DCS F-16C Early Access, what's left, what's next.

[BIGNEWY]

3 minutes ago, ColinM9991 said:

I'm sorry if you see it as only being about wording or interpretation when it's actually about the implication that ED are happy to mislead customers with inaccurate statements of functionality that isn't yet implemented. They're not key features, they're roadmap items.

 

We are not misleading customers and to claim so is insulting. But you have given your feedback, we have listened, replied and said we will review the main post of this thread. 

Please just stop now or you will be given a warning. 

1.10 Product feedback and constructive criticism is encouraged when provided in a mature and courteous manner. However, feedback that is abusive, insulting or condescending is not welcome. Additionally, to bring up a particular issue repeatedly after it has already been acknowledged will be considered "trolling" - in such cases a warning will be issued to the author and the post will be removed.

[Eviscerador]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Damage model works currently, but yes we know it could be better, as we have mentioned in this thread work continues. Leaving early access is just us reaching our mile stones for the features we had planned in the roadmap. We still have bug fixes, planned improvements, feature request and more to work on. 

thank you 

It works in the way that you are hit and you die. But for example look at the A10 damage model, now that's a proper damage model. Same the Ka50.

I'd love the viper to have that kind of detailed damage model so we can have an excuse to use the EPU and other auxiliary emergency systems the viper has.

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, Eviscerador said:

It works in the way that you are hit and you die. But for example look at the A10 damage model, now that's a proper damage model. Same the Ka50.

I'd love the viper to have that kind of detailed damage model so we can have an excuse to use the EPU and other auxiliary emergency systems the viper has.

The team are aware and it is something we will review. Thank you 

[LieutenantFalcon]

3 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

The team are aware and it is something we will review. Thank you 

Would it be possible to compile a list of all the team is investigating/aware of and their progress on it at the current time? I know that's not going to be an easy task, but I feel it could be a very good thing to show the community whatever there is to show by laying it all out on the table. Sure, not everything has visual progress, but the developers are no strangers to writeups in the forms of whitepapers so something should be possible.
With all due respect, we frequently get answers in this vein but they are hardly followed up with news unless the community strongly pressures for it. For items like the DTC/Planner, Sniper XR, flight model improvements, critical bugs, the radar overhaul (and many more that fall outside the scope of the F-16C) we often hear that the team is working on it, but how far along are they and when can we expect something? Maybe oversharing on certain things has gone wrong in the past with stuff like expected release dates or features that couldn't be delivered upon due to lack of documentation, but it might be a good time to try again. If the community mismanages expectations, then that would be on us.
Something in the style of the ground AI explanation in the last newsletter is a very good example. With how many items the developers are working on both for core DCS as well as across multiple modules, why can substantial news like this not be given more often?

[SlipHavoc]

2 hours ago, ColinM9991 said:

That's interesting given the F-16 product page says

 

This is marketing-speak, basically advertising. The term of art for phrasing like "the best imaginable" or "world famous" or "perfectly suited for your needs" is "puffery". With a bit of thought, a reasonable person will know that it's not "the best *imaginable*", nor will it ever be, since imagination outpaces reality.

[Silver_Dragon]

14 minutes ago, LieutenantFalcon said:

With all due respect, we frequently get answers in this vein but they are hardly followed up with news unless the community strongly pressures for it. For items like the DTC/Planner, Sniper XR, flight model improvements, critical bugs, the radar overhaul (and many more that fall outside the scope of the F-16C) we often hear that the team is working on it, but how far along are they and when can we expect something? Maybe oversharing on certain things has gone wrong in the past with stuff like expected release dates or features that couldn't be delivered upon due to lack of documentation, but it might be a good time to try again. If the community mismanages expectations, then that would be on us.
Something in the style of the ground AI explanation in the last newsletter is a very good example. With how many items the developers are working on both for core DCS as well as across multiple modules, why can substantial news like this not be given more often?

We have remember has a serie of features on progress by ED, some outside the modules, as DTC:

Quote

 

Module Support

Development Progress

In parallel with the development of the new modules discussed in last week’s newsletter, we will also continue to update, fix, and improve existing aircraft and maps. Some of these efforts include, but are not limited to:

Radar Improvements. In 2023 we released both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the radar improvements for the F-16C and F/A-18C. Phase 3 efforts will continue with a focus on better Single Target Track (STT) simulation, false target generation, and more realistic look-down effects.

Data Transfer Card (DTC). For each aircraft, the DTC consists of a variety of areas that are first modeled such as datalink, navigation, radio, weapons, sensors, and more. Once these elements are completed, they will be organized into a unified DTC interface.

Fuze Settings. All modern aircraft will benefit from the new and more advanced fuzing options first introduced for our WWII modules. This includes the new payload interface in the Mission Editor and Rearm/Refuel Window that will allow authentic setting nose and tail fuzes and new 3D rendering of fuze selections. 

DCS: F-16C Viper. Priority work for 2024 includes the Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP), a 1st perspective pilot model, and other improvements like new HUD symbology and RWR Handoff tones.

DCS: F/A-18C. The biggest task for 2024 is a refactoring of the flight model and flight control system, landing gear physics, and improved external lights. Once the new external lighting system is complete for the F/A-18C, this technology will be used for other aircraft modules.

DCS: AH-64D. With the addition of the Fire Control Radar (FCR) core functions, next steps in 2024 include the addition of functions and modes such as LINK and remaining radar modes, new George and Flight commands, and the campaign.

Supercarrier. 2024 will see continued work on the new plane director operations that move aircraft out of the landing area to a parking location. This is in addition to work on the Air Boss deck and Ready Room.

Mosquito FB VI. This year we continue working on the features from the Early access list. Including AI crew members and the Drift recorder.

 

 

[Pikey]

There's a lot of items listed above that are core DCS platform and not part of the module that will get developed for years to come, like the radar, weapons, ECM, ECCM parts. These dont belong in that list.

There's a few things that rely on a better overal datalink system. This is a difficult path to discuss, I campaigned really hard for datalink expansion and we got it to a fairly complex point already, to where, a lot of the time, the real world comes back to bite us with its limitations. The DCS ecosystem needs fleshed out here, but missing DLINK features are a bottomless pit.

There's items that have issues with public documentation. I do love how folks can bandy about RWR models and expect public material to be enough to make a reasonable take. Newsflash, the entire ECM/ECCM in the game is grossly simplified or not done at all. /s Shh, don't tell people, it's an amazing secret that no one knows except me - apparently /s.

There's a few items in that list that are applicable but vague. Whilst there is a dmagae model...the damage modelling is undercooked in my opinion. But then the core sim was developing an xrayDM and moving from the testing ww2 items outwards... yet to see any movement for years here, there may be parallel developments waiting, who knows, but whether or not there is crossover with core DCS platform items, its objectively quite simplistic. I think HeatBlur make a decent take on aircraft system faults. Big gap between F-4 and F-16 here. I'd like to see a fault other than losing both my wings, if I am fair.

Then there are specific missing F-16 features. Im not talking about the DTS which in my subjective opinion, is a waste of time in a simulation thats still adding INS inaccuracy to its core gameplay, its a sim, errors are unpopular, go look in the JDAM threads. Why would a sim simulate a system of INS errors, then simulate the system that removes the INS errors? Seems like a waste of time. Is that really important to someone? Who? What percentage of people know about the British Aerospace TERPROM DTS? Hands up.

Finally, the missing useful F-16 features. What I mean is SEAD steerpoints, related HOTAS functions. I'm yet to see a definitive list of those missing features especially when people mix in DCS platform deficiencies, useless ICP pages that dont apply, and completley worthless simulation. Yet people tout this as 'exspurt stuff'. Lets go riot on social media because internet activism, review bombing, downvoting and moronism is best done when campaigning for something that one has absolutley no idea of the details of.

This reminds me of the AV-8B arguments when Razbam stuck in a page for the TAMMAC and said, its confidential, no data and left the message on the page in the sim. Let's have an actual list of F-16 module missing items and why they are useful that doesnt include rivets an entire panel (christ, is this worth mentioning? what panel, what was kept in it? tell me why I need to worry about it) and useless error correcting systems like DTS.

 

[SlipHavoc]

55 minutes ago, LieutenantFalcon said:

Maybe oversharing on certain things has gone wrong in the past with stuff like expected release dates or features that couldn't be delivered upon due to lack of documentation, but it might be a good time to try again. If the community mismanages expectations, then that would be on us.

