Default774

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

As I explained earlier in the post, turning the gradient off will make the FLCS response curve completely linear as opposed to the real one which has a slight curve built into it to make precise control inputs easier. Sure, you can turn it off, but this will make the aircraft extremely sensitive with small control inputs. The real plane has the gradient in the FLCS for a reason. This is a completely different situation with the deadzone, which is also a real thing in the actual FLCS but makes absolutely no sense for desktop gimbal joysticks. On a force sensing base such a deadzone makes sense to some extent, this is why there was such a large difference in testimonials between people flying the DCS F-16 with an FSSB base and everyone else before we got these options. It's not an issue on FSSB bases (or less so) but it's catastrophic on gimbal bases. In the end, all these settings are personal preference, but I would personally recommend you never turn the gradients off unless you prefer your aircraft to be extremely sensitive and twitchy with small flight control inputs.

The gradient should be on, it is a real thing in the real FLCS response curve.

I agree completely. I still think a zero/negative closure == detonate solution is the right way forward, although simply increasing the proximity fuze range would work as well. The anti-missile maneuvers mentioned by Chizh would absolutely still work, in the sense that they would increase the miss distance of the missile, perhaps, the missile may detonate at 20m instead of not detonating at all. This would add some much needed dynamics into the equation where not all missile hits are always 100% guaranteed death as they are right now, which would also help in lining up with real scenarios of AIM-120 hits where full destruction of the aircraft is not always guaranteed. Realistic anti-missile maneuvers would still be effective, just not a binary instant death or zero damage

I really don't see the point of this. What is the point of requiring another keypress to move the throttle in or out of idle?