Is The Air To Ground Workflow In The Real F16C Blk50 Really This Clunky......

[Buzz313th]

Or is the DCS Viper still that far away from giving a true representation of the aircraft and it's systems?

I'm about 85-95% done with learning the systems of the viper and god does it feel like I have to fight it to get sensors to point where I want them to.  There is no real "flow" to the workflow.  The process is just painful and cumbersome.  Please tell me that the DCS Viper is not even close and there is still a ton of polish needed. 

[MTM]

The Hornet was my first DCS aircraft  and for me, personally, I found air-to-ground to be easy and intuitive in the Hornet. Then I started learning the Viper and I had the same experience you just described. Air-to-ground was cumbersome and much less intuitive than the Hornet. Be patient my friend.  Give it time. You’ve really got to know the jet 100% and then go a little past that so that the procedures are automatic for you and the sensors do what you want them to. One bit of advice that helped me… start with the GBU-12 (and GBU-10 if you want a bigger boom!). As you get proficient with that one weapon, you’ll be learning to use the sensors in the way that gives you the least workload. When it starts to feel easy, add more weapons. 

[Dragon1-1]

One thing to understand about the Viper is that it's built around preplanned steerpoints. If you don't have a steerpoint at or very near the target, you're in a world of clunk. Snowplow really works like that in the real jet, but the idea is that you drop a markpoint near any TOO you find, and then you've got it working like you had a preplanned steerpoint. You can use any markpointing method you want, but you do need a markpoint.

Hornet is, in some ways, more straightforward, but I found it a little less smooth to use, because I was used to the Viper.

[Buzz313th]

5 hours ago, MTM said:

The Hornet was my first DCS aircraft  and for me, personally, I found air-to-ground to be easy and intuitive in the Hornet. Then I started learning the Viper and I had the same experience you just described. Air-to-ground was cumbersome and much less intuitive than the Hornet. Be patient my friend.  Give it time. You’ve really got to know the jet 100% and then go a little past that so that the procedures are automatic for you and the sensors do what you want them to. One bit of advice that helped me… start with the GBU-12 (and GBU-10 if you want a bigger boom!). As you get proficient with that one weapon, you’ll be learning to use the sensors in the way that gives you the least workload. When it starts to feel easy, add more weapons. 

Solid advice I will apply it...  

I came from Old Falcon4 in the day, then FA18 Hornet, FA18 Super Hornet, Janes etc..  I know I'm older now, but I don't remember any of those sims being this difficult regarding an A-G Flow.  As a matter of fact I do remember the Hornet sims having a nice groove to them and the block 40 of old Falcon 4 not being this clunky.

I am pretty proficient with the A10CII, as it was the first Full Fidelity Module I learned.  Once you wrap your head around the HOTAS assignments, then the A10 will give you anything you want it to do and you never feel like you backed yourself in to a corner workflow wise and always find a quick way out.   The DCS Viper on the other hand, sometimes feels like you can just stuff yourself into a corner and need to reverse engineer your way out.  It's not comfortable.   If this is the way it is in the real jet, I am surprised that Lockheed Martin didn't smooth it out and make it more intuitive.  Viper pilots don't get to spend that much time flying nowadays, mostly brief, post brief and sim time, then maybe an hour or two in the actual jet per week. 

Considering the evolution of learning that the USAF has gone through since Vietnam, which has emphasized the need for a force to be fluid and adapt quickly, where quick flexibility was a design staple, I'm even more surprised the viper's logic was designed this way.   

Either way.. 

 

Cheers.. 

[DD_fruitbat]

That's weird, I find the Vipers workflow the easiest and most streamlined of all the jets, by a long way. Funny how different people perceive the same thing!

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

One thing to understand about the Viper is that it's built around preplanned steerpoints. If you don't have a steerpoint at or very near the target, you're in a world of clunk. Snowplow really works like that in the real jet, but the idea is that you drop a markpoint near any TOO you find, and then you've got it working like you had a preplanned steerpoint. You can use any markpointing method you want, but you do need a markpoint.

Hornet is, in some ways, more straightforward, but I found it a little less smooth to use, because I was used to the Viper.

Or you  just simply use the Helmet to cue the Tpod, much simpler..... It automatically becomes your SPI and you can deploy weapons instantly.

Edited November 17, 2023 by DD_fruitbat

[Buzz313th]

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

One thing to understand about the Viper is that it's built around preplanned steerpoints. If you don't have a steerpoint at or very near the target, you're in a world of clunk. Snowplow really works like that in the real jet, but the idea is that you drop a markpoint near any TOO you find, and then you've got it working like you had a preplanned steerpoint. You can use any markpointing method you want, but you do need a markpoint.

