darkman222

Depends. If you took off after a repair the INS is misaligned. So what works best: autopilot to altitude hold, and try to fly straight and level as best as possible. Seems to work better in single player and worse in multiplayer. But could also be placebo. Question: What is the best procedure to keep alignment while being repaired? I tried to plug in ground power Engine off Get repaired Start up again. But the INS is misaligned. Now either a full alignment on the ground is necessary, which takes ages, compared to stored align. Or as described above the inflight alignment is the other option.

Thanks. And thats the point. So you have the 10 overpowered unicorn F18 world wide vs a mass produced F16 Block 50. Quite sure that these two aircraft types did not see a lot of dogfights against each other in real life.

If the high AOA capabilities would not be realistic ED would not have implemented them. G modelling plays into the hands of a 1C fighter in DCS. If you want to pull a bandit in the HUD in the F16 the pilot blacks out. If you end up behind the F18, then they will just jink you slow and then pull. You wont hit them while jinking. Worse is if a desync component comes into play, your chances to get a hit is even worse. Then youre slow, by trying to get a hit, and he is slow. And youre in his gameplay already because you cant speed up quick enough. Even if. With the excess thrust the LOT20 has, you dont have an acceleration advantage in the F16. Said simple. The the excess thrust does not punish the F18 to spend energy. Even the F15 gets stuck when its bled all his energy. The F18 has an advantage over all fighters in DCS. Its the best aircraft not to learn BFM in (aka flight control, flight control !)

The LOT 20 F18 in DCS has the enhanced motors the F404-GE-402 and not the regular F404-GE-400 engines. It seems to have no drag for that reason. I am wondering how many LOT20 F18 were actually produced. Then people use the paddle switch constantly. That makes a 7,5 G rated fighter to a 10 G fighter. But it can even peak at 13,5 G as I tested it. So you have almost double the amount of G available. I am always wondering where are the EM diagrams to model the 10 or 13,5 G regime from. Long story short. Dont try to dogfight a DCS F18. Before the AOA 35 -> 55 update you could at least spend all your energy in the inital turn after merge, and shot it in the face. Now it'll even turn around faster to shoot you first. He will always outrate and min radius outturn you every time. Its the plane, not the pilot, Maverick.

As title says. There are some servers out that offer CA controllable vehicles. But its very cluttered with no-controllable vehilces of course. It would be nice to have a quick alert mode, to show only the controllable vehicles a player can jump in, instead of clicking through each vehicle to see if its controllable.

You have to be in CCRP to make VRP or VIP work. I just took over your flight and simply switched to CCRP. Symbology is there. Everythings working fine. null

Thats the exact thing I was mentioning. The markpoint Page on the DED is still open, but as I have unlocked the point on the ground and even set the created markpoint as steerpoint, there is nothing a "TMS up" could create markpoints from. But by only having the Markpoint page open on the DED it inhibits me from locking targets via HAD. I can even set the MFD displaying the HAD as SOI. But if I cant lock anything on it, then its not SOI. The DED is SOI, if you want to call it so as this is the system that seems to receive the "tms up" commands. The further logical question is if it should be possible to set the HAD MFD as SOI while the DED page is open, prohibiting any target selection.

Did you try to create a mark point before? In that case the HAD page shows SOI but in fact is not unless mark point creation menu is cancelled on the DED. I have created a bug report about it. If that happens again, try to cancel everything you have on the DED. Or try to use HAS mode on the Harm and see if it fires that way.

Reproduction: AG mode Harm Power : on AG radar, lock point on ground in GM mode create mark point select mark point ICP 0 ( or not, does not change outcome) unlock ground target ( or not, does not change outcome) CZ ( or not, does not change outcome) go to HAD page, and make it SOI try to lock Sam site. -> wont lock Solution: dobber left to exit mark point menu on DED HAD page seems to show SOI box around it but actually is not SOI unless mark point menu is cancelled on DED See track attached markpoint hts not locking.trk

As Razo+r says. Check the radar antenna elevation. The HSD shows the altitude of the bandit below his symbol. Try to bring the radar antenna to match the volume of the radar scan to the bandit. And wait until the radar has done some sweeps over the bandit to make it a radar track, then you should be able to lock.