Oversharing on plans has certainly backfired in the past; why would it be time to try again?  Do we think that the software has gotten less complex and therefore any announced plan will be easier to fulfill?  The community has already mismanaged its own expectations many times in the past, even the recent past, and I think it's very likely to mismanage them again in the future.  Just a couple weeks ago, an announced release date was pushed back, and some people seemed to completely lose their minds.  The last thing a software development team needs is a bunch of armchair programmers crawling over their Jira board, second-guessing every decision and line of code.

[Wing]

57 minutes ago, Pikey said:

Finally, the missing useful F-16 features. What I mean is SEAD steerpoints, related HOTAS functions. I'm yet to see a definitive list of those missing features especially when people mix in DCS platform deficiencies, useless ICP pages that dont apply, and completley worthless simulation. Yet people tout this as 'exspurt stuff'. Lets go riot on social media because internet activism, review bombing, downvoting and moronism is best done when campaigning for something that one has absolutley no idea of the details of.

This reminds me of the AV-8B arguments when Razbam stuck in a page for the TAMMAC and said, its confidential, no data and left the message on the page in the sim. Let's have an actual list of F-16 module missing items and why they are useful that doesnt include rivets an entire panel (christ, is this worth mentioning? what panel, what was kept in it? tell me why I need to worry about it) and useless error correcting systems like DTS.

 

I think the argument comes into play whether you believe simulating extra DED pages, WPN options, or other "exspurt stuff" as you say "worthless simulation" - is the fact that there are 3rd party developers that go through great length and craftmanship to attempt to include said extra features and seek to "raise the bar" further. If other devs can do so, why not expect ED to do the same with such an iconic module such as the DCS F-16C. It should be no surprise people are going to want this aircraft simulated to the best of its (public known) abilities... 

Edited July 2, 2024 by Wing

[Wizard_03]

What do people want from the damage model? A single hit from any missile in the game will down an F-16 without question. A hit from and everything above 20mm will also down the jet? Where and what are you taking survivable battle damage from? 

Edited July 2, 2024 by Wizard_03

[Furiz]

I believe that simulating all those as some say worthless features is not worthless at all, without them the aircraft is naked, bare boned...

I buy modern airframes cause I love to fiddle with their systems and I love to explore those systems, test how to use them best vs which enemy, but in the F-16 there is really nothing to explore, just bare bones... I mean dropping bombs or shooting missiles is not everything you can do in an aircraft, if I wanted only that I could have gotten a much cheaper deal.

[NineLine]

19 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

What do people want from the damage model? A single hit from any missile in the game will down an F-16 without question. A hit from and everything above 20mm will also down the jet? Where and what are you taking survivable battle damage from? 

 

I mean I get the concerns, I did a bunch of runs last night and at times you can survive some damage but maybe the aircraft systems do not respond as expected. I will be reporting some of these issues as well if they are not already. That said, I mostly agree with you, the Viper is not gonna eat rounds like something like the A-10C, so there is less chance you are going to hang out in the cockpit anyways. 

[Wizard_03]

28 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I mean I get the concerns, I did a bunch of runs last night and at times you can survive some damage but maybe the aircraft systems do not respond as expected. I will be reporting some of these issues as well if they are not already. That said, I mostly agree with you, the Viper is not gonna eat rounds like something like the A-10C, so there is less chance you are going to hang out in the cockpit anyways. 

Sure sure, but I just think things like the DTC, ALE-50, sniper and more navigational improvements ect. ect. Go a lot farther when it comes to immersion. As opposed to the occasional 1 in million hit you manage too survive. I want it too be super realistic too but I would give much more development priority to gameplay enhancing features. Heck realistic ATC and AWACS will drastically improve the sim experience over the damage model. Stuff that has nothing to do with the F-16 itself. IMO 

Edited July 2, 2024 by Wizard_03

[NineLine]

48 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

Sure sure, but I just think things like the DTC, ALE-50, sniper and more navigational improvements ect. ect. Go a lot farther when it comes to immersion. As opposed to the occasional 1 in million hit you manage too survive. I want it too be super realistic too but I would give much more development priority to gameplay enhancing features. Heck realistic ATC and AWACS will drastically improve the sim experience over the damage model. Stuff that has nothing to do with the F-16 itself. IMO 

 

I agree, but I want to look at all points on the post and give appropriate info and responses. 

[SSP1]

22 часа назад, WHOGX5 сказал:

In order not to drag this out too much, as this post is quite lengthy as it is, I'll get straight to the point. The DCS F-16C is not ready for full release. This thread is in response to a post by BIGNEWY saying that the Sniper XR is the last major item before the DCS F-16C is ready for full release. Below I've listed some of the reasons why the DCS F-16C is not ready to leave early access, even with the Sniper XR added, by describing the current state of this product. This post was written with the help and contributions of several community members, who I want to send my deepest thanks to; you know who you are. Lastly, this is not an all-inclusive list, but rather a summary of the major aspects which are currently missing or unfinished in the DCS F-16C (there are A LOT of smaller items remaining in addition to this, including quite a few bugs). It's quite lengthy though, so go get a bag of crisps, crack a beer, and lets get on with it:

- Damage model: Practically nonexistent, with no real damage being simulated except fuel leaks and your wings getting blown off. I put this at the top of the list because I cannot see how you can have a digital combat simulator without combat damage being simulated.

- Maintainance / Pilot Fault List: Practically nonexistent, still only shows a single message which is the "FLCS BIT FAIL" if the FLCS bit fails. This is the entire error reporting system of the F-16C and is therefore an essential system in order to keep tabs on the status of your aircraft, even when you haven't taken any combat damage. For example, if your L16 time isn't set, you should get a "LK16 TIME REQD" message to tell this to the pilot. At the moment, you will eventually notice that something is wrong with datalink, and then you have to figure out what the issue is on your own through troubleshooting, rather than just checking the PFLD and immediately knowing what's wrong. This is just one example of many where proper MFL and PFL messages would be incredibly helpful, and the reason why those systems exist in real life.

- Steerpoints: Exists in a very limited state. Only supports regular steerpoints, markpoints, and a partial implementation of D/L steerpoints. Many types of steerpoints are completely missing, like pre-planned threats, geographical lines, SEAD steerpoints, a plethora of LINK 16 steerpoint types, etc. We're also still missing different CRUS TOS functionality, like having DES TOS reference HACK time instead of SYSTEM time, and also the ability to blank DES TOS times and have the CRUS TOS required velocity be calculated for a steerpoint without a DES TOS, based on the DES TOS of a later steerpoint; an incredibly useful feature for improved timekeeping.

- Digital Terrain System: Completely missing including its subsystems like PGCAS, TRN, OW/C, DBTC & PR. An essential system from the earliest tapes of the F-16CM-50 where you load the terrain data of a 480x480 nautical mile area wherein the DTS has features both to avoid CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) which was the biggest cause of death in the USAF at the time, to providing various subsystems to facilitate safer low altitude operations including a kind of digital "terrain following radar" mode, to decreasing INS drift by comparing your radar altitude to the know terrain elevation in different parts of the map, and also to allow more accurate targeting without using active sensors. This is for example what makes high angle JHMCS markpoints accurate, as it can reference the known ground elevation of the location you're looking at. Without the Digital Terrain System implementation, the DCS F-16C has much higher risk of CFIT, much higher risk of flying into terrain/obstacles during low altitude operations, much lower targeting accuracy (especially at longer ranges and in uneven terrain), and higher INS drift over non-flat terrain than a real F-16C of our block and tape would.

- ECM: Barely implemented. Currently only barrage jamming is kinda working, and even that is extremely ineffective most of the time. MODE 1 and MODE 2 self-protection jamming is wholly inefficient under all circumstances, as the ALQ-184 currently is seemingly incapable of breaking SAM radar locks. There's also no ability to choose which bands to jam, making it impossible to jam certain surface threats without jamming your own radar for A-A sanitizing. Neither MODE 1, 2 or 3 should inhibit your radar, but rather MODE 2 & 3 should reduce the effectiveness of your radar while actively jamming in the same band as your radar, and not impact the radar at all while jamming in other bands. The AN/ALQ-184 in DCS also has 360 degree coverage, whereas it would have roughly 120 degree cones fore and aft of the pod in real life, with diminshing effect closer to the outer limits of those cones. MODE 1 should only use the aft emitter to jam threats, while MODE 2 & 3 use both fore and aft emitters. It should also have high/low settings to angle the jamming emitters downwards for surface threats and upwards for higher altitude A-A threats, as well as cooperative jamming where multiple F-16C's in close formation boost jamming effectiveness. As an aside to this, chaff is completely useless against certain threats. You can drop 120 chaff in 1 second and you still will never be able to spoof an SA-5. This in combination with an inability to break locks during jamming, means that your only real defense once an SA-5 is locked on to you is to dive towards the ground and break line-of-sight. Other emitters have similar issues.

