Technical feedback from today's mission (maybe a good resume on the state of the F-16)

[deadpool]

We try to fly realistic missions. Today a whole lot of fluid situations developed, so the F-16 flight of which I was a part of had some changing tasks, which made it interesting.

 

One consistent thing was, that in almost every phase of the flight, you had problems nagging you, culminating with something big time in the A/A-engagement that was midway.

 

Here is my writeup, of what I'd usually present my crew chief with (in a different form of course):

 

Quote

 

Overall issues:
- Readability MFDs, especially altitudes of contacts and TWS notations.

 

Specific issues:

+44m Tanker refueling:
    - Tacan shows tanker position slightly left even though the distance is correct and the tanker is right at my right side HUD
    - Tanker navlights are well visible in daytime, Tanker refueling guidance lights are not visible at all right side or for left side not very well. (this is a reported bug)

+1h18m Engagement:
    - AMRAAM missiles do not hit properly, get "notched" very easily (while ownship radar still picks up the target perfectly well and stays on target) and they most importantly do not reaquire.
        (theoretically a Sparrow would have had a higher pK at the moment as ownship radar maintained a good lock)
+1h24m Engagement:
    - AIM9X uncaged and slewed to radar target, got good tone, but flies entirely straight and misses the target
    - Radar lock on target lagging a lot, allowing no good gun solution, and actually working against scoring hits at that moment and is only the case with the F-16 (this is a reported bug)
    - Situations right before the merge where ownship radar would not pick up any targets, even when antenna elevation was correct. AWACS meanwhile had clear track of them.

+1h26m Hunting the remaining hostile:
    - Having the target locked up and running away. Then seeing him turn, and knowing I'm out of missiles, I want to get the DGFT mode ready. Radar then drops lock and I have to painfully try to reaquire the target as it's turning to meet me. (this is a reported bug)

+1h40m Second tanker refueling:
    - Tanker was in co-alt or high altitude situation, but was "notching" our radar at 20nm.

+2h15m Entering target coords into DED:
    - Accidentally entered E5 into the lat field, this stucks up the DED allowing no further input, not even RCL to get out of the field and restore the previous value. Dobber left + complete retry is necessary.
    - After having entered the coordinates, a waypoint change is necessary to get the Tpod to pull the changed coordinates (this is a reported bug)

+2h25m Attacking the ground targets:
    - Indication of where the waypoint is located was not correct in HUD, but displaced a few hundred feet, not sure of Tpod should be looking at the point of impact in STRF mode. (this is a reported bug)
    - Visibility through TPod especially in TV mode is horrible. Lack of contrast and the moire effect is the biggest problem. (this is a reported bug)

 

 

This is just a writeup, I understand that not many people will be interested in reading this, but let this be a documentation of how the F-16 is currently experienced by those that try to fly realistic missions with it and not go airquaking (which is just as valid of an occupation!)

Edited May 3, 2021 by deadpool

[Harlikwin]

18 hours ago, deadpool said:

 

This is just a writeup, I understand that not many people will be interested in reading this, but let this be a documentation of how the F-16 is currently experienced by those that try to fly realistic missions with it and not go airquaking (which is just as valid of an occupation!)

 

 

The problems with the missiles, and now the overperforming radar are problems in airquake too. ED could try to better when it comes to consistency between modules especially for major-tick releases. I mean I don't know how hard it would be to get the viper radar to be "worse" than the horents but I'm gonna guess its a few lines in a lua file to get it in the "ballpark", the fact its outperforming F15's is kinda an issue.

[greenmamba]

Point is that the F-16 has been completely abandonned and that it gets very small updates. Until ED decides it is time to seriously update the F-16 i don’t think it is even useful to make a list about the current status of the F-16. ED knows very well it is not being looked at. If i sound pissed off, it is because i am.  The F-16 is a great module, and i am having a lot of fun with it, but when i saw the 2.7 update … the mile long updates to other modules … like the A-10C or F/A-18 and then the little shortlist for the F-16 …. My hearth sank. 
 

About time you give the F-16 some love. 

[Harlikwin]

Just now, greenmamba said:

Point is that the F-16 has been completely abandonned and that it gets very small updates. Until ED decides it is time to seriously update the F-16 i don’t think it is even useful to make a list about the current status of the F-16. ED knows very well it is not being looked at. If i sound pissed off, it is because i am.  The F-16 is a great module, and i am having a lot of fun with it, but when i saw the 2.7 update … the mile long updates to other modules … like the A-10C or F/A-18 and then the little shortlist for the F-16 …. My hearth sank. 
 

About time you give the F-16 some love. 

 

Well, they are finishing out the hornet, and working on their next module, so as the hornet gets "loved" more guys will move over to those projects. It sorta sucks, but it is what it is. 

I think the bigger overall "DCS" level issue is trying to keep the various modules "relative" to each other, which is something that is increasingly becoming a problem. I.e. the recent radar problems, and previously/ongoing missile "upgrades". They need to relase these changes in 1 batch. I.e. If you change 1 radar make sure you adjust others, same with missiles.

