Wing

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.

No matter what “SMEs” say… a TO is required to back it up. Everything is backed by a Tech Order as per USAF AFI. Just a FYI.

Unable to cite the Tech Order title that this decision was made from. Copy.

Can you reference the T.O number? You can simply source that, without posting what is within the T.O. (T.O. Titles are not OPSEC) Genuinely curious. Thanks!

I am genuinely curious what tech data you have that shows that we can launch from 4, and 6? It’s all fun and games that this is now an enabled loadout. That’s fine I guess. It’s just… There's no video line for 4&6, but the problem is, that's not written anywhere. So I can understand why there is SME input confusion with this. With that said, Just don't say you have documentation that proves it. That's the part that is kinda frustrating at this point with the DCS Viper. don't mention legit tech data to end the argument when it isn't true.

DTC should have been priority over AG radar... been talked about since 2018. What is the hold up...

@Beamscanner any new word, on getting your RWR sound files implemented into the DCS Viper?

Great suggestion @Revi, a huge part of the fighter pilot experience is physically exhausting - and as such should be some sort of dynamic that is respectively simulated in DCS as well when pulling such intensive G maneuvers.

I am trying to figure out what the entire point of you entering this conversation was... and what exactly you have brought to the table that is productive for the OP? Theres alot of wording here - but not a whole lot of contribution to what actually the OP was asking for. Revi did a nice job actually answering the OPs question.

Sounds like you need to verse yourself up a bit more on what "Green flag" represents out in the NTTR. Sure "Red flag" is also just as legendary... but you can only do so much to properly conduct training missions as they should be on the NTTR range - which is what the Nevada map advertises. Green flag is its own beast... and making a mockery of saying "I bet nobody will spend it shooting some fake targets" is truly ignorant... especially coming from someone in DCS Ground Crew.

One thing I want to understand from the ED devs… is why advertise/call it the NTTR… when there’s barely any range targets or range scenery added into the DCS core? Instead we rely on 3rd party mods to deliver the DCS Nevada map product as its advertised? This doesn’t make sense to me. @Wags Super thankful we have other squadrons out there that can fill in the gaps with this, like the 476th…

Great to hear! Thankyou sir!