- SEAD: This point encompasses a lot of different systems which are necessary for efficient SEAD, which after all is the primary role of the F-16CM-50 in the USAF. As mentioned, the AN/ALQ-184 is completely useless in self-protect mode (MODE 1 and MODE 2) as it cannot break locks, decreasing survivability, as using barrage mode will constantly transmit your location, and also disable all your active sensors as well as the HTS pod. Most importantly, the AN/ALQ-184 is unable to break locks, meaning it can only be used pre-emptively (not very good when employing wild weasel tactics). The AGM-88 has modes like TI/GS/DL which have not been implemented, limiting the AGM-88's effectiveness in the SEAD role. Also, many different AGM-88 HOTAS commands are completely missing. HAD priority targets are missing. The LINK 16 Special Channel net has a very rudimentary implementation. The ability to target/blank pre-planned threats is completely missing. The ability to store detected emitters as SEAD STPTs is completely absent, greatly decreasing your ability to engage SEAD threats as they will just disappear after going inactive for a while, and the only way currently to target these emitters once they go inactive is if you have a human wingman, because then you can send that emitter to him via L16, and then he can send it back to you. If you've got no human wingman, you're out of luck. The AN/ALR-56M Radar Warning Receiver is still incorrectly implemented, making it useless for any kind of high threat environment (the kinds of environments where SEAD is required) as it conveys no relative lethality of detected emitters but rather displays all threats as equally lethal, being especially useless for pop-up threats and active missile avoidance as you can never tell how much of a threat a detected emitter poses to you. In real life, the late cold war saw multiple datalink capable SAMs which don't give RWR warnings at all, increasing the need for the kind of relative lethality displaying of threats that the AN/ALR-56M does in real life, especially for SEAD operations. Currently, we don't have any datalink capable SAMs in DCS, but if it's ever added, the F-16CM-50 will be completely unable to operate in that kind of environment, unlike its real world counterpart. The AN/ALR-56M should also use data provided by the INS to update detected threat locations during maneuvering when emitters may end up in RWR blind spots, and even flip the symbology when rolling the aircraft upside down, so emitters are displayed in the correct direction under all circumstances. Having a functioning RWR is maybe the most important aspect of being combat effective in the SEAD role, and currently we don't have that.

- AN/ALR-56M: Even though I mentioned the issues with the RWR just above, I'm still making this a separate point just to emphasize the importance of this system. If I could only pick a single thing that'd be fixed in the DCS F-16C, it'd be the AN/ALR-56M. Right now, the DCS F-16C is completely handicapped, not merely in SEAD, but in all combat situations, because the current RWR implementation is not merely incorrect, but it makes the RWR close to useless. The AN/ALR-56M was chosen as the new standard RWR for the USAF because of it's incredible capabilities and the added situational awareness it provided to its pilots, and this is also why it was rolled out so early on the F-16CJ/CM-50, the USAF's primary SEAD platform. However, in DCS, the AN/ALR-56M is the single least capable RWR in the whole modern US fighters lineup, and in many ways it's even inferior to the old 1980's SPO-15 mounted on the MiG-29A. If you get an AMRAAM fired at you, the SPO-15 (and the real life AN/ALR-56M) will indicate how quickly the missile is approaching and how close it is to impacting you, allowing you to plan your missile defence and perform last ditch maneuvers. With the DCS AN/ALR-56M, you have no indication of how far away a missile is except when it impacts your aircraft. This really, really, really, really needs to be fixed, especially for a SEAD platform like the F-16CM-50.

- Air-to-air: This is also a collection of different things. AIM-120 is still missing many features, including target size options and not least the HPRF mode, greatly reducing the maximum effective range of the AIM-120 and making the bread and butter SKATE tactic non-viable against most threats, as you need to guide it all the way to MPRF mode, a.k.a "pitbull". The Uplook Search (ULS) radar mode is still completely missing. STT mode is extremely ineffective at long range, and even against a high aspect non-maneuvering target which is detectable in RWS/VSR, it will not be able to produce a stable lock. A-A, MRM and NAV master mode are also unable to have different CRM modes selected and retained. COAST mode is still missing, meaning that notching will immediately break your radar lock and the aircraft will not even attempt to reacquire the target. On the topic of notching, the current radar implementation is EXTREMELY suceptible to notching. You can be 5 nautical miles away from an enormous KC-135 in look-up conditions against a clear blue sky, and it will still notch you as it reaches 90 degrees aspect, even if it's only for a split second, which should be physically impossible with a modern radar like the AN/APG-68V(5). Even notching against ground clutter should be extremely ineffective unless the target is very close to the ground or has a big chaff cloud next to it. Auto range scaling in SAM/DTT modes still automatically decreases the range scale, which it shouldn't, making those modes useless for situational awareness as you should still be able to freely sanitize the airspace beyond your bugged tracks in those modes. Also the HAFUs are completely unreliable, making TWS especially useless as the art of upgrading tracks is a complete black box. Blanking LINK 16 symbology will often blank all the correlated bricks as well, meaning you cannot even see the things which you've detected with your own radar. You can lock them up though and launch missiles at them, you just cannot see them on the display. Contacts which start jamming will often get snapped to exactly 99.0 nm distance on your FCR, often forcibly rescaling your FCR and requiring you to reset the FCR range settings in the middle of combat, to be able and reaqcuire that same threat. HAFU identity is also very unreliable, with enemy threats often being displayed as green friendlies for no apparent reason. And when you're in ACM mode, the bore cross in the HUD and bore ellipse in the HMCS still do not show true radar line-of-sight like they do in real life, but are instead completely static paintings giving no information at all regarding where your radar is actually pointing.

- Air-to-ground: Ground radar is still extremely janky and cumbersome. Ground maps will regularly instantly blank itself during maneuvering. When entering many different radar modes, rather than the radar moving quickly to it's starting angle and then sweeping to generate a map, it often moves really slowly to it's starting angle and just does nothing for a couple of seconds, and only then does it actually start mapping. GMT mode doesn't actually lock onto the target, but rather just the point on the ground your cursor happens to be over. Gain/Contrast/Level settings for the ground radar are not granular at all, and it is often very difficult/impossible to achieve a good balance between them. Changing these settings should also only apply for what is mapped after changing those settings, so if you raise gain in the middle of a sweep, the first half of the map will be low gain and the second half will be high gain. On some maps, like Persian Gulf, you seemingly cannot ground map terrain, only objects. JDAMs still cannot be programmed properly. JSOWs cannot be programmed properly. GBU-24 is there in spirit, but still hasn't had its guidance modes properly implemented, making it quite useless and unable to even reach the target when dropped at max range and high altitude. IFF interrogations are not possible in A-G mode, which they should be. There are also missing munitions, like the CBU-89/104's, various training munitions, possibly even the JASSM.

- Lighting: Some things are completely missing, like the external IR emitters which our tape and block of DCS F-16C should have, being selectable through the COVERT modes to allow external lighting at night which isn't visible to the naked eye, and also to only illuminate the lights on top of your aircraft, to stop ground threats from spotting you. If you look at the the external lights through NVGs, you'll see that the green lights seem to be NVIS compatible, but the red lights will completely fry your retina. Cockpit flood lights have very low intensity even at the max setting, and also little to no light scattering, meaning they don't actually flood the cockpit. They're more like focused spotlights, leaving many parts of the cockpit completely in the dark, even at full intensity, including the new pilot body kneeboard which is completely unreadable at night even with every single internal light source set to maximum. On the topic of spotlights, the actual Cockpit Spotlights under the glareshield are completely inop. The Cockpit Spotlights are also the only light source in the entire aircraft which are usable purely with battery power, and are commonly used in real life to monitor engine instruments during startup at night. They are also used to illuminate the pilot body kneeboard when the pilot don't want to illuminate the entire cockpit with flood lights, in order to be more NVG friendly. In addition to these points, there are also issues with light intensities. Some lights like the left indexer or external formation lights, etc., usually go from slightly dim to quite bright between 0% and 5%, and then every setting above is just almost indistinguishable amounts of extreme brightness. With other lights, most notably the cockpit flood lights, you can barely see them at all between 0% and 50% intensity, and then they go up to kinda bright at 100%. This becomes even more troublesome because of the way light brightness works in the F-16C, because when the flood lights are set to high brightness, every other malfunction and indicator light in the cockpit will go to max brightness too. This means that we can't have a bit of flood lighting without getting completely blinded by every other light source. Some lights also don't seem to be NVIS compatible at all, especially the RWR panel which is extremely bright and will wash out your NVGs. The right indexer lights seem fully NVIS compatible and won't blind you even on max brightness, while the left indexer will wash out your entire NVGs at max brightness, and still be very bright at only a few percents intensity.