Hornet is, in some ways, more straightforward, but I found it a little less smooth to use, because I was used to the Viper.

Bizaar to be honest..   

Working my way through the last 10 - 15 % of my self imposed Viper training and last night came upon the first included single player mission if you have Nevada, mission is called "Home On The Range".  Where you depart Nellis for the "Range" just North of Creech and south of Groom to do some work with a JTAC controller, then head off to the West, bust the Groom restricted airspace LOL and shoot down two aggressors in 29's.  

After approach to SP2 I am instructed to Check in with JTAC, I get a 9 Line, Switch the AP to Alt Pitch mode and Att Roll mode as I establish an orbit over SP2 that allows me to get busy with the conversion of SP21 to a usable SP from JTAC's MGRS Coordinates.  Get everything entered in the DED, do the conversion, dobber left to get back to the home screen, cycle from SP21 to SP20 and then back to SP21 to make SP21 the active and referenced SP.  Start looking in the helmet or the hud for a position reference to roll out on for the attack run and can't find any.  SP21 is active, as I can see it as a solid dot in the HSD, it's just not showing up in the "Out of the cockpit displays" (HUD or Helmet).   Flounder that mission while "Fat-Fingering" the UFC trying to un-fook myself and get some geo references to the target. Showtime reports I have died while playing space Invaders with the Jets systems as an SA8 gives me an unexpected enema.      Not an easy or intuitive workflow and has pushed me the young low time pilot into overload causing us to lose one young war fighter today.     I find out later, after trying the mission again, that my mistake (My inability to get visual symbology for SP21 up on the HUD or Helmet) was simply due to the fact that I needed to cycle all the way back to an active flight plan SP (SP3 instead of an empty NULL SP20) and then back to SP21.   Wait what?  Really? Unnecessarily too many steps to achieve a simple foundational function of wartime operation of a frontline fighter.   

If this is the way it is in the real jet, then Lockheed Martin needs to re-design. 

Cheers 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Buzz313th

[Buzz313th]

1 hour ago, DD_fruitbat said:

That's weird, I find the Vipers workflow the easiest and most streamlined of all the jets, by a long way. Funny how different people perceive the same thing!

The DCS F16C is my 2nd FF module.  The A10CII being my first.  And even though the Hotas assignments on the A10CII is daunting to remember, once done so, I find the A10CII  to be much more straight forward in workflow.

 

1 hour ago, DD_fruitbat said:

Or you  just simply use the Helmet to cue the Tpod, much simpler..... It automatically becomes your SPI and you can deploy weapons instantly.

Not so quick..  Before you can use the HMCS in the Viper to simply point and click an SPI anywhere, you need to be in Visual mode, defined by an onboard weapon type or in DTOS mode, again defined by a weapon.  What Happens if you don't have that weapon onboard and on?  Or like in my case, what happens if your already set up with Rockets ready to roll in.  In Rocket sub mode, the TGP is slaved to the Rocket CCIP.  I can't ground stabilize it, or move it.  What happens if I need the TGP to visually ID, or use the TGP to define a new out of the cockpit reference or SPI for a CCRP run.  Then I need to start dancing with the buttons on the UFC, the SMS, out of TGP format, into SMS format, use a temporary weapons mode to get sensors on point, then switch back to the intended sub mode for weapons release hoping that I just didn't zero out my New TGP LOS.  It's not easy and it's not intuitive and I'm very suspect this is how the workflow works in the real viper. 

In the DCS Jet, the initial sensors used to define a variable SPI in a fluid environment (Radar, HUD, HMCS and TGP) are limited in function by the weapon deployment sub-modes that are defined by the weapons onboard the jet.  This means, if the functionality you need for a given workflow to define an initial SPI isn't available because that particular weapon isn't loaded or selected, then it breaks a common workflow and forces the pilot to find an alternate workflow path that unnecessarily  adds workload.  Not very intuitive IMHO.  The logic at present is forcing the pilot to work backwards from weapon deployment to Identification and Initial Designation..   Workflow IMHO, should move from Initial designation, to identification, to weapon deployment in every situation and should stay consistent to build mental and muscle memory..

Edited November 17, 2023 by Buzz313th

[av8orDave]

9 hours ago, Buzz313th said:

Or is the DCS Viper still that far away from giving a true representation of the aircraft and it's systems?

