enyak

Again, we're not talking theoretical capabilities but the specific RWS submode STT of the 16 FCR. The FCR can certainly display azimuth and maybe guesstimated range information of strobers on the scope in RWS mode. However - what you seem to be implying is that the 16 FCR can lock up a jamming target (beyond burn-through range of its FCR) and sustain STT via "HOJ", relying on azimuth information to keep the track alive. Is this correct? I have never ever heard about this capability of the 16 FCR before. If so, I would certainly like to hear how the switchology works and how to select this mode in DCS.

We're talking about the specific FCR-submode STT. This requires range information for accurate tracking, Upon loss of tracking the most the FCR can do is enter a temporary COAST-mode to try and re-acquire the target and regain a STT lock.

ROE = Rules of Engagement. This has nothing to do with a specific plane or FCR or L16 symbology, it is the rulebook that guides whether weapons employment is permitted or not during a mission. IFF and L16 may or may not factor into the rulebook that is currently employed. Instead of the muddled usage of ROE in this thread I recommend referring to the FCR L16-symbology in question as L16-tracks. That said I find the usage of NCTR as a required component of clearing L16-tracks via ownship FCR as friendly or hostile to be fishy, especially since aircraft type alone may or may not be a reliable indicator in a given theater.

The solution is obvious, ask your SMEs for clarification on the issue.

I don't get it. When the FCR is able to maintain STT lock then it is also able to gauge range. Otherwise there is no STT since it relies on accurate range tracking.

The entirety of the uncage / re-cage function for Sidewinders is not implemented as far as I can see. It's only scripted to indicate a good-tone and show the diamond on the radar target as soon as you press un-cage as far as I can tell. When you press Cage you can't even re-cage the seeker back into position and break the IR-lock.

WIthout the capability to cue the MAV to the SPI (either automatically or by HOTAS control) the MAV in VIS-HMCS mode is unusable and VIS-HMCS should be removed entirely for WPN-MAV.

Steps 1-5 are correct as is. Step 7 and 8 are the problem after the aircraft turns towards the designated SPI in step 6. There is no automatic slewing action from the MAV and no way to command the MAV to slew towards the SPI which is now in full view. TMS-Down on WPN-SOI should command slave-to-SPI but does completely cancel and reset the SPI.

The AGM-65 cannot be utilized with offbore angles other than what is originally within the MAV-seeker window when in VIS-HMCS mode. Steps: 1. Select AGM-65H (also other models) on the SMS page and set A/G->VIS 2. SOI moves to HUD 3. Long-press TMS-Up to transfer SOI from HUD to HMCS 4. HMCS TD-Box appears. TMS-Up to designate VIS-HMCS-SPI to a target (or ground) to your right 90° offbore (ie. popup SA-6). SOI is automatically transferred to WPN-MAV 5. MAV slews towards TD-Box SPI but hits gimbal limit and stops movement 6. Move AC nose towards designated VIS-HMCS-SPI 7. MAV does not move towards SPI even though now within MAV gimbal limits 8. MAV does not present HOTAS command to slave towards SPI that is now within reach. TMS-Down with SOI on WPN-MAV resets entire SPI and starts the process anew. Expectation: MAV should either automatically slave towards VIS-SPI when able due to AC rotation or implement TMS-Down to re-slave towards VIS-SPI. Demo: See attached track on Caucasus with AGM-65H. F16_MAV_VIS_HMCS2.trk

Radar elevations with the digital bindings (as opposed to the axis) remains extremely imprecise and at worst unfit to use during an engagement. Is there any movement on fixing this issue at all? I'd like to see higher priority attributed to this issue.

You can get a sense of how the F-16 taxies around a steep corner here at 05:55. It's a pretty deliberate speed but I kind of get the sense that angle might still have thrown our DCS Viper.

