SpaceMonkey037

Just to clarify here, there is NO force feedback in the F-16 stick. The stic just has some very minor movement so to not mess with the pilots heads. There is no connection between the stick and the control surfaces nor are there any motors in the stick system to emulate the control surfaces. Assuming this isn't what Dresoccer is saying, i think he is talking about the resitance values for the stick. Considering it's a force feedback stick the actual recistance in the stick will have to be adjusted. There are no springs in this stick, so you need to set up the resistances so that it acts correctly, so we aren't actually talking about any feedback, simply that the resistance values or "force" if you will, needs to be adjusted correctly. Now that all that is cleared up, I have no clue about how this force feedback stick actually works. I would assume it senses deflection and not force, and I would doubt it can handle much pressure. So you can't really get a 1:1 pound of pressure to roll rate/G, and you definetly can't get the correct deflection values that the real stick has because the real stick only moves so much and then it stops completely, while you can still put more pressure on. So to finish this off, i don't think there is much reason to apply realism to this, and it will probably solely a matter of getting to a point where it "feels" correct. So anyone who doesn't actaully use these sticks I don't see any reason as to why you would want to contribute to this conversation considering that you can't really bring anything to the table form what I am aware of. Anyway, hope you guys figure it out. Safe flights!

No, during IMC it's even more the reason not to use the radar altimeter as this is a time when it's crucial to keep the correct barometric altitdue to avoid aircraft collisions.

Just do yourself and favor and put in in BARO and never touch it again. There really is no reason to have it in ALT RADAR considering that you have a readout for the radar altimeter either way.

Flying in clouds is the way to go if you want iceing, so make sure to fly around in them if you want to test it. Note: I have no idea if this is actually modelled or not.

Turn on the probe heat 2 minutes prior to takeoff if icing is possible, if not delay selecting probeheat as long as possible prior to takeoff. The probe heat activates regardless when the aircraft is airborne. It is crutial to activate probe heating with icing conditions because, for example, if the AOA probes freeze into a high-AOA condition the FLCS will think the aircraft is about to stall once you get weight off wheels, it will take control and force the aircraft's nose down in order to prevent the stall. This will, of course, slam our aircraft into the ground and you will not have such a good day afterwards. This happend to two F-16s taking off in formation where both aircraft slammed into the ground just after takeoff.

Like i said, i have no actual proof of this being the case, only speculations. But I find it very strange that it says GM where it should really be CRM/ACM. To me it seems like they copy pasted an -34-1-1 where it just happened to show GM. Looks alot like they don't have a clue about what they're doing. Maybe I'm wrong in my statements, but I have a big feeling our CNTL page is very off, at least form the current day standard by comparing different midlife updates.

OSB 1, GM (ground map), Ground map is an A-G FCR mode. And perhaps unsurpisinlgy, the current implementation of the CNTL page is in fact the A-G FCR CNTL page, but not the A-A FCR CNTL page. The two pages have some big differences, where the A-A one includes a CPL and DCPL toggle button instead of the "PM OFF". This toggles the IFF interogator to be coupled or decoupled to the FCR scan azimuth, meaning that if you have it in CPL you will only display IFF returns from the aircraft within your azimuth. In dcs we have the DCPL mode selected, where all IFF returns are displayed. Note: I don't actually have any hard proof of this being the case, but the fact that it says GM when you're clearly in CRM/ACM should be enough to tell you that something is off, which doesn't make it all that unrealstic to think that the whole page is copy pasted from a manaual which just so happened to only ever show the A-G FCR CNTL page (which might also explain why basically non of the functions on that page actually work).

makes you wonder why it says GM (Ground Map) instead of CRM haha

I haven't bothered reading this discussion but you're supposed to fly your glideslope at 3 degrees with 11 degrees AOA, you will of course trim your aircraft for that AOA. There isn't any rule for this, but it's just so that you don't need to be holding pressure. 100% personal preference. The flaring is the difficult part of the F-16 landing.

Last time I checked the maximum was 48000 I doubt it's even possible to get the aircraft that heavy

Do you have a source stating that weight?

Hope it works out for you!

our MIDS radio is unable to transmit voice. The radio is only capable of transmitting data.

I am sure that DTC is going to be modelled very soon. It's a choke point in the progression of the aircraft, at least on the steerpoint side of things. I don't really see how it's going to "ease up" anything. The purpose that markpoints serve in dcs aren't very large.

Hmm, yeah this might be a semi-solution. It would allow for markpoint to be added, however markpoints themself aren't an essential part of the aircraft. So ED might save the efforts and just go directly for markpoint implementation with the DTC. Out of my knowledge what exactly will happen, but my guess is this anways.

These knobs are encoders, not axis. They rotate many times for a 360 degree "input". I don't think there currently is a mappable axis for this, although it shouldn't be too hard for ED to make one in my opinion.

The TGP always follows the TD box/pipper. This means that when you are in strafe/CCIP the TGP will follow the pipper, and not the steerpoint. In CCRP the tgp will follow the TD box, and not the steerpoint, but the steerpoint is slewed to the TD box so you won't notice it. There is nothing you can do to make the TGP look at the steerpoint in these modes.

Yeah, this is not correct behaviour. Both use the same magnetic variation set in the MAGV page.

For the older software versions that would be the case, but in our F-16 we have the BULL DED page. I am somewhat unsure about how it specifically works, but i think you can select a steerpoint from 1-25 to assign as bullseye.

Not really. I don't know this for fact, but the TGP resolution isn't good enough to identify tank type reliably. The chance of friendly fire is way too high. If you want to attack non-preplanned targets your only real options are smoke highlighted targets, or you could use your TGP to find a laser which JTAC are lasing on a target. Coordinates given by a JTAC are also great for targeting. In short: Smoke, laser and coordinates for non-planned targets.

That's a good spot!

If you want this control option added I suggest that you improve your original explanation about what you'd like to see. It's really confusing to understand what you exactly mean, so please give a deeper explanation about exactly what you'd like to see implemented, and how. Safe flights!

I went over this in-depth over on this thread: Check it out if you're interested in knowing when we might see an improved steerpoint system being implemented.

I mean.. cool, but this has been known for a long time.