- Textures: The default DCS F-16C textures (including those available in the texture template) are of incredibly low quality, with not merely bolts and screws missing, but entire panels. Also the textures themselves are just poor in quality compared to what you'll find in the DCS User Files section. ED should honestly just pay Roughmaster to make a new texture template for the DCS F-16C, and remake all the low-quality liveries which are currently available for the DCS F-16C, as Roughmasters liveries are of such incredibly high quality that it's almost incomprehensible. Cockpit textures are also missing textures for multiple things.

- Tankers: When refueling at a KC-135, the boom still has no resistance and exerts no force on the aircraft. In real life, the boom will push back against the aircraft when connected, allowing the aircraft to "rest" and stabilize itself against the boom. This currently doesn't happen in DCS, making aerial refueling more difficult as you need to have more accurate thrust management than real pilots do in order to stay in position. Tankers in DCS also will never extend the boom farther than the halfway point when connecting even if the player is close to center and fully stabilized, so the player always has to move closer than the halfway point to connect, rather than like they do it in real life where the boom operator will extend the boom to meet the connecting aircraft. When it comes to tanker external lights, they will not turn on their position lights until the receiving aircraft is less than 1 nautical mile away, making night rejoins extremely difficult unless you want to fry the boom operator with an STT lock. Also, there are no external flood lights on the tankers, making them practically invisible while refueling at night, except for the fore/aft and up/down lights. Also, the background lighting on the fore/aft lights is very bright at night, making your fore/aft position incredibly hard to see. During daytime, the lights are very dim and the glass on the fore/aft and up/down lights is very reflective, with reflections often obscuring what the lights are indicating, especially when the sun is low in the sky. Lastly, tankers still do not transmit TACAN in A/A mode, but you have to use T/R mode instead as if they were a ground based station, meaning you also cannot see the tanker A/A TACAN distance on your DED/HUD. It would also be nice to have some basic boom operator functionality, like giving break-away calls and raising the boom if the player is to close/unstable (including an actual boom collision model), giving heads ups before entering turns, reading off the amount of transferred fuel at regular intervals, maybe even having the player be able to request a certain fuel amount via the radio menu.

- DCS F-16C manual: This manual is still not up to date, and new features which are added to the DCS Stable branch still aren't updated in the manual, leading to a lot of unecessary threads on the forum as a lot of information about how systems work are lost to the sands of time in the Viper Mini-Updates thread, and usually have to be conveyed through word-of-mouth. For the things which are correct in the manual, the systems are in many cases bugged and not working according to the manual, leading to further confusion in the community when being referred to the manual. Honestly, everytime a feature is added or changed in the DCS F-16C, this should also be reflected in the manual, including a changelog of added/changed features in the manual itself. If systems are not functioning correctly, this should also be noted in the manual with a small notice in that section. After all, DCS is now a unified stable branch and then it'd make sense for every change to be in the documentation, since this isn't a beta build anymore.

- The jealousy: Things which have been implemented in other ED modules, but not the DCS F-16C, even though they should be present for our block and tape. Things like the HSD Expanded Data, whose equivalents are present in the A-10C and F/A-18C, but which for some reason isn't planned to be implemented for the DCS F-16C even though it was present in the simulated block and tape IRL, greatly reducing situational awareness via datalink. Or the decision of ED to not implement the AN/ARC-210 radio which was already in active service for our block, tape and year of F-16 (confirmed by multiple ED active duty SMEs + non-ED active duty SME's + US DoD fiscal reports showing amount of quarterly AN/ARC-210 unit installations for USAF and ANG + the actual real world documentation for our tape of F-16CM-50 describing AN/ARC-210 functionality) because "it was more common later", leaving the DCS F-16C as the only modern US aircraft in DCS without the AN/ARC-210 (A-10C, AV-8B, F-15E, F/A-18C), and therefore it is the only modern US aircraft in DCS without the ability to tune multiple UHF frequencies and use a single radio for the entire UHF/VHF/FM range with HAVE QUICK capability, even though it could do this in real life during our tape and time. The AN/ARC-210 would be a very simple item to implement too as it requires no 3D modelling changes, but merely new DED pages, and seeing as this radio is already implemented in other ED modules like the A-10C and F/A-18C, it should be quite simple to port to the F-16C, making ED's resistance to implementing this radio even more of a question mark, seeing what an enormous improvement it'd be to the F-16's communications suite. There are also other things, like the HAVE QUICK page being available in the A-10C, allowing HQ functionality through SRS (SimpleRadio), however the HAVE QUICK page has not been implemented in the F-16C, making the F-16C unable to use HQ via SRS. The ability to choose Fighter/Mission Channels on LINK 16 is present in the F/A-18C, but not the F-16C forcing them to send D/L points to every F-16C on the server. Or the IFF page which has been implemented in the F/A-18C and allows setting Mode 1, 2, 3 and 4 codes, has not been implemented in the DCS F-16C, meaning we cannot set our squawk codes as you would IRL through the DED/ICP. We can only set Mode 3 via the analogue backup IFF panel. Also, the A-10C even has Mode 1 and Mode 4 timetable support, giving alerts at specific time intervals when the Mode 1 and Mode 4 codes change. The F-16C should have similar functionality where the aircraft will, instead of alerting, automatically disable/enable transponders, as well as change their transponder codes, based on certain time and position requirements. More importantly, none of these features require DTC as they can all be set from the cockpit. And even if DCS does not support HAVE QUICK and IFF functionality at this point in time, these things are supported through other softwares like SRS and LotAtc, and is as mentioned already present in other ED modules, so I don't see why we wouldn't get the same treatment in the F-16C? There are also some amazing features from non-ED modules like the Datalink Mission Assignment API in the M-2000C, which allows external sources (either AI GCI or a human via LotAtc) to send taskings via datalink to the aircraft and have them be viewed on the situational displays in the aircraft. The F-16CM-50 of our tape and year had that same kind of functionality via L16, where C2 assets can send a plethora of mission taskings which get received as a data messages, with the ability to view and accept/reject taskings via the HSD, and also send tasking completed/aborted messages to the C2 station. This would be a huge deal for human GCI/AWACS in DCS, especially with players speaking completely different languages, and it'd also open up a tonne of opportunities for mission creators to access this functionality via scripting.

I'm not going to delve into why the DTC and its related functionalities are absolutely essential, as they're already in active development. Other systems like the IDM functionality and towed decoys are at least on the roadmap. For all the other points mentioned above, there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. If these kinds of major systems are completely missing at a so-called "full release", that would set a new benchmark for what level of quality we can expect of DCS modules. In addition to all the essential features which are still missing, the amount of bugs which still remain is impossible to overlook, to the point where you cannot even cold start the DCS F-16C according to real life checklists, as there are several inaccuracies which would force you to abort the mission and put the jet into maintainance in real life.

In regards to BIGNEWY's recent comment that the DCS F-16C "is complete in regards to what we intend for the module. Our modules are never intended to be a 100% replication of the real aircraft.", I would like to point out that we're not even remotely close to a 100% replication, and people aren't even asking for 100% replication at this point. Making a 100% replication would mean adding things like the need to cycle the flight controls before initiating the FLCS BIT to warm up the hydraulics and get rid of any air bubbles in the lines, as the FLCS BIT will otherwise most likely fail. It would mean adding things like accurately modelled startup sequencies for individual systems like the FCR, MIDS terminal and other systems, where they run their own internal bits and take time to power up before being available for use. Or maybe some realistically modelled magnetic drift of the HMCS, sometimes requiring re-alignment in the air. These types of things are available in other F-16C simulators available on the civilian market, and I think we all would've hoped that the DCS F-16C would reach at least a similar level of depth and, as ED themselves have said, the DCS F-16C would be "the most realistic simulation possible" and offer a "detailed simulation of the Viper’s engines, fuel, electrical, hydraulic, comms, lighting and emergency systems and many more". I don't know how you can claim that the DCS F-16C delivers on any of those promises in its current state.

