Viper First Impressions

Fly's wonderfully! There seems to be some terrain avoidance noise going on, as I kept getting pull up indicators on the MFD's when I was clearly above limits. I know this is under development.

Nice range on the fuel tank. I got a nice long flight in without refueling. Landing was sloppy on my part but no flashing lights. :thumbup:

Looking forward to terrain following radar so I can get my night time NOE thrills. :alien:

Thanks for a wonderful sim!

Don’t think we’ll see TFR. Not in the bird being modeled.

No lantirn nav pod but 16's did get an altitude map(Digital Terrain System) that kind of made the lantirn nav pod obsolescent, in addition to offering terrain and obstacle avoidance cues and passive bomb ranging like the A-10.

Yeah, it's unbelievable for me that there will be no TFR because of version obsesion autism.

Yeah, it's unbelievable for me that there will be no TFR because of version obsesion autism.

Well .. the TFR was available for a different block but discontinued for the Viper altogether .. so if you want a modern Viper it's quite clear why you can't have the TFR and FLIR.

I agree, the block 50 with Lantirn was a common setup. I can't believe the Litening pod is an upgrade without those functions. That's why you model the old versions that are fun to fly.

The Taxi and Takeoff Training Mission is a lot of fun. After takeoff, explore the map. There's a lot going on. I rode up beside a Reaper drone yesterday.

That's why you model the old versions that are fun to fly.

Yup.

Well .. the TFR was available for a different block but discontinued for the Viper altogether .. so if you want a modern Viper it's quite clear why you can't have the TFR and FLIR.

Who said I want a modern Viper or who said I care what version it is?

Who said I want a modern Viper or who said I care what version it is?

Because you are discussing the DCS: F-16 Viper module here?

Because you are discussing the DCS: F-16 Viper module here?

Specifically the missed TFR.

Specifically the missed TFR.

I don't know much about all that, but you are saying, the more modern Viper (without a TFR), that deadpool is refering to, is not what DCS: F-16 is supposed to be?

I don't know much about all that, but you are saying, the more modern Viper (without a TFR), that deadpool is refering to, is not what DCS: F-16 is supposed to be?

DCS has this silly idea that they should make each plane an exact replica* of an existing real one, version 1.2345 block 6.7890, license plate zxcvb, even if that means for example, not including such a great feature as the TFR.

The landing missions are both excellent. I nailed them first try, but I had been practicing in the F/A-18 recently. Good reminder that landing weight is key to success.

The up front controls mission was excellent as well. Best I have seen. And, you are left with a jet that has unlimited fuel. (hair on fire). Note to self, jettison stores and fuel before landing. I clipped the power lines at the threshold and came off the runway in one piece. The jet felt like a tonne of bricks on approach. On the plus side, I had a chance to recon my first mission builder setup. Next: make stuff go boom.

I don't think that striving for being exact in what is simulated is a silly idea. But I also like to have options. So if our Viper variant was technically capable of employing the TFR, I am all for it to include it.

I totally get the cool-factor, but the real question is: does our Viper variant have the necessary hard-and software to use the TFR?

DCS has this silly idea that they should make each plane an exact replica* of an existing real one, version 1.2345 block 6.7890, license plate zxcvb, even if that means for example, not including such a great feature as the TFR.

I am not sure what brought them to the current roadmap. TFR autopilot functions have been modeled in many flight sim games in the past. EF-2000 had a fun one, and that plane hadn't even been built when that game came out. I say leave the current tech to MS 2020 where vendors like to showcase their logos. Model old tech that is fun to fly.

I don't think that striving for being exact in what is simulated is a silly idea. But I also like to have options. So if our Viper variant was technically capable of employing the TFR, I am all for it to include it.

 

 

 

I totally get the cool-factor, but the real question is: does our Viper variant have the necessary hard-and software to use the TFR?

Yes, the Block 50 had it with the Lantirn, but who knows with the new pod? And who cares? Model it just like the Lantirn and call it Litening. Or just model Block 50 without the Litening upgrade.

I don't think that striving for being exact in what is simulated is a silly idea. But I also like to have options. So if our Viper variant was technically capable of employing the TFR, I am all for it to include it.

I agree with this statement. With that said though, our viper should have the digital terrain system which offers coupled autopilot terrain following just like the lantirn pod. The only thing missing in that case is the flir nav camera... which was made obsolescent by nvgs.

I agree with this statement. With that said though, our viper should have the digital terrain system which offers coupled autopilot terrain following just like the lantirn pod. The only thing missing in that case is the flir nav camera... which was made obsolescent by nvgs.

I disagree on the NVG's. You can fly an entire night mission with just FLIR overlaid on the HUD. NVG''s are useful for scanning around, but not required.

Nice article on the Lantirn: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article2.html

DCS has this silly idea that they should make each plane an exact replica* of an existing real one, version 1.2345 block 6.7890, license plate zxcvb, even if that means for example, not including such a great feature as the TFR.

I don't get what's so "silly" about the attempt to replicate what one has the necessary data for and not having to guestimate how something should work or even how users would like to have it to work. I very much like the approach ED is following in DCS to get as close as the real thing and make study level kind of simulated aircraft.

If one just wants to have shiny models that just look like the real ones and somehow behave like an airplane plus have all the fancy stuff on board for easy kills then maybe there are other common titles out there?

Hi!

I disagree on the NVG's. You can fly an entire night mission with just FLIR overlaid on the HUD. NVG''s are useful for scanning around, but not required.

Yep. But what DrBackJack said is correct. NVGs made FLIR obsolete. FLIR is heavy device requiring specific procedures, maintenance, cost a lot, allow to see only forwards ... etc ... NVG technology made the entire FLIR pod completely useless.

Regards.

 

If one just wants to have shiny models that just look like the real ones and somehow behave like an airplane plus have all the fancy stuff on board for easy kills then maybe there are other common titles out there?

:doh:

That's almost the opposite of what I said.

Hi!

 

Yep. But what DrBackJack said is correct. NVGs made FLIR obsolete. FLIR is heavy device requiring specific procedures, maintenance, cost a lot, allow to see only forwards ... etc ... NVG technology made the entire FLIR pod completely useless.

Regards.

What?!

Do you understand the difference between FLIR and NVG?

What?! Do you understand the difference between FLIR and NVG?

Well ... I am "using" both of them (I am saying FLIR but I should say ENVS, however, I do not use EVNS for flight but only for ground ops).

... so I may have a little idea about the difference in term of use for navigation and night ops.

But maybe I am missing something (?)

It is true that FLIR is allowing a different vision (in IR spectrum), but for navigation purpose, it is roughly the same except in night level 4-5 where FLIR may be more efficient in some ways except that it doesn't allow scanning.

So for NOE flight by night, NVGs is for sure my preference.

Now, there is also the the PNVS of the AH-64 allowing FLIR image in monocle ... but we are speaking about something not existing on F-16. And for C3ISTAR mission, of cource, a Wescam with FLIR channel will do the job where a pilot with NVGs and "eyeballs MkI" can do nothing. Of course, we are not talking about the same suff and differences between FLIR and NVG are fundamental here.

So my conclusion is:

If I were an F-16 pilot, for low level night ops and furthermore CAS type ops, I prefer by far an F-16 blk 50 with NVGs rather than F-16 blk 40 equipped with WARHUD an the LANTIRN suite.