I'm about 85-95% done with learning the systems of the viper and god does it feel like I have to fight it to get sensors to point where I want them to.  There is no real "flow" to the workflow.  The process is just painful and cumbersome.  Please tell me that the DCS Viper is not even close and there is still a ton of polish needed. 

This is really an interesting thread in my opinion. I find the Viper to be by far the easiest jet to work with on air-to-ground. Here's why:

- In the F-16, pull up the TGP page on an MFD, select the steerpoint you'd like on the UFC, and the TGP is looking at the steerpoint. Make the MFD your sensor of interest, move the TGP to the target, and TMS up and boom, you're good to go. Doesn't get any easier.

- If you're working off of a JTAC 9-line, you select waypoint 21 - 25 on the DED, enter the 9-line data, convert it, then select the waypoint and boom, you're good to go.

Where are you getting sideways?

[Buzz313th]

39 minutes ago, davidrbarnette said:

- In the F-16, pull up the TGP page on an MFD, select the steerpoint you'd like on the UFC, and the TGP is looking at the steerpoint. Make the MFD your sensor of interest, move the TGP to the target, and TMS up and boom, you're good to go. Doesn't get any easier.

Until your current SP is no longer valid and you need to create a new one, or simply use the HMCS to point a new SPI, but you don't have any weapons that enable the "Visual" or "DTOS" sub-modes.  Then without those Sub-Modes your locked out of using the HUD, HMCS or TGP as a SPI pointing device.

 

39 minutes ago, davidrbarnette said:

- If you're working off of a JTAC 9-line, you select waypoint 21 - 25 on the DED, enter the 9-line data, convert it, then select the waypoint and boom, you're good to go.

Not so quick unfortunately...

Once you convert the JTAC 9-Line MGRS coordinates at SP21, you can't just stay selected on SP21 and also get Hud or HMCS symbology to reference the SP.  If you want that "Out Of The Cockpit" visual cueing, you need to step all the way back to an active flightplan SP and then back to SP21.  If you just step back to SP20, (As "WAGS" has advertised in his videos) then back to SP21, you don't get any HUD or HMCS Symbology to SP21.   The period post JTAC clearance and pre "Run in" is a critical time where the pilot needs to be "Heads Up" and flying the jet any extra and unecessary work at that point is simply a liability.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Buzz313th

[jeventy26]

20 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

Until your current SP is no longer valid and you need to create a new one, or simply use the HMCS to point a new SPI, but you don't have any weapons that enable the "Visual" or "DTOS" sub-modes.  Then without those Sub-Modes your locked out of using the HUD or HMCS as a SPI pointing device.

 

Not so quick unfortunately...

Once you convert the JTAC 9-Line MGRS coordinates at SP21, you can't just stay selected on SP21 and also get Hud or HMCS symbology to reference the SP.  If you want that "Out Of The Cockpit" visual cueing, you need to step all the way back to an active flightplan SP and then back to SP21.  If you just step back to SP20 as "WAGS" has advertised, then back to SP21, you don't get any HUD or HMCS Symbology to SP21.

100%.  Secondary Target of Opportunity is horrible in this jet.  If you already did the ole easy waypoint/slew your curser/main mission and then you see a SAM afterwords... you cant exactly pivot to new threat that easy.  

Edited November 17, 2023 by jeventy26

[Buzz313th]

I have a weird feeling that some of the modules we are privy to as civilian consumers , especially the modules that are still representative of current frontline assets are lacking features, or even very small details that would nicely tie everything together by design.  I think ED has to ride a very fine line between representing the reality of an aircraft and what the DOD allows them to reveal to the public.  

 

[Dragon1-1]

35 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

Once you convert the JTAC 9-Line MGRS coordinates at SP21, you can't just stay selected on SP21 and also get Hud or HMCS symbology to reference the SP.  If you want that "Out Of The Cockpit" visual cueing, you need to step all the way back to an active flightplan SP and then back to SP21.  If you just step back to SP20, (As "WAGS" has advertised in his videos) then back to SP21, you don't get any HUD or HMCS Symbology to SP21.   The period post JTAC clearance and pre "Run in" is a critical time where the pilot needs to be "Heads Up" and flying the jet any extra and unecessary work at that point is simply a liability.

You can see all steerpoints on HSD, but only your active steerpoint gives you cues on HMD and HUD. You can edit steerpoints other than the active one, but before you get the cues, you need to select it as active. Also, you can type in a steerpoint number from the keypad, no need to step all the way to it.