 

[greenmamba]

I did not get the part where the F-16 comes out and oh now let’s work on the A-10C … i’m really not happy with the current stare of the F-16. WIP or not …. Progress is laking. And like tou said it is one sided updates. 

[BIGNEWY]

We are here again discussing progress or the perceived lack of it. 

 

We have already said our viper devs are hard at work on weapons currently, and when the hornet is out of early access the viper work pace will increase. 

 

There is a lot of work to do and the team are working as hard and fast as they can. If early access which can take years in some cases does not suit you it is best to wait for full release, we appreciate your support even if you decide to wait. 

 

Your reports and patience during early access are essential for us to be able to progress, without you all we would not be able to complete these projects. 

 

Thanks

 

 

[greenmamba]

Bignewy, 

 

i respect ED’s work and dedication, but on the other hand you can not expect some customers not to be pissed off or irritated when your favourite module is not being taken care off. Despite the understanding from the costumers it is frustrating. Some choices ED made are logical to them, to us it is more like live with it. Not meaning to bash down what jas been accomplished, just that if not being looked at what is the point of reports so early on ? 

[deadpool]

My intention with this thread was - contrary to some other postings of me - not to be passive aggressive, but just to give a feedback on how I subjectively were affected during a mission that was aiming to be realistic. Just to help ED with seeing how even small bits might interconnect with other stuff in prolonged missions.

 

I am sorry it took such a turn tbh. Even though I can understand the individual posts.

Edited May 4, 2021 by deadpool

[Harlikwin]

10 minutes ago, deadpool said:

My intention with this thread was - contrary to other postings of me - not to be passive aggressive, but just to give a feedback on how I subjectively were affected during a mission that was aiming to be realistic. Just to help ED with seeing how even small bits might interconnect with other stuff in prolonged missions.

 

I am sorry it took such a turn tbh. Even though I can understand the individual posts.

 

 

TBH, I think as DCS moves forward ED is going to have spend more and more time "coordinating" fixes. As well as feature rollouts, its a pretty annoying situation when 1 radar gets "adjusted" which then means 10 other radars need adjusting but this doesn't happen for months. Same thing with A/A missiles, those at best should be done in fox1/2/3 batches. I think there was this "sweetheart" period a while back where you could change up one plane at a time, and that was fine since it didn't really effect other planes as much. But I think that period is rapidly coming to an end for ED as more and more modules are added and things continue to be tweaked. 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Harlikwin

[John McClane]

I appreciate EDs work and would rather them early release planes with limited features than wait or not at all. Having said that please keep in mind some people play DCS exclusively because of a particular airframe. For me its the Viper. So its a valid point when people ask for equal attention to specific areas. I would say air to air weapons and radars particularly when dealing with PvP situations you should definitely try to apply updates equally so there is not an unfair advantage. Also the flight models are a big thing. I think everyone can agree that in real life BFM the Hornet doesnt run circles around the Viper like it does in DCS. I think Im pretty good at flying the Viper but when someone half decent in a Hornet is running circles around me and I have to switch to the Hornet to start winning its a little frustrating as a Viper fan. 

[Xavven]

We just got new HARM modes that enable us to destroy SA-10 sites from tens of miles away, and other SAM systems that are literally behind us. When I bought the F-16 it didn't have EEGS Level 5 or Mavericks. Personally I'm enjoying the new stuff and being patient. The way I see it, F-16 development is slow but I wouldn't call it abandoned. Besides, there are more important things in life to get bent out of shape over -- a video game is not one of them.

 

ED has limited resources, just like any company. Would you rather have a complete Hornet in 2 years and complete Viper in 4 years, OR; a half-completed Hornet and half-completed Viper in 2 years and both completed in 4 years?

 

It's not that I don't understand the outrage for those who gave their money expecting a certain development timeline and then getting a longer one. ED put Viper EA up for sale before they were ready to devote resources to it at a level that would avoid criticism. But that's the risk with buying EA. Sometimes you buy EA and it ends up being vaporware (worst case scenario).

[Mover]

On 5/2/2021 at 7:37 PM, deadpool said:

+44m Tanker refueling:
    - Tacan shows tanker position slightly left even though the distance is correct and the tanker is right at my right side HUD

 

Air to Air Tacans are DME only, no azimuth.  

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Xavven said:

We just got new HARM modes that enable us to destroy SA-10 sites from tens of miles away, and other SAM systems that are literally behind us. When I bought the F-16 it didn't have EEGS Level 5 or Mavericks. Personally I'm enjoying the new stuff and being patient. The way I see it, F-16 development is slow but I wouldn't call it abandoned. Besides, there are more important things in life to get bent out of shape over -- a video game is not one of them.

 

ED has limited resources, just like any company. Would you rather have a complete Hornet in 2 years and complete Viper in 4 years, OR; a half-completed Hornet and half-completed Viper in 2 years and both completed in 4 years?

 

It's not that I don't understand the outrage for those who gave their money expecting a certain development timeline and then getting a longer one. ED put Viper EA up for sale before they were ready to devote resources to it at a level that would avoid criticism. But that's the risk with buying EA. Sometimes you buy EA and it ends up being vaporware (worst case scenario).