I realize that ED probably wants the DCS F-16C out of early access since it's been there for over four and a half years now, but it would be a huge mistake to do so at this point in time. For ED's own sake, for their own reputation, and the communities faith in their current and future products, they should never allow a module which is in the dire state of the DCS F-16C to be considered "full release". Full release means finished, irregardless of what your post-release plans are. You might add a feature or fix a bug later at your whim, but in the end, the full release is supposed to contain everything we customers paid for, a complete and stable product, and anything which is added to the product free of charge after full release is merely charitable work on the developers behalf. It is not the fulfillment of some obligation to their customers, but rather a completely voluntary act which goes beyond what the customer paid for, in order to increase customer satisfaction. And to say "here it is" and give us what have currently + the Sniper XR would be an incredible betrayal of trust, and I for one would never buy a DCS early access module again, if this is what I can expect from it. I'm happy to support ED and third-parties early in the development process even by purchasing pre-orders as long as they deliver a decent product upon full release, which is what has happened previously in my experience. But if the F-16C is pushed out like this, that'd be a turning point for DCS as a platform. And this is something I say as a long-time DCS customer, who has been flying DCS on a regular basis ever since the A-10C was released over a decade ago, and has spent so much time and money on DCS that I don't even want to attempt to add it all up due to fears of what I'll be faced with.

Without mentioning any specifics, I think we can all agree that the current drama in the DCS community is testing the community's faith in ED and DCS as a product. Pushing the DCS F-16C out of early access in its current state would do nothing to improve that situation, but would rather risk pouring fuel on the fire, which I don't think neither ED nor the community wants at this point. DCS isn't a perfect product, but it has the most potential of any combat flight sim on the market, and has been making strides to become the best combat simulator on the market. Please cherish this and do not make any reckless decisions in order to meet internal deadlines, while alienating your own customers. All I ask for is that when the F-16C reaches full release, the level of quality will at least be the same as other ED modules. The DCS A-10C which was released a very, very long time ago when ED was a much smaller company, was an incredible product. It had practically all the systems modelled that it would've had in real life to an incredible depth, only excluding certain systems which couldn't be modelled due to classification and such. It also had very few bugs, making it an absolute joy to fly, which it still is to this day. That level of quality is what I expect of an ED product, based on the benchmark that ED themselves set. Not only would a DCS F-16C release in anything close to its current state be well below this benchmark, but it'd also not even live up to what ED themselves have claimed their goals are for this product on the DCS F-16C product page and in promotional videos and press materials. 

So my final words in this very long post is simply a plea to ED: Please do not push the DCS F-16C out of early access before it lives up to the level of quality and fidelity which the community has come to expect of ED products.

"DCS: F-16C Viper. Priority work for 2024 includes the Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP), a 1st perspective pilot model, and other improvements like new HUD symbology and RWR Handoff tones" 

I would like to ask you to take care of the autopilot, now it is not completed, there is no earth circumference mode.land

[Temetre]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Wizard_03:

What do people want from the damage model? A single hit from any missile in the game will down an F-16 without question. A hit from and everything above 20mm will also down the jet? Where and what are you taking survivable battle damage from? 

R-60s, missiles exploding at distance, luck, AA hits, some 20mm hits. Theres quite a few situations where you take damage and might be able to recover, and I had plenty situations like that. Otherwise the aircrafts damage control/fault list/or so system is just a really cool and unique part of the F-16. Eg the BMS Viper is kinda amazing in that regard.

And otherwise this is a combat sim, of course damage simulation is important. Even if planes are fragile.

[LieutenantFalcon]

4 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

We have remember has a serie of features on progress by ED, some outside the modules, as DTC:

 

This is a newsletter from January... Yes, they talk about it occasionally but apart from laying out the plans and telling us that they're working on it, we haven't seen anything substantial since then to my knowledge.
Alongside that, that goes for most things laid out in this newsletter. We're already halfway into the year and we've not seen anything on quite a few of these items, items which also have been discussed as 'in development' many times prior. All this combined doesn't signal to the community that these items are being worked on much at all, even if ED says they are. If they're actively being worked on, show us! Surely some part of the DTC system already has an interface, or some early renders of new weather effects can be shown.

[Wizard_03]

43 minutes ago, Temetre said:

R-60s, missiles exploding at distance, luck, AA hits, some 20mm hits. Theres quite a few situations where you take damage and might be able to recover, and I had plenty situations like that. Otherwise the aircrafts damage control/fault list/or so system is just a really cool and unique part of the F-16. Eg the BMS Viper is kinda amazing in that regard.

And otherwise this is a combat sim, of course damage simulation is important. Even if planes are fragile.

I'd Love to see a real viper survive an R60 hit. If BMS viper can survive that it needs to be fixed too.

Edited July 2, 2024 by Wizard_03

[NineLine]

31 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

I'd Love to see a real viper survive an R60 hit. If BMS viper can survive that it needs to be fixed too.

 

Let's mind the 1.15 rule, please. 

[SeeYouAtTheMerge]

On 7/2/2024 at 10:02 AM, Pikey said:

There's a lot of items listed above that are core DCS platform and not part of the module that will get developed for years to come, like the radar, weapons, ECM, ECCM parts. These dont belong in that list.

He mentioned that we are missing an entire radar mode that is specific to the F-16, ULS. That most certainly belongs on the list as it is a viper feature.

 

On 7/2/2024 at 10:02 AM, Pikey said:

Then there are specific missing F-16 features. Im not talking about the DTS which in my subjective opinion, is a waste of time in a simulation thats still adding INS inaccuracy to its core gameplay, its a sim, errors are unpopular, go look in the JDAM threads.

DTS is definitely not a waste of time, there are many things the DTS provides. The first thing is PGCAS which I don't recall if we have currently. The second is Database Terrain Cueing which is similar-ish to TFR but instead of it using radar it uses the terrain database to cue you to stay X feet above the terrain model, its not as accurate as TFR because your relying on the quality of terrain model loaded so you should only use it in VMC but it still a great feature. In addition, DTS provides obstacle warnings if the system determines your not going to overly an obstacle by at least 500ft by default. And I highly disagree with the notion that introducing error-correcting systems is useless, if you want to simulate the viper's navigation system as realistic as possible you have to model the ENTIRE THING, including the parts that degrade and upgrade the navigation quality, not just the degradations or else you have an incomplete simulation. Also, to your comment about the JDAM threads, the problem that was being discussed in the JDAM thread is that BOC isn't working properly so what should be the most accurate mode is actually the LEAST accurate in dcs.

 

On 7/2/2024 at 10:02 AM, Pikey said:

The DCS ecosystem needs fleshed out here, but missing DLINK features are a bottomless pit.

In the case of Expanded DL, this isn't a DCS ecosystem limitation. We should be able to HSD or FCR cursor over L-16 tracks and see more info about them which the hornet can already do so its NOT a dcs limitation

 

On 7/2/2024 at 10:02 AM, Pikey said:

Finally, the missing useful F-16 features. What I mean is SEAD steerpoints, related HOTAS functions. I'm yet to see a definitive list of those missing features especially when people mix in DCS platform deficiencies, useless ICP pages that dont apply, and completley worthless simulation

Here are some very useful hotas commands that we are missing; Cursor Enable should switch between POS/HAS/DL delivery mode, Cage/Uncage button should cycle target isolate modes but those arent implemented for the HARM, in POS submode the pinkey switch should rotate between PB, EOM, RUK submodes, TMS Right while In POS or DL should steps the threats in the threat table. 

Edited July 3, 2024 by SeeYouAtTheMerge

[Eviscerador]

On 7/2/2024 at 3:06 PM, BIGNEWY said:

The team are aware and it is something we will review. Thank you 

I'm pasting here some info about the Package Q strike in the Desert Storm war. The biggest strike by F16 in history. Just to show your team that even if the F16 is not a warthog, it can and it had survived hits from SAM and AA fire in the past.

Quote

SAMs hit one F-16 just as the last bombs were striking the oil refinery. A second missile impacted near another F-16, damaging it, as the flight evaded SAMs during their egress from Baghdad. Both aircraft were lost, but their pilots survived the war as POWs. One of the two lost aircraft took a hit from an SA-3 missile just south of Baghdad, but managed to fly for 150 miles on the return route before the engine quit.[1] In all, the participants in the engagement counted twenty SAMs in the air; one pilot dodged no fewer than six. Many of the F-16 aircraft sustained major or minor damage, but stayed airworthy.

On pilot survivability, both the vipers shot down that day (one by direct impact from a SA3 and another one by a glancing hit) had their pilot survive, one of them even flew 150 miles until the engine failed. Currently almost any hit to the plane means the pilot is dead (mostly because all weapons aim at the pilot head instead of the CG of the plane)

Here is the recap of the damaged viper transmission.

