rrohde

We could populate this thread with more of the same to move the discussion along: https://www.atrixnet.com/bs-generator.html (all in good fun, of course)

Subscribed. Looking forward to some insights.

+1 :thumbup: Edit: Forgot to mention that my World Scale settings (IPD is really the wrong term that ED is using in the DCS VR settings) is usually set from 48 to 50, which seems to work for most modules for my personal taste.

Some people should really be barred from early access, and should wait instead until the product is feature complete. Maybe ED should really put some form of "Fit for early access?" type quiz before the option to purchase an ea module unlocks. ;) Those of us who are aware what early access entails (e.g., developing new sensor tech, ground radar, updated FLIR, a slew of other things we're not aware of, etc, etc,) and don't mind waiting for it, usually enjoy what get got and happily wait until things get added.

Same here! :thumbup:

Ah, didn't see that yet. So yes, with early access patience is clearly needed. We go from one patch to the next over many weeks/months, but that's expected, well communicated by ED, and no problem. :)

So, I flew the mission again yesterday, with the original loadout. This time, both targets were destroyed. What changed? Well, the first time around when I missed both targets I let the TGP slew itself onto steerpoint 3 and 4 respectively, but I didn't touch the TGP crosshair any further, and I didn't go TMS right to area-stabilize it. I didn't slew it, I just let it sit there and started lasing. Yesterday, I pretty much did the same except for manually slewing the TGP crosshairs a little - and now all the bombs hit. Question about that - when the TGP slews itself onto a steerpoint that already shows the correct targets and there really isn't any need to move the crosshair at all, would that leave the TGP in a caged state and I have to move it to uncage it? Or would simply point- or area-stabilizing do the trick here? Thanks.

What about the one planned for *this* week as stated by Bignewy above?

Stunning is the right word here. Thanks for sharing! :thumbup:

This one for me as well exactly as described. The F-18 is harder to land than the F-14 on a carrier, that's for sure. But you need to get into the habit of constantly walking the throttle back-and-forth to counter/anticipate the engine response. There is no single throttle setting that you can just apply and ride her all the way to touchdown.

Good to know - I will check.

Hi, just a quick question - yesterday I flew the awesome Viper mission "Dawn Raiders", and I selected to drop one pair of GBU12s on the first target at WP3, and another pair at WP4 using CCRP. I was at FL250. However, both pairs missed their targets, even though the TGP was correctly slewed to their respective targets, and I was lasing right after bomb release until the TPG could no longer see the target. No joy. Should I have flown lower with GBU12s? Something else? That said, redoing the same mission with 2x GBU10s instead, with the same parameters applied as above, I was able to hit both targets just fine. Thanks.

+1 for more realism :thumbup:

...using apostrophes in plural form is just bad grammar (even though the Internet doesn't seem to care). :D AWACS = Airborne Warning And Control System, so two would be Airborne Warning And Control Systems (AWACSs), or even better - two AWACS planes :)

:thumbup: I believe that ED and their SMEs are fully aware, and that's why they - in due time - will improve the PFM accordingly.

Agreed; couldn't agree more. We're the happy - but silent - majority around here. :thumbup:

Ah yes, little kiddie games on phones is what this is all about. Doesn't apply to DCS whatsoever.

Awesome skin - love it! As a side note, I didn't know what "Have Glass" was, so I found a little tidbit about it: "Have Glass is the code name for a series of RCS reduction measures for the F-16 fighter. Its primary aspect is the addition of an indium-tin-oxide layer to the gold tinted cockpit canopy. This is reflective to radar frequencies, while it may seem odd, adding a radar reflective coating actually reduces the plane's visibility to radar. An ordinary canopy would let radar signals straight through where they would strike the many edges and corners inside and bounce back strongly to the source, the reflective layer dissipates these signals instead. Overall, Have Glass reduces an F-16's RCS (radar-cross section) by some 15 percent." Source

Well, most folks prefer realism and I assume that ED did their homework when researching our F-16: the golden tint of the F-16 (and other airplanes) canopy is there for a reason: "EA-6Bs have this is well - it shields the cockpit and crew from radiation. Gold is a very dense material with high conductivity, so even an extremely thin layer (so you can see through it) would already be effective. The gold coating would create a "Faraday cage" effect." and "The gold canopy prevents energy radiated at specific frequencies from passing through the canopy. Stefaan's comment about a Faraday cage is correct. On an EA-6B it serves to protect the crew from the radiation emitted by their own jamming pods. On an F-117 and F-16 it prevents radiation (from other sources) from reflecting off the interior cockpit structure." and "Have Glass is the code name for a series of RCS reduction measures for the F-16 fighter. Its primary aspect is the addition of an indium-tin-oxide layer to the gold tinted cockpit canopy. This is reflective to radar frequencies, while it may seem odd, adding a radar reflective coating actually reduces the plane's visibility to radar. An ordinary canopy would let radar signals straight through where they would strike the many edges and corners inside and bounce back strongly to the source, the reflective layer dissipates these signals instead. Overall, Have Glass reduces an F-16's RCS (radar-cross section) by some 15 percent." Source: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=262

Yep: Wonder what let to that collaboration with Kamov back then...

That's the key question right here. I buy early access as well, but I am fully aware that patience is needed. Just enjoy what you got until the other parts get added/tweaked/completed patch after patch after patch... until it's done. That's what early access is all about. ;) If you want the "it's done" module instead, don't buy early access.

If you don't want to be part of a growing and evolving module during early access (whatever ups and downs this may bring in your overall experience), then don't. However, if you're into mil aviation and want to fly her for the sake of flying an F-16 in DCS, and learn the systems and sensors as they become available, then by all means - go for it. It's an amazing module already, and - it's the friggen F-16 finally in DCS. :) I liken myself here as a test pilot, and patch after patch I get to try new things and/or validate existing - but improved - elements of the Viper. I am having a lot of fun thus far. So why not get yourself the DCS F-16C and have some fun with it as well?

Probably just flash rust, easily removed. It's humid over in China where they make and store those devices - so that's really not a biggie at all.

Ain't the that truth for a lot of what's going in these forums? Been guilty of that myself occasionally as well ... thus - well said. :thumbup:

Totally agree. That's always something that's bothered me for a long time... FARPS should be flush with the ground. So +1 from me. :)