TobiasA

Frederf explained it so nice. You are not taking the distance from the center of the lift (read: middle axis of the plane) and the station itself into account, you are just putting weight into the equation. It is not about the weight, it is about momentum or torque, whatever is easier to understand. 500 pounds on the outer station create more torque than 500 pounds on the inner station.

I don't think you understood what I said, but probably because I am no native speaker. The further out a store is, the more roll torque it will create. Since the TGP is on the inside, its weight does not count fully. You can't just compare weight, you need to compare torque.

It is the distance from the center of lift. Store is further out -> more momentum. The momentum of the TGP is almost not there, don't use the whole weight of the TGP in this equation. It is not the same if you carry the weight on the outside or inside. Test the following: Mount a Mark 84 on station 3 and another one on station 6. Nothing else. Same weight left and right, but one bomb is further out. It will roll into the direction of the outer store since this one will induce a higher roll momentum. This is correct.

The TGP is further inside, do the resulting roll force is less. So to speak, the resulting lever arm is shorter. The further out a store is mounted, the more roll torque it will induce. The roll momentum of the TGP is very small, you can see that when loading a TGP on a symmetrical loadout.

You are probably right about that. After all it is part of a simulation and if one has the goal of being the most realistic simulator ever, these things are indeed important.

It would be nice to have wing flutter and the effects of over-G-ing stores modeled. There is a pretty detailed report on wing flutter on the F-16 (search for ADA420830 and f16hblcosdm2006), so it should be possible to model the effects, even if not in full detail. This would lead to people keeping the M0.95 restrictions on many AG stores instead of exploiting them on public servers. It would not affect the Mach 1.4 limit with external tanks since those loadouts are typically not sensitive to flutter. Over-G could be modelled by giving each pylon a maximum holding force in kN. If the stores weight multiplied with the G force pulled exceed the maximum holding force to a certain degree, hung stores or even losing the ordnance or pylon occurs. It would be nice to have those modelled- however, there is little sense in it modelling it if other modules do not do so.

There is a HAF manual which I am not allowed to post here that lists all of the drag indexes. However, I have no clue if this thread is still alive or not... Anyway, I have been asking myself the same question, particularly with the double JDAM rack and the external tanks drag factor. But until now, I have no idea how to test it since I don't have reliable data on the given end speed per altitude, drag index and weight. We will have to wait for the FM rework which was delayed a few times, but might come in a july update. Currently, weight hits you hard because the lift factor is slightly off which leads to higher AOA's which leads to more induced drag. This is noteable above about 10° AOA. The general drag seems a bit too low, leading to higher end speeds than it should be. Since the drag index is not given per pylon and it is not one drag index no matter which plane, but per pylon on the plane it will change for sure when they change something on the drag. So all we can do is wait for the reworked FM so we can test turn rates and Ps loss on different altitudes, weights and drag indexes. I am sure that once the FM rework is out, people will take only a few days if it is still off. Which is the reason that I am also sure that the reason for it taking so long is the testing they do... To avoid exactly that. However it is interesting how much drag pylons actually add to the plane.

You might also check that it didn't return to the default and bind your wheel brake axis to X and Y.

I must admit that I select single and do the spacing on my own when bombing a runway since I am very unsure about that. It also ensures at least one bomb lands on intersections of runways.

There is something with CCRP precision on the CBU-97 which I didn't find out yet. I think there is a somewhat degraded precision if you drop outside of 1G at pickle. Which would be correct but I sometimes mess that up with CCIP. I am surprised you see accuracy effects. I can bomb a tank with snakeeyes but I struggle to hit with CBU-97 quite often.

As someone who joined DCS with the F-16 about half a year ago (had an account for longer, but not the rig to run it) without knowing the history of it, I appreciate those words. It seems that it really wasn't planned that way, and it is the first time I read it from someone official since I am just too new in DCS. Thanks!

Yes, the lift is slightly off which creates higher speeds. There are tons of threads about the bad performance below 200kts, yet only few people seem to notice that it affects landing the plane a lot. *Laughs in Viggen thrust reverser*

I don't think the Apache is more complex than the F-16, but if the Apache enters early access before we see any larger important fixes (not new stuff, fixes) on the F-16 then your worries might come true. I'll be watching it, and will decide on if I will buy another ED module based on it. I already skipped the Hind and the F-18 for now. Heatblur is what I see as high fidelity and I do not know if ED can be on the same level. Time will tell. The F-16 is my first early access module, and if you buy early access, you pay for development and do not have a finished product. It is a price I am willing to pay for seeing the the F-16 in DCS, but until now my experience leaves room for improvement, seeing Hind and Apache developed but no real updates on the F-16 for half a year. You need to be patient with the F-16 I guess.

It is not possible with the current flight model due to the lack of lift at the given AOA, that is also why the landing speeds are higher.

It was not when I read it.

You might facepalm, but the initial post never mentioned it. It is included now.

I'm cool with hot things actually sticking out.

As for now I'd be happy if they copy-pasted the rendering from the Su-25T pod or the Viggen's maverick display into the F-16's TGP. But that's planned to be reworked afaik, right now the pod doesn't work at night. I mean it switches on but the picture does not display IR even if you select WHOT or BHOT.