Bombing modes rotary since update 24.08.2022 has been wrongly implemented. The current rotary order is CCIP -> CCRP -> DTOS. This is wrong and does not faciliate popup attacks that rely on steering info from CCRP and switch to CCIP for final visual targetting. CCIP is always one HOTAS press away from CCRP and is a core F-16 feature as seen in many HUD videos old and new over the years. Correct rotary order is (depending on starting mode when entering A/G and stepping via NWS MSL STEP): CCIP→DTOS→CCRP→CCIP (repeats) DTOS→CCRP→CCIP→DTOS (repeats) CCRP→CCIP→DTOS→CCRP (repeats) if starting from a manual selection of LADD/MAN on the SMS page then pressing NWS switches to CCIP→DTOS→CCRP→CCIP.

We've had this yesterday with the TGP installed, even though it had no active track and wasn't SOI. For some reason setting the TGP to standby fixed the issue and the FCR was able to slew freely and stay in position.

I'd like to re-raise this topic. When using the digital bindings for the antenna elevation the rate of change is incredibly high and it is difficult to control even when only momentarily tapping the binding. It would help a lot to have the speed lowered otherwise the elevation can not be considered to be controllable without an analogue axis.

I stand corrected, the AN/ALR-69 is older then: https://www.aef.se/Avionik/Artiklar/Motmedel/Nya_hotbilder/RadarWarnStory.pdf Though regardless the 56M still seems like it sounds off with audible RWR PRF chirps as heard in the video posted above. There's what sounds to me like some chirping after the RWR warning tones. https://youtu.be/_KdmzCQxTdY?t=205

It doesn't look to me like the ALR-69 was even available in 1990/91 though. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alr-69.htm https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/ALR-69

Removed: RWR Handoff Functions PRF Audio. This is more a function of the ALR-69. This would not be correct for the ALR-56M in our Viper based on SME feedback. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/206282-subject-to-change-desired-f-16c-systems-and-payloads/?do=findComment&comment=4988949 I don't understand what exactly got removed. The manual handoff function that allows you to designate the primary threat? Or the RWR tones? Right now the Viper seems to be in Diamond Float handoff mode by default even though the corresponding light is not on. On the PRF tones, they seem to have been in the Viper for quite a while. You can hear them in several 16-under-fire-vids for example clearly in this one from ODS (1991):

We've just had the same problem using single-rack GBU-38 lofts at 10nm and 7nm on a 30° Loft from low-altitude NOE. Also had the same problem with a CBU-103. Could this be looked at? Not being able to reliably loft GBUs and CBUs is a tactical disadvantage.

I don't think it's necessary to include VS in order for the Hornet to leave EA but I certainly don't want to see it omitted entirely as it serves a useful function: Detection at range and threat filtering! Even if it wasn't useful I'd like to see a complete representation of the major radar modes in our sim.

Will we get the VS sub-mode (Velocity Search) for the A/A radar, sorting only fast incoming targets by their closing speed? I don't actually know if the Lot 20 has it but I don't see why it wouldn't. Wiki says the APG-65 / 73 is capable for velocity search at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-65_radar_family

Apparently this is what the range marker looks like in the real thing. The inner target range marker sticks out a far bit and is clearly visible inside the NIRD ring. Additionally the super-imposed half-ring that designates 0nm-target range also leaves a stronger shilouette against the ASE ring. In contrast in DCS the range tick seems to be 2-3 pixels long and is ergonomically difficult to pick up: Ergonomically it doesn't make sense to me that the range marker isn't easier to see in our DCS-F/A-18.

Can a mod please move this into the bug forum? Or should I just recreate the thread?

Apparently this is what it looks like it in the real thing. The inner target range marker sticks out a far bit and is clearly visible inside the ring. Additionally the super-imposed half-ring that designates 0nm-target range also leaves a stronger shilouette against the ASE ring. In contrast in DCS the range tick seems to be 2-3 pixels long and is ergonomically difficult to pick up: Ergonomically it doesn't make sense to me that the range marker isn't easier to see in our DCS-F/A-18.

Please give it to us NOW! :D It would be really fantastic to have robust support for more than 8 players.

I really love DCE but I have a big feature wish! - More robust multi-flight package support for MP (maybe even more than 2 flights?). It already works well enough but sometimes the join steerpoints can be a bit weird / misaligned for completely successful TOT. - Dedicated HOLD Steerpoints with PUSH times for ingress. This too would improve multi-flight package gameplay even more and give better quality TOT