reported Airspeed gauge scale issue

[some1]

The mach gauge below mach 1.0 should show the speed on a scale in 0.05 increments, not in a single 0.5 increment as it is now.

 

It's correct in DCS F-5.

Edited December 27, 2023 by some1

[Lord Vader]

Hi @some1

We would require a non-classified documented reference stating that the Stand-by Indicated Airspeed gauge used on the F-16CM Block 50 CCIP does indeed work as you describe. The comparison with the F-5E isn't fair as the cockpits belong to different eras.
Please send the documented reference to @BIGNEWYvia private message if you have it.

[some1]

5 hours ago, Lord Vader said:

We would require a non-classified documented reference stating that the Stand-by Indicated Airspeed gauge used on the F-16CM Block 50 CCIP does indeed work as you describe

T.O. GR1F-16CJ-1 that's everywhere on the internet and probably every other dash 1 manual will have this gauge drawn in detail on every cockpit layout diagram, with the scale as I described. You can check your existing reference too, it's already there.

It's a common gauge type, used in many USAF aircraft.

Edited December 28, 2023 by some1

[Tholozor]

The HAF manual is not applicable to this model. The -1 for the U.S. model only says the airspeed/Mach indicator shows Mach from 0.5 to 2.2, but not the spacing.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Tholozor

[some1]

Look at the cockpit diagrams in the -1, they show the gauge spacing on a picture.

Edited December 29, 2023 by some1

[some1]

So here's another public reference, a cockpit video from one of the Shaw's F-16C Block 50s which is as close as we could possibly get to DCS model.

The resolution may be too low to make up numbers but they sure look to me more like ".5" and ".6", not ".5" and "1.0". You can see during high speed dive at 6:10 that he goes between two thick marks on the scale which correspond to .5 and .6 Mach, That's ~330 kts and ~400 kts respectively at low altitude, the math checks out.

The indicator in DCS does not look and does not behave like that.

[BIGNEWY]

Hi, 

I will take a look with the team after they return from the New Years break. 

thank you

[Tholozor]

Here's another video of an AVU-8, not sure on the variant (if it makes a difference): 

 

[some1]

And another good photo of F-16 airspeed indicator posted on the forum in another thread today. While it is from a different version, they all look the same. I've never seen the indicator looking the way ED modelled it in DCS, in any F-16 manual or real life photo.

 

 

[Stroke 3]

Here is a image of the Airspeed gauge in a Thunderbirds F-16.

You will see it at 8:32 

Also 11:17

 

[SpecterDC13]

2 hours ago, Stroke 3 said:

Here is a image of the Airspeed gauge in a Thunderbirds F-16.

You will see it at 8:32 

Also 11:17

 

Thunderbirds dont fly Block 50s. So that is irrelevant. And you know ED will not accept that. 

 

On 10/29/2024 at 2:49 AM, some1 said:

And another good photo of F-16 airspeed indicator posted on the forum in another thread today. While it is from a different version, they all look the same. I've never seen the indicator looking the way ED modelled it in DCS, in any F-16 manual or real life photo.

 

 

This is from the back of a D model F16 and judging by the electronic altimeter definitely not a blk 50 either

 

On 12/29/2023 at 1:22 AM, Tholozor said:

Here's another video of an AVU-8, not sure on the variant (if it makes a difference): 

 

Not from a blk 50 though?

 

On 12/29/2023 at 12:48 AM, some1 said:

So here's another public reference, a cockpit video from one of the Shaw's F-16C Block 50s which is as close as we could possibly get to DCS model.

The resolution may be too low to make up numbers but they sure look to me more like ".5" and ".6", not ".5" and "1.0". You can see during high speed dive at 6:10 that he goes between two thick marks on the scale which correspond to .5 and .6 Mach, That's ~330 kts and ~400 kts respectively at low altitude, the math checks out.

The indicator in DCS does not look and does not behave like that.

This guy is the closest. If only the picture wasn't so blurry. Also it would have to be from around 2007. Which reading the video description is from 2018 demo fight. 

 

You guys do know ED will shoot all of those down saying the same thing. So, try harder if you want things to change to be accurate/correct.

[some1]

46 minutes ago, SpecterDC13 said:

This guy is the closest. If only the picture wasn't so blurry. Also it would have to be from around 2007. Which reading the video description is from 2018 demo fight. 

So, try harder if you want things to change to be accurate/correct.

I try hard enough not to facepalm reading such responses.

Instead of waiting for the perfect, not blurry photo of an American F-16C block 50 with OFP M4.2+ made on a Sunday Afternoon in August 2007 at Shaw AFB, coming from an unclassified source, ED can simply check their references. So far there is no evidence that ED version of this gauge ever existed anywhere, and it's just a simple modeller's error.

Both older and newer versions of F-16 use the airspeed gauge as shown on the photos here.

Edited October 30, 2024 by some1

[SpecterDC13]

5 minutes ago, some1 said:

I try hard enough not to facepalm reading such responses.

Instead of waiting for the perfect, not blurry photo of an American F-16C block 50 with OFP M4.2+ made on a Sunday Afternoon in August 2007 at Shaw AFB, coming from an unclassified source, ED can simply check their references. So far there is no evidence that ED version of this gauge ever existed anywhere, and it's a simple modeller's error.

Both older and newer versions of F-16 use the airspeed gauge as shown on the photos here.

 

I'm not trying to be rude. Just letting you know that what they are going to say is exactly what I have said. I work on the jet and so I know what it should look like. And yeah, it hasn't changed over the years. But they will still ask for a source. If you have one, I highly suggest PMing BigNewy or NineLine. That is best answer you will ever get man. Just trying not to waste peoples' time that's all. A lot of people come to the forums expecting every little thing to get fixed without providing the proper documentation that the team asks you to provide whether that is tracks or public docs. And honestly it isn't as pressing of an issue as a lot of other things right now imo.

[some1]

Ok, sorry, I misinterpreted your post

[Lord Vader]

Hey all, thanks for the visual references.

For the sake of clarification, I've decided to raise this matter internally for analysis. Just be mindful this will be a low priority item for now.