You can only do this in a dive. Afaik the newer engines have an overpressure / overspeed limitation in the control so they should not die but simply stop generating thrust. Things we should see: - Wing flutter - Hung stores due to over-G. - Sudden flameouts once the reservoir starts to pull air at 800lbs fuel state and negative G or sharp rolls occur But: Overspeeding in a dive doesn't really matter, because that guy will not come home. That "other sim" doesn't model that aspect fully, yet people don't do it there. Why? First because you might eventually damage the engine, but the main thing is: Because they want to get home, and getting home usually means a solid 100-150nm trip at least. With the only option to refuel being a tanker at least 50nm behind the FLOT since refueling from airfields is not allowed by server rules. On Buddyspike persian gulf, the Vipers were placed in Bandar Abbas, and it was a nice airquake, nobody carried 2 tanks. Now they are placed in Jiroft, have a 100nm trip towards the action and everybody carries droptanks. The distance is still so short that I often pop the tanks when in need though, because it's only a 100nm trip and Joker is about 3.5 or so. You get plenty of playtime without. And until someone creates a penalty system for losing planes, you will see people going to the edge because who cares if you lose the plane due to a flameout? Right, nobody. You push "select role" and go for it. Even with the "three lives"- I can't spend these in an afternoon. However, that airquake feeling is gone, and I returned to the server once in a while because I actually feel like flying missions instead of being an AMRAAM truck. Place the fast movers further out at the server. Do a realistic scenario. And speaking of realistic scenarios: Wait until the F-16 gets the jammer. You will struggle to push through Mach 1.3 at altitude with two bags and a jammer, even with the current flight model. However, you need to take into account that not everyone wants to fly in a realistic way, airquake is quite popular in DCS and we even have a big "guns only" community. A big part of it is not modelling the environment right, and the missing punishment of not bringing a jet home. We don't have a reward for bringing a jet home, and a lot of public servers are fully around air-to-air since the ground combat in DCS would kill nowadays CPU's if you would integrate it on a full scale level. But: Why haven't I seen strategic assets like factories that if they get bombed, reduce the other sides supply of specific weapons? Or why aren't there more servers where sinking tankers actually gives benefits in terms of fuel supply? Why doesn't bombing a harbor reduce supply for a team? Aerial warfare is all about things on the ground. I have a Viggen, but about most of my sorties are anti-ship because it ain't great in CAS (me neither, lol) and there are no fixed targets to strike. I have the Mirage, same thing. It is the whole thing as such, and I think that actually simulating a full scale war behind the scenes would lead to a much more realistic experience. We need more assets on the ground, and people will start flying CAP's. As of now, the public servers I have found are mostly like "I takeoff, burn to the FLOT, pop my AMRAAMs into the masses and either die or land at the nearest airfield, refuel, rearm and start at step 1". The 4YA training server lets me at least refine my skills for mud moving while having to defend myself against a bot from time to time. I basically learned the Viggen there, the Su-25T as well as the MiG-29 and I am now going strong with F-14 and Mirage. It is even great for helicopters. I love it because I got multiple roles instead of only air-to-air. Don't get me wrong, I love BVR, I love Tacturns and stuff but sometimes I want to drop LGB's and watch the big boom (most satisfying weapon ever), or want to blast over treetops and drop snakeeyes or hunt SAM's in the F-16. People adopt to the scenarios they find, and if exploiting edge conditions gives a bonus, they will do, especially if dying later with a kill is better than not dying and returning without a kill. That's why you see airquakes on most PVP servers instead of people grouping up for strike packages. The potential of DCS compared to other sims is the awesomeness of having joint packages of tons of different planes for example including CAS in A-10s, CAP's in F-18's, SEAD packages in the F-16 (soon) and strikers in Viggens with human players in every single seat and even multicrew and I can't believe this awesomness disappears in such a sad way and can only be accessed by joining a dedicated community. It ain't as easy as blowing the canopy up at 830kts on sea level. However, we have to see a fm fix for having realistic landing speeds yet- after that has happened, we can talk about finer details.

The AG JHMCS feature was not mentioned in that post as far as I remember. I am not even sure if it exists in the 2007 blk 50 at all. It shows ground waypoints and HTS targets (?), basically that's it afaik for AG functionality. IFF is (if it is capable and implemented) a pure AA functionality. Unsure about Link 16 AG functionality, never seen anything about it. I can't see anything dropped yet besides the JSOW C. I can live with that. I am fine with the weapons we have now. However, I have yet to see an update on the F-16's systems and flight model since I bought it about half a year ago, so I sit here and wait patiently for the things the former hornet team brings us. I still have hope.

Hung stores if you pull 9G with bombs should be common. And there have been known cases of engine failures when exceeding Vne by a large amount. Realistically, I would not even bother if they did it because I am used to it from "that other sim" and I'm flying fine without abusing the unrealistic things in DCS. But yes, there are people saying that there should be the canopy blowing off when going Mach 1.3 on sea level. However I mean who is doing that? You are out of fuel within 8 minutes or so.

This. LGB's are better for vehicles, and they can be used on moving targets as well opposed to the JDAM. The advance of the JDAM is that it is fire and forget on multiple targets per pass and can be dropped through a cloud cover, for actual precision nothing beats LGBs.

You can do this with the TGP as well, no need to create a steerpoint for each target. You just need one in the general area to get your TGP there.

Keep in mind that you need absolute precision on the TGP. I have been failing JDAMs pretty regular on vehicles, and came to the conclusion that JDAMs are fine for buildings but for vehicles, paveways rock. As described in the above thread, you need to lase the target shortly for a few seconds before pickling to enable the TGP rangefinder and update the target position. I had regular close misses before, and even with laser ranging, some JDAMs just miss.

Well it certainly is a nice plane. It is however work in progress with little progress in the last months. What bothers me most are the extremely high landing speeds due to the fm, apart from that it is at least somewhat usable in the Air to Air role or for attacking pre planned targets on the ground. You should not take dog fights currently, but in the area between 300kts and Vne it is pretty accurate for being WIP and a joy to fly. Yet people are calling for a nerf of something still lacking basic functionality, and as of today there are more important things than those details. That's all I am saying.