Exorcet

How do you challenge misinformation? Errors might not be intentional, but without discussion they may go unchallenged. Reviews may also benefit from multiple points of view. We don't have a dedicated review section, put there are topics asking about modules and discussion seems to work well enough in them. The forum more or less does this automatically and the same could be said for reviews in topics. As they age they get pushed further back in the forum. New activity can revive and update them, or new topics can be created. With that it sounds like the desire is for professional review, or at least pretty formal ones. At that point it might just be better to have dedicated reviewers so that reviews don't have to be constantly monitored to make sure they meet standards. Just a few ideas to consider.

X-Plane is on Vulkan now. I was somewhat active on that sim as it was transitioning and it gave a pretty decent boost to performance.

When you add a ship (or most unit types) to the map, you're actually adding a group. By default, groups have 1 unit in them, but you can add more by increasing the second number in the "unit" setting. This is explained in the DCS manual. All units in a group will follow the same waypoints.

This should be fixed, but until then, have you tried not setting them to uncontrolled and blocking their path? That way they would be spawned and active but still won't move.

So that I'm not bothered by seeing the Air Force flying a Navy plane out of airbases.

Yes, if you go back far enough you will see suggestions that have been implemented into the game. I do think this section could be more organized though, perhaps with ED highlighting a few ideas that are feasible and then letting the community choose between those ideas which are the most important to implement.

Hence, the warning about the list not being complete. I didn't feel like typing every single option out, so I just listed the general view type for each F key and mentioned that the controls list can be used to fill in what's missing.

It's not a case of choosing one or the other though. While I do take note of fuel flow, I don't just stare at the engine panel in the cockpit. In a way you could consider the FF reference as a step in recovering if the throttle ends up getting out of control. At the same time though, what works for one person may not work for another.

There was a user made benchmark some time ago, but this was for DCS 1.5 maybe? I don't think I've seen it used for a while. We could always make another, and keep it updated as DCS changes. On the other hand though, with DCS being free to play I don't think a benchmark is completely necessary. If someone is having performance issues, they can record and share a track with other players in an attempt to resolve performance problems.

You're correct, I just put what you said together and provided the "official" term for it. I guess I should have added that I was agreeing with you, not disagreeing.

I actually found that the opposite worked for me. If I get the tanker's speed via radar or something, I'll try to match it and I don't find it difficult to get very close. Once I'm at tanker speed I'll note my fuel flow, and this gives me an accurate indication of where my throttle should be. I still have to make adjustments, especially as fuel weight increases, but having a reference fuel flow for throttle helps immensely with keeping pace. Without it I've found it's a lot easier to over correct on the throttle and then completely lose where you want it to be.

My tankers were using unavailable channels (usually 1-10). I added 40 to each of them and all my problems went away.

It's not weight that you want to look at, but the ballistic coefficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient

I did some testing last night and it does appear to be a TACAN issue. I'm trying to verify with @Flappie in the other thread if this should apply to the F-16. I've seen mentions of the problem affecting the F-18, but I haven't seen the same for the F-16 so I used to assume it was not impacted. I think I was mistaken at this point.

This bug might be related to tankers, still investigating: EDIT It seems that the problem is Tanker TACAN channels. Setting channels to low values, like single digits, causes DL to fail. I know this is an issue for the Hornet, but I've not seen any indications that the same rules apply to the F-16. @Flappie is this the case?

I'm beginning to think there is a strange bug that occurs when tankers are in a mission that causes the datalink to fail, but I'm still looking into it. Turning on GPS through ICP doesn't work. I didn't get DL until I deleted all tankers from the mission. I've experienced something pointing in this direction before: While it seems the problem in this thread was solved, @moggel or anyone else who had issues, were tankers present in your missions?

We have multiple versions of the AIM-9P, some of which are equivalent to older Sidewinder versions. The Mirage F1 also introduced the AIM-9J. There are a few other variants to add, but we have quite a few Cold War Sidewinders. As for the F-16 in particular, that is a 2000's plane. The least capable AIM-9 it was ever planned to get is the P, I'm not sure exactly which version.

Not in my experience, unless this has changed in recent patches? The only issue I've seen is that the AI sometimes faces a random direction, but I haven't seen it spin.

Yes. This is called cranking. You know how far you can turn by looking at your radar. You want your target to be as close to the edge of the radar screen (or azimuth lines if you're not using full azimuth) as possible. It depends. If the incoming missile is very close, it would be best to focus on evading it over supporting your missile. Here is a former Tomcat pilot discussing some tactics and providing an example BVR fight:

Are missiles still tracking the cockpit instead of the center of mass? That will probably exacerbate the roll issue.

Sounds like something is bound to the elevation axis and is constantly pulling it up. Check for unintended bindings.

That doesn't quite match what ED has said in the past. After the SD-10 they decided they would have final say over missiles to keep things consistent. With the introduction of the API, the AIM-54 might become ED's responsibility fully. Or it might remain Heatblur's, but they will have to confirm to ED's standards for missile modeling. I don't think ED ever made a distinction based on how widely used a weapon is.

I really want those radar fixes for the Hornet and Falcon. The limited look down we have right now can make a mess of BVR. Also looking forward to being able to sort wingmen via F-16 radar, that will be an immense improvement when flying with AI wingmen. Supercarrier improvements are looking good as well, but one major feature not mentioned is the ability to assign parking in the mission editor. It's a really big omission and something I hope to see addressed as soon as possible.

The AIM-54 is waiting for transfer to ED's updated missile API.

DCS doesn't have or need modes. You can do what you're asking for already with the mission editor. Hopefully down the line the dynamic campaign would be able to come up with a similar scenario.