Quote

"Okay, SAM launch! Nose 5 low!"
(Air controller interruptions)
"Break right! Break right!"
"Okay, missed him."
(impact)
"Stroke One's a hit! Stroke One's a hit!"
"Stroke One took a hit! Stroke One took a hit!" "Status?"
"Okay, I've got a fire! I'm ah-stand by. Um, just south of steerpoint number seven. Still flyin'. And I'm headin' south."
"Copy."
"Okay, it ... we took a pretty good hit. I've got no engine."

We don't expect the Viper to have the same level of survivability than the A10C has, but something in the middle between that and being a paper plane like it is now.

[Whiskey11]

On 7/1/2024 at 2:02 PM, WHOGX5 said:

In order not to drag this out too much, as this post is quite lengthy as it is, I'll get straight to the point. The DCS F-16C is not ready for full release. This thread is in response to a post by BIGNEWY saying that the Sniper XR is the last major item before the DCS F-16C is ready for full release. Below I've listed some of the reasons why the DCS F-16C is not ready to leave early access, even with the Sniper XR added, by describing the current state of this product. This post was written with the help and contributions of several community members, who I want to send my deepest thanks to; you know who you are. Lastly, this is not an all-inclusive list, but rather a summary of the major aspects which are currently missing or unfinished in the DCS F-16C (there are A LOT of smaller items remaining in addition to this, including quite a few bugs). It's quite lengthy though, so go get a bag of crisps, crack a beer, and lets get on with it:

- Damage model: Practically nonexistent, with no real damage being simulated except fuel leaks and your wings getting blown off. I put this at the top of the list because I cannot see how you can have a digital combat simulator without combat damage being simulated.

- Maintainance / Pilot Fault List: Practically nonexistent, still only shows a single message which is the "FLCS BIT FAIL" if the FLCS bit fails. This is the entire error reporting system of the F-16C and is therefore an essential system in order to keep tabs on the status of your aircraft, even when you haven't taken any combat damage. For example, if your L16 time isn't set, you should get a "LK16 TIME REQD" message to tell this to the pilot. At the moment, you will eventually notice that something is wrong with datalink, and then you have to figure out what the issue is on your own through troubleshooting, rather than just checking the PFLD and immediately knowing what's wrong. This is just one example of many where proper MFL and PFL messages would be incredibly helpful, and the reason why those systems exist in real life.

- Steerpoints: Exists in a very limited state. Only supports regular steerpoints, markpoints, and a partial implementation of D/L steerpoints. Many types of steerpoints are completely missing, like pre-planned threats, geographical lines, SEAD steerpoints, a plethora of LINK 16 steerpoint types, etc. We're also still missing different CRUS TOS functionality, like having DES TOS reference HACK time instead of SYSTEM time, and also the ability to blank DES TOS times and have the CRUS TOS required velocity be calculated for a steerpoint without a DES TOS, based on the DES TOS of a later steerpoint; an incredibly useful feature for improved timekeeping.

- Digital Terrain System: Completely missing including its subsystems like PGCAS, TRN, OW/C, DBTC & PR. An essential system from the earliest tapes of the F-16CM-50 where you load the terrain data of a 480x480 nautical mile area wherein the DTS has features both to avoid CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) which was the biggest cause of death in the USAF at the time, to providing various subsystems to facilitate safer low altitude operations including a kind of digital "terrain following radar" mode, to decreasing INS drift by comparing your radar altitude to the know terrain elevation in different parts of the map, and also to allow more accurate targeting without using active sensors. This is for example what makes high angle JHMCS markpoints accurate, as it can reference the known ground elevation of the location you're looking at. Without the Digital Terrain System implementation, the DCS F-16C has much higher risk of CFIT, much higher risk of flying into terrain/obstacles during low altitude operations, much lower targeting accuracy (especially at longer ranges and in uneven terrain), and higher INS drift over non-flat terrain than a real F-16C of our block and tape would.

- ECM: Barely implemented. Currently only barrage jamming is kinda working, and even that is extremely ineffective most of the time. MODE 1 and MODE 2 self-protection jamming is wholly inefficient under all circumstances, as the ALQ-184 currently is seemingly incapable of breaking SAM radar locks. There's also no ability to choose which bands to jam, making it impossible to jam certain surface threats without jamming your own radar for A-A sanitizing. Neither MODE 1, 2 or 3 should inhibit your radar, but rather MODE 2 & 3 should reduce the effectiveness of your radar while actively jamming in the same band as your radar, and not impact the radar at all while jamming in other bands. The AN/ALQ-184 in DCS also has 360 degree coverage, whereas it would have roughly 120 degree cones fore and aft of the pod in real life, with diminshing effect closer to the outer limits of those cones. MODE 1 should only use the aft emitter to jam threats, while MODE 2 & 3 use both fore and aft emitters. It should also have high/low settings to angle the jamming emitters downwards for surface threats and upwards for higher altitude A-A threats, as well as cooperative jamming where multiple F-16C's in close formation boost jamming effectiveness. As an aside to this, chaff is completely useless against certain threats. You can drop 120 chaff in 1 second and you still will never be able to spoof an SA-5. This in combination with an inability to break locks during jamming, means that your only real defense once an SA-5 is locked on to you is to dive towards the ground and break line-of-sight. Other emitters have similar issues.

- SEAD: This point encompasses a lot of different systems which are necessary for efficient SEAD, which after all is the primary role of the F-16CM-50 in the USAF. As mentioned, the AN/ALQ-184 is completely useless in self-protect mode (MODE 1 and MODE 2) as it cannot break locks, decreasing survivability, as using barrage mode will constantly transmit your location, and also disable all your active sensors as well as the HTS pod. Most importantly, the AN/ALQ-184 is unable to break locks, meaning it can only be used pre-emptively (not very good when employing wild weasel tactics). The AGM-88 has modes like TI/GS/DL which have not been implemented, limiting the AGM-88's effectiveness in the SEAD role. Also, many different AGM-88 HOTAS commands are completely missing. HAD priority targets are missing. The LINK 16 Special Channel net has a very rudimentary implementation. The ability to target/blank pre-planned threats is completely missing. The ability to store detected emitters as SEAD STPTs is completely absent, greatly decreasing your ability to engage SEAD threats as they will just disappear after going inactive for a while, and the only way currently to target these emitters once they go inactive is if you have a human wingman, because then you can send that emitter to him via L16, and then he can send it back to you. If you've got no human wingman, you're out of luck. The AN/ALR-56M Radar Warning Receiver is still incorrectly implemented, making it useless for any kind of high threat environment (the kinds of environments where SEAD is required) as it conveys no relative lethality of detected emitters but rather displays all threats as equally lethal, being especially useless for pop-up threats and active missile avoidance as you can never tell how much of a threat a detected emitter poses to you. In real life, the late cold war saw multiple datalink capable SAMs which don't give RWR warnings at all, increasing the need for the kind of relative lethality displaying of threats that the AN/ALR-56M does in real life, especially for SEAD operations. Currently, we don't have any datalink capable SAMs in DCS, but if it's ever added, the F-16CM-50 will be completely unable to operate in that kind of environment, unlike its real world counterpart. The AN/ALR-56M should also use data provided by the INS to update detected threat locations during maneuvering when emitters may end up in RWR blind spots, and even flip the symbology when rolling the aircraft upside down, so emitters are displayed in the correct direction under all circumstances. Having a functioning RWR is maybe the most important aspect of being combat effective in the SEAD role, and currently we don't have that.

- AN/ALR-56M: Even though I mentioned the issues with the RWR just above, I'm still making this a separate point just to emphasize the importance of this system. If I could only pick a single thing that'd be fixed in the DCS F-16C, it'd be the AN/ALR-56M. Right now, the DCS F-16C is completely handicapped, not merely in SEAD, but in all combat situations, because the current RWR implementation is not merely incorrect, but it makes the RWR close to useless. The AN/ALR-56M was chosen as the new standard RWR for the USAF because of it's incredible capabilities and the added situational awareness it provided to its pilots, and this is also why it was rolled out so early on the F-16CJ/CM-50, the USAF's primary SEAD platform. However, in DCS, the AN/ALR-56M is the single least capable RWR in the whole modern US fighters lineup, and in many ways it's even inferior to the old 1980's SPO-15 mounted on the MiG-29A. If you get an AMRAAM fired at you, the SPO-15 (and the real life AN/ALR-56M) will indicate how quickly the missile is approaching and how close it is to impacting you, allowing you to plan your missile defence and perform last ditch maneuvers. With the DCS AN/ALR-56M, you have no indication of how far away a missile is except when it impacts your aircraft. This really, really, really, really needs to be fixed, especially for a SEAD platform like the F-16CM-50.

