correct as is HUD tumblers invalid behaviour

[Mr. Wilson]

1. HUD Altitude Switch: altimeter display toggle switch on HUD not working at all. There are three positions responsible for displaying the readings of the radio altimeter of the barometric altimeter, as well as auto mode when switching all positions, no changes are observed...

2. HUD Scales Switch: this toggle switch allows you to display vertical speed ruler. The problem is that when switching navigation modes A-A and A-G ruler indication disappears.

VAH.trk

[Lord Vader]

Hi @Mr. Wilson

The HUD Altitude switch is not implemented in our version of the F-16C.

According to the documentation, when selecting EEGS/LCOS or AAM/MSL modes, they are intentionally reverted to VAH scales and in Dogfight mode no scales are available unless landing.

Thank you for your time.

[AvroLanc]

8 hours ago, Lord Vader said:

Hi @Mr. Wilson

The HUD Altitude switch is not implemented in our version of the F-16C.

According to the documentation, when selecting EEGS/LCOS or AAM/MSL modes, they are intentionally reverted to VAH scales and in Dogfight mode no scales are available unless landing.

Thank you for your time.

In regard to the HUD Altitude switch…… is there any reason why it’s not implemented? Is it planned? Are you saying it’s not part of the 2007 Block 50 you’ve modelled? Seems strange since all of the F-16 documentation out there from Block 50’s to MLU’s all have this feature.

It would seem to be a very simple thing to add when such basic display settings are common on most DCS aircraft. A simple BARO/RAD/Auto mode is pretty common for the complex 4th gens. Seems to be a very curious omission. There is of course ample documentation on how it works and looks. 

Hopefully you can add it.

[Lord Vader]

I'll try to find out. For now, it's for sure not modelled in.

It's kind of redundant considering you have RadAlt in the lower right section of the HUD anyway.

 

[BIGNEWY]

For now this is not planned, if you have public evidence specific to F-16CM Block 50, roughly M4.2+, operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007 please PM me. 

thank you

[AvroLanc]

So sorry, are we saying that the documentation you’ve already got specifically and deliberately states that the HUD altitude option doesn’t exist in Tape 4.2? If so, perfectly happy with that.

….Or are you suggesting there are gaps in your documentation concerning this feature? (but strangely not the functions of the remainder of this HUD control panel, but set that aside for now).

If it’s the latter would it not be valid to extrapolate this simple known function from every other Block 25-50 and MLU onto your simulation of a very similar 2007 Block 50? Considering all other functionality of the HUD control panel hasn’t changed in that period  

Thanks, but I’m genuinely curious. 

Edited April 4, 2023 by AvroLanc

[BIGNEWY]

17 hours ago, AvroLanc said:

So sorry, are we saying that the documentation you’ve already got specifically and deliberately states that the HUD altitude option doesn’t exist in Tape 4.2? If so, perfectly happy with that.

….Or are you suggesting there are gaps in your documentation concerning this feature? (but strangely not the functions of the remainder of this HUD control panel, but set that aside for now).

If it’s the latter would it not be valid to extrapolate this simple known function from every other Block 25-50 and MLU onto your simulation of a very similar 2007 Block 50? Considering all other functionality of the HUD control panel hasn’t changed in that period  

Thanks, but I’m genuinely curious. 

 

As stated we would need to see evidence specific to our modelled aircraft. 

I appreciate you may feel this is not needed but we have been down this road before when using evidence not specific to our aircraft only to find later it was not valid. 
 

thank you

[AvroLanc]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

As stated we would need to see evidence specific to our modelled aircraft. 

I appreciate you may feel this is not needed but we have been down this road before when using evidence not specific to our aircraft only to find later it was not valid. 
 

thank you

So, I think we all appreciate this approach but it’s the inconsistency that becomes bizarre and frustrating. The Hornets Spanish Litening TGP on a USN Hornet being a prime example, along with the fact that most radar/avionics/MSI stuff in the Hornet is pre 2005 Lot 22.

Many such examples are present in the F16 too. I’ve personally provided evidence in PMs that come from 90’s era Block 50 and A MLU’s….and those changes have already been implemented and are in sim already. And these, in some cases were supported by simple YouTube screen captures, for again, very simple aircraft basics features. And this is because it made sense for these fundamentals, in the absence of the perfect 2007 manual.

With the Spanish Litening example, you went that way to provide the next best intelligent solution to a lack of reference documentation…..which is absolutely the correct approach. Nobody’s talking about adding TFR or Greek ECM or Norwegian Penguin missiles to a USAF 2007 M4.2+ Viper (well, some are, but you’re correct to ignore them), but an intelligent review of the available stuff on the basics is what’s needed. Big picture. I very much doubt that everything in this DCS Viper has been gathered from a single 2007 M4.2+ dash-34 manual anyway.

Anyway, thanks. I recognise only so much progress is made by banging one’s head against a brick wall.
 

 

[BIGNEWY]

Thank you for the feedback, and not wanting to derail this thread I wont go into a detailed reply, however design decisions like the Spanish TGP on the hornet were taken as it was the most complete public data available. We dont want to make data up, it needs to be as close to real life with public information. 

I will close this thread as it will just derail, If any one does have any public evidence specific to our F-16C and the tumblers please PM me. 

thank you