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?

The current implementation of proximity fuzes where the missile will only ever detonate when it hits a (seemingly arbitrary) range seems dubious to me and is highly detrimental to the effectiveness of the missile, especially in this scenario where most misses due to barrel rolling are near misses where the missile just barely doesn't hit the magic 9 meters. The concept of missiles only ever being to detonate at exactly the range at which it has a 100% Pk and never any closer or further away than that seems weird to me. The AIM-120 has a secondary contact fuze, is that really PURELY a backup for if the proximity fuze fails to trigger? In my opinion, a simple zero or negative closure == detonate, even if we didn't hit the 9m magic number, would go a very long way preventing the missile from being cheesed this way. But if ED does not want to do this for whatever reason then that ends that discussion unfortunately.

Yes, this is also what the FLCS response of the DCS F-16 looks like. You can verify this yourself by charting out the input and corresponding G. How I've done it previously is by using axis tune and saturation to limit my maximum deflection, and note down the G for each input in a table, making sure you stay fast enough to where you will not have any AoA blending in the FLCS response.

There seem to be some misunderstandings in this thread about how these settings interact, so I'll attempt to clear some of them up. First, its important to understand how the F-16s FLCS works in broad strokes: As the force on the stick increases, the commanded G increases non linearly. You can see that in the graph, for the first few percentages of force applied to the stick, there is no G commanded. This is the dead zone built into the FLCS which you can adjust with the slider in special. Second, you can see the "kink" or gradient built into the response making it non linear. This is what the gradient setting in special controls is, if you turn the gradient off, the force to G command curve becomes completely linear. The two settings are separate and not related to each other, you can have one without the other. Axis tune is also completely unrelated to the special settings. You can set 50 deadzone in axis tune if you want and if you have the deadzone slider is maxed out there will still be no G commanded for the first ~4-5% of axis travel. DCS is only concerned with the output of your axis, whatever settings you use in axis tune is irrelevant. Why would ED couple their FLCS to the in-game dead zone setting, it makes no sense (and also isn't the case). As an experiment, you can try messing around with axis tune and saturation so you can see exactly what these settings do. For example, you can set your axis to have a maximum output of 5% with Y saturation, then try the results with different deadzone settings. With the sliders maxed out, you can see that on the controls overlay your axis is still moving but there is no G commanded and you have no control. In this same scenario you can give your axis whatever amount of deadzone in axis tune that you want, but the only thing that matters is the actual output of the axis (it moving in the controls overlay). There is ZERO coupling between axis tune and special settings. Then try the same with the deadzone slider at the minimum, and you will see that you can now actually control the aircraft when giving inputs smaller than 5% of maximum. Again, you can give yourself as much deadzone in axis tune as you want, since its not related in any way, and as soon as the axis starts moving in the control overlay, the aircraft will as well. I hope this clears up some confusion. My personal recommendations for the special settings are that you leave the gradients ON and set the deadzone sliders to as low as possible. The real FLCS has the gradient built into the response curve for a reason, so I would leave it on. The deadzone is simply not appropriate for a desktop gimbal joystick and should be eliminated as much as is practical for your setup.

As expected; this latest patch merely reverted the 120 back to the november and before state of affairs.

Hi, your track seems broken and no bomb is dropped when replaying it. Also, in the future, try to make your track shorter, having to wait 10 minutes to get to the lgb dropping part is a bit of a waste of time. I just tried and I'm seeing no issues with getting LGBs to track my laser. f16_gbu12_lasr.trk

There is not. I'm not sure what you mean by pitch overdrive.

Some more recent demonstrations here. Downgraded back to 2.9.9.2474@release, so this is before the filtering values were changed. Manually edited aim120_family.lua to set the proximity fuze to 15 meters instead of the default 9 meters. Taking two random tracks from this thread, the missile now explodes and destroys the target instead of flying past. Of course, there will still be situations where the missile will miss by more than 15m from any part of the aircraft, so this is obviously not a flawless solution. This just illustrates how much a changed proximity fuze can help in these sorts of situations.

I think youre remembering stuff incorrectly. There has been no change to the spi system in the last patch, or even the last few ones. That video is over 2 years old now, back then the SPI system was not working correctly. As far as I know the viper's SPI system is (mostly) working correctly at the moment

It was mentioned more times than just then, but I can't really be bothered to look up all of the instances. 120A is a reasonable assumption as there is a completely finished AIM-120A 3d model in the game files.

There are no TACAN indications on the HUD in the viper. I could be wrong, but that seems like the command steering symbology for ILS. Did you change your EHSI mode to PLS?