- Air-to-air: This is also a collection of different things. AIM-120 is still missing many features, including target size options and not least the HPRF mode, greatly reducing the maximum effective range of the AIM-120 and making the bread and butter SKATE tactic non-viable against most threats, as you need to guide it all the way to MPRF mode, a.k.a "pitbull". The Uplook Search (ULS) radar mode is still completely missing. STT mode is extremely ineffective at long range, and even against a high aspect non-maneuvering target which is detectable in RWS/VSR, it will not be able to produce a stable lock. A-A, MRM and NAV master mode are also unable to have different CRM modes selected and retained. COAST mode is still missing, meaning that notching will immediately break your radar lock and the aircraft will not even attempt to reacquire the target. On the topic of notching, the current radar implementation is EXTREMELY suceptible to notching. You can be 5 nautical miles away from an enormous KC-135 in look-up conditions against a clear blue sky, and it will still notch you as it reaches 90 degrees aspect, even if it's only for a split second, which should be physically impossible with a modern radar like the AN/APG-68V(5). Even notching against ground clutter should be extremely ineffective unless the target is very close to the ground or has a big chaff cloud next to it. Auto range scaling in SAM/DTT modes still automatically decreases the range scale, which it shouldn't, making those modes useless for situational awareness as you should still be able to freely sanitize the airspace beyond your bugged tracks in those modes. Also the HAFUs are completely unreliable, making TWS especially useless as the art of upgrading tracks is a complete black box. Blanking LINK 16 symbology will often blank all the correlated bricks as well, meaning you cannot even see the things which you've detected with your own radar. You can lock them up though and launch missiles at them, you just cannot see them on the display. Contacts which start jamming will often get snapped to exactly 99.0 nm distance on your FCR, often forcibly rescaling your FCR and requiring you to reset the FCR range settings in the middle of combat, to be able and reaqcuire that same threat. HAFU identity is also very unreliable, with enemy threats often being displayed as green friendlies for no apparent reason. And when you're in ACM mode, the bore cross in the HUD and bore ellipse in the HMCS still do not show true radar line-of-sight like they do in real life, but are instead completely static paintings giving no information at all regarding where your radar is actually pointing.

- Air-to-ground: Ground radar is still extremely janky and cumbersome. Ground maps will regularly instantly blank itself during maneuvering. When entering many different radar modes, rather than the radar moving quickly to it's starting angle and then sweeping to generate a map, it often moves really slowly to it's starting angle and just does nothing for a couple of seconds, and only then does it actually start mapping. GMT mode doesn't actually lock onto the target, but rather just the point on the ground your cursor happens to be over. Gain/Contrast/Level settings for the ground radar are not granular at all, and it is often very difficult/impossible to achieve a good balance between them. Changing these settings should also only apply for what is mapped after changing those settings, so if you raise gain in the middle of a sweep, the first half of the map will be low gain and the second half will be high gain. On some maps, like Persian Gulf, you seemingly cannot ground map terrain, only objects. JDAMs still cannot be programmed properly. JSOWs cannot be programmed properly. GBU-24 is there in spirit, but still hasn't had its guidance modes properly implemented, making it quite useless and unable to even reach the target when dropped at max range and high altitude. IFF interrogations are not possible in A-G mode, which they should be. There are also missing munitions, like the CBU-89/104's, various training munitions, possibly even the JASSM.

- Lighting: Some things are completely missing, like the external IR emitters which our tape and block of DCS F-16C should have, being selectable through the COVERT modes to allow external lighting at night which isn't visible to the naked eye, and also to only illuminate the lights on top of your aircraft, to stop ground threats from spotting you. If you look at the the external lights through NVGs, you'll see that the green lights seem to be NVIS compatible, but the red lights will completely fry your retina. Cockpit flood lights have very low intensity even at the max setting, and also little to no light scattering, meaning they don't actually flood the cockpit. They're more like focused spotlights, leaving many parts of the cockpit completely in the dark, even at full intensity, including the new pilot body kneeboard which is completely unreadable at night even with every single internal light source set to maximum. On the topic of spotlights, the actual Cockpit Spotlights under the glareshield are completely inop. The Cockpit Spotlights are also the only light source in the entire aircraft which are usable purely with battery power, and are commonly used in real life to monitor engine instruments during startup at night. They are also used to illuminate the pilot body kneeboard when the pilot don't want to illuminate the entire cockpit with flood lights, in order to be more NVG friendly. In addition to these points, there are also issues with light intensities. Some lights like the left indexer or external formation lights, etc., usually go from slightly dim to quite bright between 0% and 5%, and then every setting above is just almost indistinguishable amounts of extreme brightness. With other lights, most notably the cockpit flood lights, you can barely see them at all between 0% and 50% intensity, and then they go up to kinda bright at 100%. This becomes even more troublesome because of the way light brightness works in the F-16C, because when the flood lights are set to high brightness, every other malfunction and indicator light in the cockpit will go to max brightness too. This means that we can't have a bit of flood lighting without getting completely blinded by every other light source. Some lights also don't seem to be NVIS compatible at all, especially the RWR panel which is extremely bright and will wash out your NVGs. The right indexer lights seem fully NVIS compatible and won't blind you even on max brightness, while the left indexer will wash out your entire NVGs at max brightness, and still be very bright at only a few percents intensity.

- Textures: The default DCS F-16C textures (including those available in the texture template) are of incredibly low quality, with not merely bolts and screws missing, but entire panels. Also the textures themselves are just poor in quality compared to what you'll find in the DCS User Files section. ED should honestly just pay Roughmaster to make a new texture template for the DCS F-16C, and remake all the low-quality liveries which are currently available for the DCS F-16C, as Roughmasters liveries are of such incredibly high quality that it's almost incomprehensible. Cockpit textures are also missing textures for multiple things.

- Tankers: When refueling at a KC-135, the boom still has no resistance and exerts no force on the aircraft. In real life, the boom will push back against the aircraft when connected, allowing the aircraft to "rest" and stabilize itself against the boom. This currently doesn't happen in DCS, making aerial refueling more difficult as you need to have more accurate thrust management than real pilots do in order to stay in position. Tankers in DCS also will never extend the boom farther than the halfway point when connecting even if the player is close to center and fully stabilized, so the player always has to move closer than the halfway point to connect, rather than like they do it in real life where the boom operator will extend the boom to meet the connecting aircraft. When it comes to tanker external lights, they will not turn on their position lights until the receiving aircraft is less than 1 nautical mile away, making night rejoins extremely difficult unless you want to fry the boom operator with an STT lock. Also, there are no external flood lights on the tankers, making them practically invisible while refueling at night, except for the fore/aft and up/down lights. Also, the background lighting on the fore/aft lights is very bright at night, making your fore/aft position incredibly hard to see. During daytime, the lights are very dim and the glass on the fore/aft and up/down lights is very reflective, with reflections often obscuring what the lights are indicating, especially when the sun is low in the sky. Lastly, tankers still do not transmit TACAN in A/A mode, but you have to use T/R mode instead as if they were a ground based station, meaning you also cannot see the tanker A/A TACAN distance on your DED/HUD. It would also be nice to have some basic boom operator functionality, like giving break-away calls and raising the boom if the player is to close/unstable (including an actual boom collision model), giving heads ups before entering turns, reading off the amount of transferred fuel at regular intervals, maybe even having the player be able to request a certain fuel amount via the radio menu.

- DCS F-16C manual: This manual is still not up to date, and new features which are added to the DCS Stable branch still aren't updated in the manual, leading to a lot of unecessary threads on the forum as a lot of information about how systems work are lost to the sands of time in the Viper Mini-Updates thread, and usually have to be conveyed through word-of-mouth. For the things which are correct in the manual, the systems are in many cases bugged and not working according to the manual, leading to further confusion in the community when being referred to the manual. Honestly, everytime a feature is added or changed in the DCS F-16C, this should also be reflected in the manual, including a changelog of added/changed features in the manual itself. If systems are not functioning correctly, this should also be noted in the manual with a small notice in that section. After all, DCS is now a unified stable branch and then it'd make sense for every change to be in the documentation, since this isn't a beta build anymore.