If the new steerpoint shows as active on HSD, but can't be seen in HUD and HMD, then it's a bug. You should record a track when this happens. In fact, do it anyway, this will help determine what you're actually doing. Chances are, you're not doing it the way it should be done.

9 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

I think ED has to ride a very fine line between representing the reality of an aircraft and what the DOD allows them to reveal to the public.  

Not really, it's more of a thing with the module being WIP, or ED not realizing the design detail is there. For instance, the real HUD has its supports slightly angled so that they take up less of the pilot's view. This isn't present on our model. It's likely ED didn't have a proper reference for the part. With many of those details, the devs mean to "get to it" one day, and others are difficult to find in public documentation, and might be poorly documented in general.

Also note, some real aircraft features are clunky. This is a 70s jet upgraded with newer and newer avionics over the years. Some things are holdovers from the A, and others simply aren't perfectly integrated. This is not at all uncommon with real hardware.

[buceador]

27 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

I have a weird feeling that some of the modules we are privy to as civilian consumers , especially the modules that are still representative of current frontline assets are lacking features, or even very small details that would nicely tie everything together by design.  I think ED has to ride a very fine line between representing the reality of an aircraft and what the DOD allows them to reveal to the public.  

 

Also bear in mind that we have a block 50, the latest Viper is block 70/72, in many ways a very different beast in terms of avionics, weapon systems, workflow etc.

[Buzz313th]

7 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

If the new steerpoint shows as active on HSD, but can't be seen in HUD and HMD, then it's a bug. You should record a track when this happens. In fact, do it anyway, this will help determine what you're actually doing. Chances are, you're not doing it the way it should be done.

100% agree with you.   I have done the same mission numerous times.  I have succeeded in showing SP21 HUD and HMCS symbology only after recycling the selected SP back to an active Flight Plan SP.  Recycling back to an inactive, or NULL SP then back to SP21 limits me from seeing SP21 Hud and HMCS symbology everytime.

I have a bug report up and I intended on submitting a track file, but I keep forgetting to click "Save Track File" when I exit during my testing sessions.  I'll get to it when I get home later.  But, there is enough clear and concise info here and on the bug report that should give the "B" Testers the ability to reproduce. 

[Buzz313th]

26 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Also note, some real aircraft features are clunky. This is a 70s jet upgraded with newer and newer avionics over the years. Some things are holdovers from the A, and others simply aren't perfectly integrated. This is not at all uncommon with real hardware.

Very valid point....

LOL, I flew and am typed for the EMB-120 and Single Pilot IFR in the Metroliner, (I'm dating myself here)  Both in the same time period roughly.  Both were Clunky, but not nearly as Clunky as the DCSF16C..     I know, apples to oranges, but needed to make a reference to two of the most "Interesting" aircraft to fly, especially the Metro for a part 135 company with the single crew waiver...  But I digress...    

I would guess that if the Blk50 was this clunky that the test pilots would of raised hell until General Dynamics, Raytheon, Hughes or Lockheed Martin redesigned the logic.  There is no way the real Blk 50 is this limiting in workflow.  It's too easy and inexpensive of a fix to make it flow way better.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Buzz313th

[Yurgon]

41 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

I have a weird feeling that some of the modules we are privy to as civilian consumers , especially the modules that are still representative of current frontline assets are lacking features, or even very small details that would nicely tie everything together by design.

In many ways, I agree with your assessment. While I can't really speak to the F-16, for the simple reason that I'm a complete novice in it, I feel rather strongly that the workflow in the Hornet is also extremely clunky and error prone - compared to the A-10C.

But that latter aspect may well be the source of the issue. Once we get to know and appreciate a nice and solid workflow, and once we've put in the time to learn it and make the best possible use of it, we tend to compare every other workflow against this one. Often times, what we learn later on appears to fall short - why isn't everything as simple and straightforward as in module XYZ?

Of course nothing beats the A-10C workflow, period (short of maybe an F-35).

And then there's the aspect of training and procedures. DCS training missions are designed for newish players with little to no background. I'm not aware of any "transition" trainings that teach Hornet pilots how to fight in the Viper or any other similar combination.

What we do in DCS and how we do it may have little to do with how they do it in the real jet. Pilots don't usually show up at a battlefield and decide to take out targets of opportunity they just became aware of and cycle between weapons and acquisition methods. I'm sure it happens, but even then there'll be tons of planning ahead of time to be as prepared as one can be.