I noticed that too. I did a test in a way that I tried to lock on the outer part of the fuselage of the two tanks but the outer extent close to the runway. The first attempt were displaced like you mention. But a much weirder thing happens when I put the target designator box on the outer extent of the tank and press tms up, which is not a lock command for the maverick, but the command to show the seeker head circle for further refinement, then the TD box just jumps. See the 2 attempts. In the first attempt it happens the 3rd try. In the second attempt even on the first try. Note, the original poster talks about doing everything without the target pod. Thats the whole point. Tracks attached Edit: Even more weirdness going on, watching the first video "mav1" again. Notice that the waypoint seemed to be moved to where the target designator was placed before. That must be the reason for the offset that occurrs after that. I remember seing a post about the target designator moving waypoints. Cant find it anymore though. mav1.trk mav2.trk

Thanks for the long answer. Shorter one from me though, as we have been there thousand times talking AI vs players. The AI seems to fly efficient compared to players, which is not the case. It uses a simplified flight model. Dont practice too much against "Ace AI" and think its an ace. Its a cheater. The point you're at you should consider transition to fight players only, you might get bad habits fighting AI. There is enough dogfight servers online. In a guns only scenario, especially experienced players are going to dodge bullets, make you slow, then turn into you in a M2K. You wont be able to follow. Because slower rate and even radius. The M2K will smash you there. This AI dude is still flying speeds the F16 is manoverable at. 330 kts is much faster than any compentent player will be with you at this point. Sorry to disilluision you there. Also with the new thrust modelling its gonna gain energy back faster than you, to get to its rate speeds. Thats why I was asking. I dont think the thrust modelling is taken too much, or maybe even not at all taken into account by the AI flight model. Winning snapshots is a matter of nose authoritiy which the M2K has in every speed range over the F16. I have read Shaws book and I am pretty sure that when it comes to lag pursuit rolls and displacement rolls comes at the point before the fuselages are aligned. At 1:11 your fuselages are alingned at these manover lose pretty much all of their effectiveness, because its now throttle position which controls the overtake. And that is when the smaller M2K turn radius comes into play. The M2K does not have to create a 1C, it already is. The AI just does not know what to do with it. If your guns mechanics arent on point at 1:05 and you dont kill him, this is when a competent player ususally will make you over shoot and sit behind you killing you with a smile on his face and not fly a fancy air show like the AI. I really would adise you to go on a server like "dcs dogfighters" challenge a competent M2K driver there. And put it to the test what you think you have learned. And @Jasiński the original poster. All of what I wrote will happen vs an F18 too.

How old is that video? Was it brefore the M2K got revamped with the new thrust model? Honestly, what is that M2K doing at 2:50? If he did not jink like right and left, but only pulled in one direction, you would have overshot. It has a much smaller turn radius than the F16. Was he human or AI? Nice lecture part though Go on doing educational videos. Especially BFM videos are rare!

I understand that some people may like the un-worn look. But another uncanny thing with an un-worn cockpit is that it quickly looks artificial, like a 90ies game. I work in the computer graphics industry and you always want to have some small imperfections on basically everthing to make it look real and not CG.

Now the next question arises. To all the people with home built sim pits: Who is the 100% F16 nerd with a sheep skin seat?

As I wrote. There are more indication that the AB starts engaging at 75 or rather 76% as documents from the Internet state. Another thing that came to my mind was if the flame animation is wrong. Could be a thing on multiplayer if you don't see your flight lead engage the AB while flying formation. Maybe a moderator can demystify @BIGNEWY ?!