- The jealousy: Things which have been implemented in other ED modules, but not the DCS F-16C, even though they should be present for our block and tape. Things like the HSD Expanded Data, whose equivalents are present in the A-10C and F/A-18C, but which for some reason isn't planned to be implemented for the DCS F-16C even though it was present in the simulated block and tape IRL, greatly reducing situational awareness via datalink. Or the decision of ED to not implement the AN/ARC-210 radio which was already in active service for our block, tape and year of F-16 (confirmed by multiple ED active duty SMEs + non-ED active duty SME's + US DoD fiscal reports showing amount of quarterly AN/ARC-210 unit installations for USAF and ANG + the actual real world documentation for our tape of F-16CM-50 describing AN/ARC-210 functionality) because "it was more common later", leaving the DCS F-16C as the only modern US aircraft in DCS without the AN/ARC-210 (A-10C, AV-8B, F-15E, F/A-18C), and therefore it is the only modern US aircraft in DCS without the ability to tune multiple UHF frequencies and use a single radio for the entire UHF/VHF/FM range with HAVE QUICK capability, even though it could do this in real life during our tape and time. The AN/ARC-210 would be a very simple item to implement too as it requires no 3D modelling changes, but merely new DED pages, and seeing as this radio is already implemented in other ED modules like the A-10C and F/A-18C, it should be quite simple to port to the F-16C, making ED's resistance to implementing this radio even more of a question mark, seeing what an enormous improvement it'd be to the F-16's communications suite. There are also other things, like the HAVE QUICK page being available in the A-10C, allowing HQ functionality through SRS (SimpleRadio), however the HAVE QUICK page has not been implemented in the F-16C, making the F-16C unable to use HQ via SRS. The ability to choose Fighter/Mission Channels on LINK 16 is present in the F/A-18C, but not the F-16C forcing them to send D/L points to every F-16C on the server. Or the IFF page which has been implemented in the F/A-18C and allows setting Mode 1, 2, 3 and 4 codes, has not been implemented in the DCS F-16C, meaning we cannot set our squawk codes as you would IRL through the DED/ICP. We can only set Mode 3 via the analogue backup IFF panel. Also, the A-10C even has Mode 1 and Mode 4 timetable support, giving alerts at specific time intervals when the Mode 1 and Mode 4 codes change. The F-16C should have similar functionality where the aircraft will, instead of alerting, automatically disable/enable transponders, as well as change their transponder codes, based on certain time and position requirements. More importantly, none of these features require DTC as they can all be set from the cockpit. And even if DCS does not support HAVE QUICK and IFF functionality at this point in time, these things are supported through other softwares like SRS and LotAtc, and is as mentioned already present in other ED modules, so I don't see why we wouldn't get the same treatment in the F-16C? There are also some amazing features from non-ED modules like the Datalink Mission Assignment API in the M-2000C, which allows external sources (either AI GCI or a human via LotAtc) to send taskings via datalink to the aircraft and have them be viewed on the situational displays in the aircraft. The F-16CM-50 of our tape and year had that same kind of functionality via L16, where C2 assets can send a plethora of mission taskings which get received as a data messages, with the ability to view and accept/reject taskings via the HSD, and also send tasking completed/aborted messages to the C2 station. This would be a huge deal for human GCI/AWACS in DCS, especially with players speaking completely different languages, and it'd also open up a tonne of opportunities for mission creators to access this functionality via scripting.

I'm not going to delve into why the DTC and its related functionalities are absolutely essential, as they're already in active development. Other systems like the IDM functionality and towed decoys are at least on the roadmap. For all the other points mentioned above, there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. If these kinds of major systems are completely missing at a so-called "full release", that would set a new benchmark for what level of quality we can expect of DCS modules. In addition to all the essential features which are still missing, the amount of bugs which still remain is impossible to overlook, to the point where you cannot even cold start the DCS F-16C according to real life checklists, as there are several inaccuracies which would force you to abort the mission and put the jet into maintainance in real life.

In regards to BIGNEWY's recent comment that the DCS F-16C "is complete in regards to what we intend for the module. Our modules are never intended to be a 100% replication of the real aircraft.", I would like to point out that we're not even remotely close to a 100% replication, and people aren't even asking for 100% replication at this point. Making a 100% replication would mean adding things like the need to cycle the flight controls before initiating the FLCS BIT to warm up the hydraulics and get rid of any air bubbles in the lines, as the FLCS BIT will otherwise most likely fail. It would mean adding things like accurately modelled startup sequencies for individual systems like the FCR, MIDS terminal and other systems, where they run their own internal bits and take time to power up before being available for use. Or maybe some realistically modelled magnetic drift of the HMCS, sometimes requiring re-alignment in the air. These types of things are available in other F-16C simulators available on the civilian market, and I think we all would've hoped that the DCS F-16C would reach at least a similar level of depth and, as ED themselves have said, the DCS F-16C would be "the most realistic simulation possible" and offer a "detailed simulation of the Viper’s engines, fuel, electrical, hydraulic, comms, lighting and emergency systems and many more". I don't know how you can claim that the DCS F-16C delivers on any of those promises in its current state.

I realize that ED probably wants the DCS F-16C out of early access since it's been there for over four and a half years now, but it would be a huge mistake to do so at this point in time. For ED's own sake, for their own reputation, and the communities faith in their current and future products, they should never allow a module which is in the dire state of the DCS F-16C to be considered "full release". Full release means finished, irregardless of what your post-release plans are. You might add a feature or fix a bug later at your whim, but in the end, the full release is supposed to contain everything we customers paid for, a complete and stable product, and anything which is added to the product free of charge after full release is merely charitable work on the developers behalf. It is not the fulfillment of some obligation to their customers, but rather a completely voluntary act which goes beyond what the customer paid for, in order to increase customer satisfaction. And to say "here it is" and give us what have currently + the Sniper XR would be an incredible betrayal of trust, and I for one would never buy a DCS early access module again, if this is what I can expect from it. I'm happy to support ED and third-parties early in the development process even by purchasing pre-orders as long as they deliver a decent product upon full release, which is what has happened previously in my experience. But if the F-16C is pushed out like this, that'd be a turning point for DCS as a platform. And this is something I say as a long-time DCS customer, who has been flying DCS on a regular basis ever since the A-10C was released over a decade ago, and has spent so much time and money on DCS that I don't even want to attempt to add it all up due to fears of what I'll be faced with.

Without mentioning any specifics, I think we can all agree that the current drama in the DCS community is testing the community's faith in ED and DCS as a product. Pushing the DCS F-16C out of early access in its current state would do nothing to improve that situation, but would rather risk pouring fuel on the fire, which I don't think neither ED nor the community wants at this point. DCS isn't a perfect product, but it has the most potential of any combat flight sim on the market, and has been making strides to become the best combat simulator on the market. Please cherish this and do not make any reckless decisions in order to meet internal deadlines, while alienating your own customers. All I ask for is that when the F-16C reaches full release, the level of quality will at least be the same as other ED modules. The DCS A-10C which was released a very, very long time ago when ED was a much smaller company, was an incredible product. It had practically all the systems modelled that it would've had in real life to an incredible depth, only excluding certain systems which couldn't be modelled due to classification and such. It also had very few bugs, making it an absolute joy to fly, which it still is to this day. That level of quality is what I expect of an ED product, based on the benchmark that ED themselves set. Not only would a DCS F-16C release in anything close to its current state be well below this benchmark, but it'd also not even live up to what ED themselves have claimed their goals are for this product on the DCS F-16C product page and in promotional videos and press materials. 

So my final words in this very long post is simply a plea to ED: Please do not push the DCS F-16C out of early access before it lives up to the level of quality and fidelity which the community has come to expect of ED products.

Don't forget about IAM lofting as a missing feature that is present on our tapes and a key delivery mode for SEAD/DEAD.  It was promised as being worked on, but there has been no progress shown for well over a year. 

[Mach3DS]

As far as textures go -- Texac has created a new paint kit that adds basically ALL the missing parts including Normals.  Roughmaster has also added many of these as well.  Texac has added all the wing missing rivets and panels and corrected the misplacement of some of them.  Also on the tail the same thing.  There are many talented livery artists out there.  I've done my own work as well.  Basically, a lot of the issues have been corrected by the users already.  

 

[Wyvern]

i will second that, i would argue that Mach3DS, Roughmaster, and Texac made some of the single best Vipers out there.

Edited July 4, 2024 by Wyvern

[_SteelFalcon_]

23 hours ago, SeeYouAtTheMerge said:

Here are some very useful hotas commands that we are missing; Cursor Enable should switch between POS/HAS/DL delivery mode, Cage/Uncage button should cycle target isolate modes but those arent implemented for the HARM, in POS submode the pinkey switch should rotate between PB, EOM, RUK submodes, TMS Right while In POS or DL should steps the threats in the threat table. 

 

and the uncage long to get to A-G Gun. it's such a pain to take your hands off the controls to click this mfd button.