Default774

I mean, is it? It is just an anecdote and does not really refute anything from ED's analysis

Yes, there is no difference between running 5% deadzone in special and 0 in axis tune and doing it the other way around. Either way you will get no flight surface response on the aircraft and your physical control movement wont do anything until you get out of the deadzone.

You have now basically added a 7-9% deadzone to your controls, if that fits your preferences, sure, but I think most people are not fans of that.

This has nothing to do with specific aircraft and is an issue across all aircraft. With the new SA-11 missile aerodynamics it meant it could engage targets beyond the range at which the tracking radar was detectable on RWR. The RWR detection range (so to say) was increased last update, but not increased enough. Provided you are flying high and fast enough, the range at which the SA-11 can engage you is still longer than the range at which it becomes detectable on RWRs, so until you get closer to the SAM you will not get a warning. This issue is reported to ED.

Can you make sure that your steerpoint is actually on the ground? When you put down a steerpoint in the ME its some 6k feet in the air if you dont change it. When you move the air to ground radar cursor it puts the steerpoint at ground level and when you CZ your SPI will be at your steerpoint again, which is in the sky.

Not the case in DCS and HARMs mounted on sta4&6 will fire and work normally

This is a known issue and already reported, along with radar azimuth settings not persisting through master mode changes

Hi, this is due to the fact that the range at which you can point track units at is determined by your ownship altitude. Since you were only flying at about 20000ft when you were trying to point track the target you were too far away since at 20k you only have a point track range of about 20nm. This limitation applies to all units, sea, ground and aircraft, it is especially noticeable when trying to track aircraft in the A-A mode on the TGP. it's already reported to ED. I wrote a report about this very issue a few years ago.

In short: In my opinion you should leave the gradients ON and lower the deadzone sliders in special to as low as is practical. Small distinction, these settings are made for force sensing bases, not force feedback. I wrote some more information on why in this comment:

Luckily neither the 30m or 1hr duty time is modelled in the DCS F-16 so this doesn't affect you for now.

The SAM rings on the HSD are not "datalink" as you would say but they are preplanned threats which (should) have to be manually placed at certain coordinates as a steerpoint. Currently, these threat rings automatically populate for any SAMs that are not marked as hidden on MFD when you first spawn in. The only way you can currently update your SAM rings is by reslotting/respawning. You should be able to change the preplanned threats by changing a certain range of steerpoints, but that is currently not implemented. One can expect that this functionality will get more fleshed out as the DTC and mission planner gets closer to being implemented. I would also expect that you will eventually have to manually place the threat rings down yourself instead of them auto filling when you spawn semi-omnisciently.

I have no idea why -5 was removed from the name, but Its worth noting that it was only labelled as a C-5 for a year or two, before that it was also named as an unspecified 120C. Perhaps @Chizh could provide some insight on why the -5 suffix was removed?

Hi, I am not sure how you could possibly come to this conclusion looking at the 120C and 120B we have in the game. The 120C is notably faster (and obviously has less drag). 120c120b.acmi

The F-15C has no CFTs, there is nothing to remove