CAS isn't a specialty for the F-16 community at large. Some squadrons train to it, others only do so when the need arises, and I believe yet others never train to it at all. Obviously, those that train to it will make sure all CAS qualified pilots have the workflow down, and they'll spend a lot of time on the range before they go into any theater.

Is the DCS F-16C fully representative of its real life counterpart? I really don't know, but ED are usually working off the best information available and they tend to do a fantastic job of getting as close to the real deal as possible within the confines of a video game. There's not much reason to restrict access to, say, the DED workflow in a jet like the Viper. The quality of the TGP, radar acquisition range, exact frequencies and capabilities, sure, it makes sense to protect this information. How pilots interface with the systems, I believe that's probably very accurately modeled because there's just not much reason to classify or restrict this kind of information (then again, I have no clue how the US DoD makes its decisions regarding classification).

Like Dragon1-1 also said, the F-16C Block 50 wasn't invented in 2005 (or whatever time period "our" F-16C represents); it builds upon a 30+ year legacy, and not everything is a blank sheet design. Which is also why I'm so fascinated with the A-10C: the people in charge of upgrading the A-10A went to all the other fighter communities and asked them what they liked, what they didn't like, what worked well and what didn't - and that shows in the A-10C. But of course the A-10 is a purpose built Air-to-Ground jet, with Air-to-Air being a side note, unlike true multipurpose jets like the F-16 that have to excel in both realms.

Long story short, if we learned to fly the F-16C (F/A-18C, JF-17, take your pick) like the real pilots and following a multi-month curriculum, we might find the jet and the workflow to be super capable and totally natural.

[av8orDave]

41 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

Very valid point....

LOL, I flew and am typed for the EMB-120 and Single Pilot IFR in the Metroliner, (I'm dating myself here)  Both in the same time period roughly.  Both were Clunky, but not nearly as Clunky as the DCSF16C..     I know, apples to oranges, but needed to make a reference to two of the most "Interesting" aircraft to fly, especially the Metro for a part 135 company with the single crew waiver...  But I digress...    

I would guess that if the Blk50 was this clunky that the test pilots would of raised hell until General Dynamics, Raytheon, Hughes or Lockheed Martin redesigned the logic.  There is no way the real Blk 50 is this limiting in workflow.  It's too easy and inexpensive of a fix to make it flow way better.

 

Oh man the metroliner! Cool plane.

If you're having to fiddle around that much, you're probably seeing a bug. I just tested a mission out of curiosity, and I input MGRS coords from a JTAC, got HUD and JHMCS cues to find it, input another set of MGRS coords, again got good cues to find it, etc. No issues on my end. If you move the TGP or radar around after selecting a steerpoint, you have to cursor-zero it for a new steerpoint, but outside of that, it's pretty darn straightforward. I actually find the F/A-18C switchology much more difficult to work with.

 

[Buzz313th]

24 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

In many ways, I agree with your assessment. While I can't really speak to the F-16, for the simple reason that I'm a complete novice in it, I feel rather strongly that the workflow in the Hornet is also extremely clunky and error prone - compared to the A-10C.

But that latter aspect may well be the source of the issue. Once we get to know and appreciate a nice and solid workflow, and once we've put in the time to learn it and make the best possible use of it, we tend to compare every other workflow against this one. Often times, what we learn later on appears to fall short - why isn't everything as simple and straightforward as in module XYZ?

Of course nothing beats the A-10C workflow, period (short of maybe an F-35).

And then there's the aspect of training and procedures. DCS training missions are designed for newish players with little to no background. I'm not aware of any "transition" trainings that teach Hornet pilots how to fight in the Viper or any other similar combination.

What we do in DCS and how we do it may have little to do with how they do it in the real jet. Pilots don't usually show up at a battlefield and decide to take out targets of opportunity they just became aware of and cycle between weapons and acquisition methods. I'm sure it happens, but even then there'll be tons of planning ahead of time to be as prepared as one can be.

CAS isn't a specialty for the F-16 community at large. Some squadrons train to it, others only do so when the need arises, and I believe yet others never train to it at all. Obviously, those that train to it will make sure all CAS qualified pilots have the workflow down, and they'll spend a lot of time on the range before they go into any theater.

Is the DCS F-16C fully representative of its real life counterpart? I really don't know, but ED are usually working off the best information available and they tend to do a fantastic job of getting as close to the real deal as possible within the confines of a video game. There's not much reason to restrict access to, say, the DED workflow in a jet like the Viper. The quality of the TGP, radar acquisition range, exact frequencies and capabilities, sure, it makes sense to protect this information. How pilots interface with the systems, I believe that's probably very accurately modeled because there's just not much reason to classify or restrict this kind of information (then again, I have no clue how the US DoD makes its decisions regarding classification).

