MARLAN_

See: ATP-56(B) Annex ZE for PPM/Pump values for receivers.

Thanks!

You used to be able to take off with full MIL, I take it this is no longer the case? (I haven't played since the update)

> By this time, ED is tired of my bug reporting but i know they are working with the radar so it's now or in two weeks Don't worry, I'm sure they're more annoyed from my reports, although I haven't posted too many lately, just waiting for things I reported to get fixed now. As for your report, TWS should prioritize on TTG (time-to-go, aka time to intercept) not range. While range often plays a big factor in TTG its not always the case. Under this assumption only its possible the AI are so close together in speed & range that they fluctuate their TTG. I'd try testing AI with a little more variance in speed, e.g. mach 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 and see what happens. All that said, I'd logically expect (but can't prove) TWS would have some minimum variance built in, where it would be sorted based on range only, if the TTG variance is less than e.g. 5%, so tracks dont end up fluctuating all over the place (if that is actually what is happening here)

In DCS what is happening: - You go from STT to TWS, for this example lets say the radar is looking left at 60 degrees ATA - Radar b-sweep magically teleports to 0 degrees ATA (absolutely a bug), before trying to move back to its selected L&S. - STT L&S is not preserved and is reselected as if TWS AUTO was reinitialized (L&S should be preserved)

I can't speak on what the real numbers should be, but the changes are perfectly in the realm of realism. They implemented probability of detection which is a huge improvement to their radar modeling, this means while it's possible to detect a fighter at for example 90+nm, this would require you to essentially already know where they are (controller gives you a BRAA/Bullseye), because your chance to detect is very low (~1%/hit) so you'd be in for example 1 bar, 20 degrees, HPRF, it would be very unlikely to detect this contact if you were normally sanitizing (160 degrees, 6 bar, INTL) It's a great change by ED.

MSI/Offboard designation isn't implemented in DCS currently, so not sure what you are experiencing exactly but it wouldn't be what I mentioned.

Yes exactly. MSI (multi source integration) should allow track files to be built based on multiple sources, whether thats your onboard radar, but also for example your FLIR, L16 (Offboard), HAS, etc. and you should be able to designate these tracks as well.

An L&S (designation) isn't a lock, a lock (and only is) is STT, even if you were hypothetically in STT, there's nothing inherently wrong with locking (or designating) a friendly, its also standard practice to lock a friendly that you are rendezvousing on. Its realistic/expected behavior that TWS mode will always designate a contact, this is an employment mode. However this behavior is extremely frustrating without ED having implemented offboard designation, it makes it much more annoying to use than it should be. In RWS if you really want to have no L&S you can press the RSET button, however there is really no problem having an L&S set, pressing RSET in this case is solving what shouldn't be considered a problem. The NWS/Undesignate button will step contacts when used in RWS/TWS (albeit we aren't currently capable of stepping to offboard tracks... hopefully soon because boy is it annoying)

It's down-up-down per the FRM. I think its a bit tricky wording, but I understand it as "engineeringeese" that says it shouldn't be alarming when gears are down when landing (you would still get a HOME FUEL alarm if you were low on fuel right after takeoff, since that is only your first "down") The first "down" is on deck/field, then you're airborne (up), and then you're landing (down) -> no alarm.

You can set presets using the SET button on the attack display, this might help you a bit. If/when ED ever fixes things so you can designate an offboard track then you would rarely need to change configuration in flight. A lot of the usability issues stem from incomplete features, as another example, TWS automatically designating is correct, but it is also very frustrating to use in DCS because we are missing the ability to designate offboard tracks.

I think the community would appreciate and feel less offended if instead of saying things are "correct-as-is" (when they often are objectively not) these would be marked as "intended-as-is" or similar (and/or with a similar reply) this simple rewording can probably help a lot. I think the community understands not everything can be perfectly real due to information constraints, but it's a bit offending to say things are correct when people know they aren't, it feels like gas lighting. (FYI, I have very little knowledge about the F-16, so this response has nothing to do with whether this particular topic is or isn't correct)

FYI and for other readers - the AMRAAM doesn't necessarily always go from HPRF -> MPRF active, it could immediately go from inactive to MPRF active depending on the situation (closure/aspect) I only bring it up so readers/ED don't implement the AMRAAM this way if they ever actually implement HPRF in the AMRAAM.

You really gotta stop being so adversarial. My only point is that I'm not clueless when it comes to BFM as it appeared gortex was implying. Also, BFM concepts apply to all aircraft, the way you fight the jet is different based on its strengths and weaknesses but knowing how to fight the F-18 doesn't make you clueless in fighting the F-16. I am working, but I work from home so I still have my PC. But I do need to stop wasting time on this adversarial discussion. There seems to be no benefit to this discussion anymore.

