Exorcet

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.

Well UFO's, as in the actual definition of the term, aren't fictional and should be in DCS. It would mean we'd have imperfect IFF and sensors. It might even be helpful to be able to script radar detection events for certain missions. Now if UFO means a flying plate of spaghetti from Zeta Ophiuchi, then I agree, pass.

From a few internet searches, it seems the Cyborg is not compatible with Win 11.

This thread is two years old. Two years ago the F-15's radar was half as powerful as it should be. A few months ago it was fixed. Currently the F-15 has the best radar available. The F-18 has slipped down a few slots and the F-16 while capable, has among the shortest radar range. The F-14 both suffers and benefits from being older and having its own operator.

This is how it's always been in DCS.

Beyond lacking a livery manager, which has been requested before, I don't think ED is doing anything wrong with regards to space. Some programs just use more of it. This isn't anything new to flight sims where you can have as much as the entire world represented in many, many maps. Sometimes, even more than the world, I believe XPlane 9 mapped parts of Mars? A large space requirement is just part of DCS. I recommend: 1 TB minimum SSD space (I have 700 GB of combined DCS installs on a 2TB SSD primary with a 1TB SSD secondary - My storage was built around DCS expected disc usage). Additional space if you want to access the majority of DCS content and play other games. Consider an external drive for your extra space, I recently got a 4TB drive for under $100. If you have older PC's consider moving less demanding programs/games onto them to free up space on your simming computer.

The Cold War is nice and all, but I still don't see why it's so much better than the modern era. It's not free from classified or missing data, and in my opinion needs more supporting assets than modern does to be done correctly. It definitely need to be pursued, but I don't see it being very different from modern. Isn't this just an existing MiG-29 skin though? Unless the 3D model in the video is different or something, I think it's hard to draw conclusions.

Thanks NineLine, in that case, can I make a request that the AA missile launch range selection be made into a slider? In this particular case using the halfway between Max and NEZ works well, but it might not be ideal for other situations. The only other options are waiting for NEZ, which is probably too conservative or random, which is well, too random. Maximizing missile Pk will probably take trial and error with an adjustable slider depending on the planes and missiles being pitted against each other.

Orbit at 0 speed is a hover.

BRA's in this engagement