Like Dragon1-1 also said, the F-16C Block 50 wasn't invented in 2005 (or whatever time period "our" F-16C represents); it builds upon a 30+ year legacy, and not everything is a blank sheet design. Which is also why I'm so fascinated with the A-10C: the people in charge of upgrading the A-10A went to all the other fighter communities and asked them what they liked, what they didn't like, what worked well and what didn't - and that shows in the A-10C. But of course the A-10 is a purpose built Air-to-Ground jet, with Air-to-Air being a side note, unlike true multipurpose jets like the F-16 that have to excel in both realms.

Long story short, if we learned to fly the F-16C (F/A-18C, JF-17, take your pick) like the real pilots and following a multi-month curriculum, we might find the jet and the workflow to be super capable and totally natural.

Good post, well thought out and appreciate the feedback.

5 minutes ago, davidrbarnette said:

Oh man the metroliner! Cool plane.

If you're having to fiddle around that much, you're probably seeing a bug. I just tested a mission out of curiosity, and I input MGRS coords from a JTAC, got HUD and JHMCS cues to find it, input another set of MGRS coords, again got good cues to find it, etc. No issues on my end. If you move the TGP or radar around after selecting a steerpoint, you have to cursor-zero it for a new steerpoint, but outside of that, it's pretty darn straightforward. I actually find the F/A-18C switchology much more difficult to work with.

 

Later when I get home,I’ll send over a track and maybe a custom mission that should zero in on the bug I’m finding.  On the bug report I made, there is another user who is seeing the same bug, so I know it’s just not me.

 

[jeventy26]

OK, well how about this.  What would be the best workflow for CAS without waypoints?  Can someone provide an example?  More than one target... lets say 5 miles apart.

[Buzz313th]

1 hour ago, Yurgon said:

How pilots interface with the systems, I believe that's probably very accurately modeled because there's just not much reason to classify or restrict this kind of information (then again, I have no clue how the US DoD makes its decisions regarding classification).

One quick comment I do want to add regarding your point quoted above.   
 

Some of the most guarded  war fighting information is “Tactics” and “Methods”….  and more often than not, foundational workflow for tactical system will reveal the methods available and thus potential tactics. 
 

“Acquisition Time” is a paramount metric when considering the other sides capabilities, especially when technology is so close that both sides are hunting for marginal gains.  This “Time” is often the efficiency of the workflow we are talking about.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Buzz313th

[Buzz313th]

39 minutes ago, jeventy26 said:

OK, well how about this.  What would be the best workflow for CAS without waypoints?  Can someone provide an example?  More than one target... let’s say 5 miles apart.

I’m speaking from pretty low time in the DCS F16, but for me, the easiest and most flexible designation method is to use the Weapon Sub Mode “Visual”, which gives me unlimited control of the TGP, allows me to quickly designate and slew the TGP to the active SP, HUD TDC and or the HMCS Pointer.   Then I can slave “most” of the weapons over to the TGP designated LOS or SPI.  Only caveat is that the weapon types aboard and active on the jet define the sub mode that limits the operation of the TGP.  This method of mine is the closest method to how the A10C2 works which IMHO is a very flexible and logical workflow that does not force the pilot to “Reverse Engineer” themselves out of a logic dead end.

 

With regards to working with JTAC, on the DCS F16, you’re stuck with having to create a new SP from his 9-Line.  Which prompts me to ask the question, why can’t the JTAC send “Data” to the F16 Flight via DataLink like they can with the A10C?  Again, seems like a simple fix that might just be a software upgrade.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Buzz313th

[MAXsenna]

@Buzz313th If you forget to press save I believe the temporary track is stored until you start a new mission.


Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Buzz313th]

1 minute ago, MAXsenna said:

@Buzz313th If you forget to press save I believe the temporary track is stored until you start a new mission.


Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Great Info thank you.
 

Is there a common file name for this last track file?   

[Yurgon]

11 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

Is there a common file name for this last track file?   

It's very well hidden.

C:\Users\{Your Windows User}\AppData\Local\Temp\DCS{Version}\LastMissionTrack.trk

[Buzz313th]

1 minute ago, Yurgon said:

It's very well hidden.

C:\Users\{Your Windows User}\AppData\Local\Temp\DCS{Version}\LastMissionTrack.trk

Ok, I laughed out loud at myself upon reading this.   
 

 

Thanks