If you're implying me, I've done probably thousands of dog fights, many of which with 2 different real F-18 pilots. But maybe you weren't referring to me.

I initially was only talking about F-18 paddle usage not actually being an advantage and things went off on a tangent, although just because I have a F-18 badge doesn't inherently make me biased. I just want DCS to be as realistic as it can be. Thank you!

You just said sustain ~7.5G and then nose on to kill based on the video, except you'd be slower also based on the video. So everything works out. I never said horizontal flight although not sure what you mean here anyway, there is only horizontal, oblique and vertical and I don't know how that matters to this discussion besides complicating things. Okay, sorry no offence, but I dont know how often you fight in the F18 compared to the F16, but I feel that arguing with someone who has an F16 badge here is slightly biased and I still have the feeling you dont understand where my argument is going. So good luck, thats all from me. Over and out. Glad we could come to an agreement, I have to get to work now.

You can pull 8.2 G for much longer than 2 seconds in DCS. You also missed the part in the video where he says both fighters are slower. If you're slower you are pulling less G.

I have no basic misunderstanding, and no need to resort to insults. Please enlighten me what I as misunderstanding. The video makes no claim about pulling max G as you stated. You are making absolutely no point, please clarify.

Yeah, looks pretty close to DCS since you can sustain ~8.4G and as far as the video shows, he's mostly around 8.4-8.6G with at some unseen point a spike to 9G which sets the max G. As I said, could probably use some very minor tuning in DCS. This proves absolutely nothing lol. Does he say "hold that 9G sustained lag pursuit course"? No? This is a pointless comment.

Which F16 dogfight tactics? Do you have a source that pulling 9G sustained is a dogfight tactic? Sitting still in a centrifuge is very different than being in a live dogfight, but DCS is probably a tiny bit too extreme on G effects. You can sustain 8.4G for a long time currently (8G indefinitely), although that may still be reasonably realistic still because again, sitting in a centrifuge is different than a dogfight.

Untrue, unless we are discussing the bug out scenario, which doesn't really have relevance to the F-16 underperforming, unless you are talking about "buffing" for "balance". DCS is trying to create a realistic situation, not balanced dogfight gameplay. How do we know this? Do we have data that F-16 pilots dogfight at sustained 9G (not just capability, that they actually do this as a standard)? Every pilot I've talked to says while 9G is doable, its super difficult to deal with, which does seem to reflect DCS. G has a huge effect as you increase it and especially when sustained. 4-5 G is nothing to a trained pilot, 7 is straining but fine, 9 is a big deal. Owl neck, sure, but this has nothing to do with the F-16 underperforming in DCS, again this is not about balance, its about realism. The solution would be to have some effects to prevent "owl neck", not adjusting airframe performance to "balance" the game. You will only overshoot if you are making mistakes (i.e. poor dogfight skills). There are many ways to deal with a defensive pilot trying to create an overshoot. There's a reason the control zone is described how it is. DCS isn't real life. It never will be.

Yeah, the F-16 is very capable in almost every area, agreed. Although I don't agree with everyone assuming it must be better than everything else at BFM, we don't know that, in fact available evidence does not support this claim. It's certainly good at BFM, but not necessarily the best.

Dogfight servers with guns-only BFM aren't realistic scenarios so we shouldn't be conflating what's real with them. If the argument becomes in a 1v1 guns-only situation with no other aircraft, SAMs, threats, or anything else realistic of any kind, and the offensive pilot is incapable of shooting down the other jet before they bug out then flying faster could be advantageous, but I'm not really sure how this has anything to do with the F-16 underperforming. Anything sustained above 7.5 G is going to be paddle usage. I don't think there actually is any actual evidence that what we are discussing is "without a doubt" unrealistic. Anecdotes are unreliable for many reasons, human memory, inconsistent conditions, training conditions (e.g. more fuel/equipment/etc. loaded than dogfight servers), different airframes and more. If you can post public empirical evidence, please do so. This conversation on the forums would be immediately dead in the water as soon as someone posts hard evidence. But the fact is, that doesn't exist. There are plenty of documents that give a rough idea, coupled with SME input (albeit not as reliable as data) and that is already what we have in DCS, and it is as realistic as it can be based on that.

I totally misunderstood this, your STR is not much different than mine -- I think the disconnect here, is why do we care about mach number (and/or max G)? STR is what matters in this context. If you are "in pursuit" just shoot an AMRAAM/Sparrow/Sidewinder at them.