 

IDK, I think increasingly the issues are larger than individual airframe anymore. Given the number of modules DCS has they HAVE TO start focusing on some sort of balanced approach to development. Its one thing adding a weapon system like HARMs to an airframe. Its a whole other thing to break Multiplayer for MONTHS, when they decide to "adjust" the Aim120 stuff, without considering the impact on all the missiles. I think it took half a year or more to "kinda" sort it out. And now, the whole radar mess, the hornet finally got "adjusted" to something more realistic, but now the Viper is absurdly overperforming, its actual radar range should be about half of what it is, and the same for the JF17 now. I mean both of those airframes are outperforming the Eagle radar wise which is more than a bit out of touch with reality, but ED seriously needs to get some sort of rank ordered baselines for its radars/missiles and so forth and stick to them. 

I don't think that for A/G its anywhere near as critical though, since thats pretty much player V environment type of play, yes it sucks that Airframe X doesn't have capability Y that it was known for done yet, or done improperly (Still looking at the DMT/ARBS, YEARS later).... But when it comes to fighter A/C, radars should be vaguely believable in a rank ordered fashion as should AAM's. And if you decide to make a new model for AAM's do it for all of them, or at least adjust them so that rank ordering isn't all messed up. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Harlikwin

[deadpool]

4 hours ago, Mover said:

 

Air to Air Tacans are DME only, no azimuth.  

 

True for IRL and thanks for pointing this out!

 

Not much support for some of the RVs in DCS sadly.

Yet within the constrains of DCS, the tankers seem to have the (electronically) rotating bit of the TACAN-installation as well. It should be removed for realism sake, yet if it is left in, it should work correctly, which it didn't.

[ZeroReady]

14 minutes ago, deadpool said:

 

True for IRL and thanks for pointing this out!

 

Not much support for some of the RVs in DCS sadly.

Yet within the constrains of DCS, the tankers seem to have the (electronically) rotating bit of the TACAN-installation as well. It should be removed for realism sake, yet if it is left in, it should work correctly, which it didn't.

I have heard this before, maybe about the Y band. But in DCS the A10, F14, F16, and AV8B all give azimuth to the tanker. Is that really not accurate to IRL TACAN?

[deadpool]

Just now, ZeroReady said:

I have heard this before, maybe about the Y band. But in DCS the A10, F14, F16, and AV8B all give azimuth to the tanker. Is that really not accurate to IRL TACAN?

 

Technically one side would need a rotating antenna for that. (or multiple antennas which are electronically steered to "fake" the rotation without the moving parts).

[Machalot]

5 hours ago, Mover said:

 

Air to Air Tacans are DME only, no azimuth.  

That's interesting.

 

What method do pilots use to rendezvous with tankers IRL?

[ZeroReady]

Just now, Machalot said:

That's interesting.

 

What method do pilots use to rendezvous with tankers IRL?

I would assume AWACS vectors them. Or they know where the racetrack will be as a set of waypoints.

[deadpool]

4 minutes ago, Machalot said:

That's interesting.

 

What method do pilots use to rendezvous with tankers IRL?

 

You could google for AJP 3.3.4.2 as a document.

 

You have a described catalogue of rendezvous procedures ranging from ground based radar, using ranging information together with your stopwatch to figure out an approximate derivation to target, ownship radar, etc. 

 

But if you can ask AWACS, easiest thing.

Otherwise a good kneeboard would contain also the trackinfos of the tankers, or you even had a steerpoint or two to spare. Heck .. later into early access you'll even be able to draw the tanker track as a fancy dashed line if you feel so inclined.  

Edited May 5, 2021 by deadpool

[Machalot]

38 minutes ago, ZeroReady said:

I would assume AWACS vectors them. Or they know where the racetrack will be as a set of waypoints.

I appreciate the speculation and assumptions, it's fun to come up with ideas and possibilities, but I was asking a real pilot for the actual answer. 

[deadpool]

3 minutes ago, Machalot said:

I appreciate the speculation and assumptions, it's fun to come up with ideas and possibilities, but I was asking a real pilot for the actual answer. 

 

Bittersweet, dude. 

[ZeroReady]

35 minutes ago, Machalot said:

I appreciate the speculation and assumptions, it's fun to come up with ideas and possibilities, but I was asking a real pilot for the actual answer. 

My bad.

[Machalot]

45 minutes ago, ZeroReady said:

My bad.

Hey, no worries. I would give exactly that same kind of answer all over these forums. Just in this particular case it's not what I was looking for. After rereading my post I see how it comes across pretty harsh the way I worded it. Not intended, sorry to you and @deadpool.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Machalot

[Frederf]

6 hours ago, Mover said:

 

Air to Air Tacans are DME only, no azimuth.  

There are some tankers with bearing (azimuth?) capability, KC-10 and Pacer CRAG upgraded KC-135.
 

[Mover]

 

11 hours ago, Machalot said:

That's interesting.

 

What method do pilots use to rendezvous with tankers IRL?

 

There are tanker rendezvous procedures (fighter turn, for example).  But usually it's radar and the tanker track.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Mover