Get ready for the "correct as is" tag. My grandfather had that on the seat in his car. Felt awesome to sit on. Especially in winter. And what's good for grandfather's cars is also good for F16s I guess.

Sure you can set it up with a lots of different tools. Even with the external winwing software I can set the AB detent if I don't wanna use DCS curves. But the initial question was where the AB engages. Using fuel flow as indicator it's 75 % Using external view and visual representation , the AB flames, it's at 82%

As you like. I am not affiliated with simgears. But they even use the original Otto dobber switch from the real jet. That's why the pro ICP is so expensive. You don't know what you're probably missing Go ahead and see how much time you want to put into learning the viper. If you see that you like the viper you can re consider shaping your hardware more towards it.

Both of your setups look already amazing as desk pits. I am flying the viper 90% of the time, every other aircraft is adapted with the button binds to the F16 logic. Which works surprisingly well. If I were you, I'd go for an ICP and that's it. You'd tend to use the ICP much more often than the MFDs. It's worth the money. Flying in VR only I must say the simgears ICP is great, because the housing gives the exact same feel as it looks in the jet. And the form and gaps at the side of the housing gives me an instant idea where my hands are at. Maybe that's a downside for the winwing ICP. Also as I am in VR I don't see the DED display anyway. ( I know it's built after the block 60 F16s ICP with DED on top, but we don't have that f16 in in any simulator at the moment)

Depends on how much work and money you want to put into it. I have a VR setup and for regular daily combat operations I need: an F16 winwing hotas 100 % of the time The ICP 70% of the time The right and left MFD 40% of the time Rest is optional, and a waste of money I did not print or build anything by myself, I bought winwing hotas , simgears ICP, Thrustmaster MFDs. You can try to build it yourself, but I doubt that this will work as flawless as the purchased hardware. So far it was worth every penny I spend on it and I can highly recommend all of the above. If the new winwing ICP is good... Seems so, watching test reviews... Edit: I attached a picture of my setup. Everything is mounted with monster tech table mounts also the throttle which is not in the picture. What I am saying is, really consider if it's worth creating everything by yourself when you can buy it and it will work right out of the box. As you seem you want to have a rather functional desk pit than having a cockpit replica or parts of it.

Do 3 loaded max G barrel rolls with a initial speed of 450 kts. You'll be warmed up after that.

Its been like that for quite a while. Thanks for bringing that up. It is especially annoying if you want to pick one target that is on the outside of a group .

Sounds promising. Fingers crossed. Are there plans besides to tweak what we already have, to split up the threads even more? In the initial MT release it was said, that currently only the graphics and simulaton thread are split. The initial MT release gave a huge improvement, which seems now to get cluttered more and more degrading performance again. For example whats done in the strike eagle running the radar on a separate thread.

I surely understand that the reasons that cause the issues are various. And I appreciate very much that ED is trying to adress as many possible causes in different hardware combinations. I have a high end system ( i13900 KF, RTX 4090, fast M2 drive) and I run it on a Varjo Aero in VR. My system is on the edge. Every minor impact on performance adds. And it keeps adding in every update. We are a small group possibly, but I guess I am not the only enthusiast spending a lot of money in hardware, but also in DLC by ED (lots of maps, almost every aircraft) Of course our small group are the people crying the loudest if performance degrades. But we are the best ED clients. My PC literally exists to play DCS only. The average player, who plays occasually on 1920x1080 flat screen will not notice a performance degradation of 15 %. But for high end VR users a smooth 90 fps minus only 15% = 76 fps makes it a stuttery mess. So these are the people who will complain first. For a good reason, spending so much money. But in ED products as well. I cant believe that EDs testing team does not have at least one high end VR machine to run a comparison before pushing an update out. Check my post history. Every update I contribute with performance info. While updating my hardware to the latest available. And every major update brings my newer hardware again on the edge. The performance degrades quicker than better hardware is available.