIGNEWYabout a month ago, you said this was correct as is. We have now provided more evidence that it is not, yet there has been no further response. Just wanted to confirm this is reported to the team - as it effects all of us who enjoy AAR. Thanks

Just going to repost this (since nothing new/thread is not acknowledged yet as "investigating"). Any new word from ED with this?

I find it somewhat hard to believe, that the amount of basic foundational bugs from this most recent patch was not found by the CBTs... A10 shaking, Hornet/Viper Radar bugs, Apache rudder pedals reversed, FLIR broken ect. Guess that is where XCNuse's frustration is coming from, among others.

Experiencing the same issue with Viper radar.

Any new word from ED with this?

Literally any heavy mentioned in this thread would be glorious...

Appreciate the confirmation with that fellas. We can hope now that the "correct as is" tag is removed, and it is relayed to the dev team to fix soon!

For more research to give ED, I have also found these public references: "15 minutes prior to ARCT (near IP): Initial call to receiver (AR/1-2) [EMCON 2 - Call sign, altitude, on time/ahead/behind]. Air-to-Air TACAN: KC-135 range only, PACER CRAG range & bearing, KC-10 range & bearing, 200NM max range." Source: https://robrobinette.com/C-141/dash2_ar.htm There is also the http://www.navedu.navy.mi.th/stg/databasestory/data/laukniyom/ship-active/big-country-ship/United-States/ATP/ATP56A.pdf which A/A Tacan is specifically referenced over 67 times. Hope this helps clear up some confusion. Along side the SME input from @TheBigTatankaas well...

From what I have researched on this, KC-135 & KC-130 are generally range only with some exceptions whereas KC-10 is range and bearing. Depending on how ED coded this, there could be instances in the future where A/A TR should show both range and bearing with the KC-10 (if that is ever a possibility). KC-135 is giving azimuth only and it should be range only to be technically correct as per SMEs. So technically, there is still an issue here and this is not "correct as is" @BIGNEWY. Tankers are not all the same, so it depends on what ED are reading which is causing this confusion.

Endured the same issues after latest patch. Confirm that you are running DCS in fullscreen - and try the L+ALT+Enter command once ingame to see if any positive effect.

Any response from ED with this? Have heard from numerous players attempting to come over from "the other sim", to the DCS Viper... only to see how the stick is feeling, then saying the heck with it. I believe this is one of those serious issues that ED should really look into sooner than later, in regards to players settings. Majority of us do not have force sensing flight sticks - so controls feel way off. A simple settings ticker for "replicate FSS ON/OFF" would go a long way for this module.

I agree - hopefully the recent news of updated Bomber AI asset modelling will spur some more interest with this.

Virtual safety is not a priority sir. There is no QA on the DCS Supercarrier

Looks like the main use of F16C AG radar real world was to detect heavy weather cells As said, more tools for the toolbox. Mission depending, everything can help in the heat of the moment. If it’s a valid system irl - then it should be respected as such in DCS. Simple as.

This is great, just waiting for a way to extract a list of SPs from a pre-planned mission flightplan into the app.

Boom operators perform other aircrew related duties when not AAR. KC135 boom operators also act as flight engineers, flight attendants (if passengers are riding along), CG loadmaster for logistic support flights, and help with navigation. They only transition from front flight deck to the Boom position while on the AAR track and anticipating refueling ops. Sometimes career fields are more interesting than you think...

Appreciate the insight. Hope others do too.

Where is the B52 at?

Hello, I am trying to not instigate this further - but I will simply say, all I was seeking... is a Tech Order title/citation showing this is a legal loadout for the USAF blk50 F16C that ED is focused in on specifically simulating. (A T.O. title reference can be posted, not the doc itself). Was looking for ED to confirm that they have an official USAF Tech Order as proof. Because ultimately a TO is the only document that legally backs a loadout such as this in the USAF. (Yes I very well could be wrong, and I will continue to await a TO to be cited to prove me as such). If it isn’t a tech order, I would question it’s real world credibility. That is all. I will not reply to anymore comments in this thread out of respect for ED and to not continue "poking the beehive". Thanks!

There is no 1553 bus for stations 4&6 USAF blk 50. This means it’s not possible to launch 88s or 65s from 4&6. (You can carry, just not launch). What happened here, is ED trusted a “SME” without reviewing/finding a tech order to back it up. It’s as simple as this. The gameplay change is there now, and again that’s all fun and games. That’s not the point. The point earlier was that ED overstated what they have proof of.

I think accountability is healthy in this dev environment, if anything developers should appreciate some accountability. As shown earlier in this thread, it is frustrating and confusing at this point when "documentation proof" is stated as reasoning for this gameplay change, yet there actually is no legitmate USAF Tech Order proof that 4&6 can launch. For something this technical, and maintenance related - there should blatantly be tech data on those stations and the HARMS muns capability. There is none. (Totally open to proof that I am incorrect on this) With that said, for gameplay sake, glad everyone is happy with this medium.