TobiasA

ED announced they are going to model a 2007 US Block 50 so we are probably not gonna see it. There are also versions with an integrated ECM which we won't see. And tbh a Block 60 or 70 would be too much for a Tomcat for example. Or a gripen. You just can't throw that in for the sake of balance.

Yes I remember some canopy issue. I also recall an accident with a lost Viper and a dead pilot in the gulf of Mexico due to overspeeding which broke the engine. But you are totally right. Who does that? Alone the insane fuel flow should worry you. Like you could lose a wing tank by small arms fire and still get further than that. I just think the punishment should be there for the sake of realism and for keeping people from exploiting it on PVP. The Viggen can have compressor stalls, it would only be fair. Power comes with responsibility, that is very true for the Viper in terms of hung stores for example. But that is currently nice to have, there are more important things on the module. You can't keep up any tactical formation on full burner either. And tacturns on angels 35 are not easy to do.

I think if the Viper is off, then it is too draggy on higher AOA's. It feels a bit like that. Depending on the altitude, the 40 miles number is a good rule of thumb if you have at least a solid 10k altitude advantage on someone heading towards you on angels 20. Near 15 miles make it almost impossible to outrun the missile. Talking about Vne at sea level, the main thing that is missing is the punishment for exceeding it. Like blown blades. Also, the 129 has an overspeed protection iirc, that might kick in but I can't tell since I lack RL experience. After all, I think the FM is pretty good, and the only thing one could wish for is punishment for exceeding G or Vne like hung stores, flutter or even damage to the engine and a corrected lift on higher AOA's, especially on slow speed.

As far as I know, the F-16 doesn't have such a system. For an attack airplane which is constantly threatened by MANPADS that makes sense tho.

The top speed should be alright, top climbing altitude is also fine I think. The A model certainly won't do that, but the '50/'52 can even supercruise when clean. So I am told. Rated top speed is in a level flight. And keep in mind you are not carrying a jammer with a high drag index. Pop the bags and zoom it goes. https://info.publicintelligence.net/HAF-F16.pdf We have the GE-129 which is the only model. And it is correctly modelled. Read page 1-42. Above Mach 1.4, putting the throttle to idle will still be MIL since the engine will have so much air flowing through- but this applies on the PW-229 so they did put a lot of research in the engine. See Page 1-46: "When retarding the throttle to IDLE above 1.4 mach, rpm may decrease up to 15 percent from MIL rpm. RPM then decreases with mach number until approximately 1.1 mach, at which time the engine decelerates to normal flight idle rpm." So we do have the F110-GE-129, this matches the book on spot. And it's awesome, just look at 1-57 when that mach diagram ends at Mach 2.0. Which is the stated top speed in some sources. The 129 has a whopping 29500 lbs of thrust, compared to the 23800 of the A version. That's quite some horsepower for the little F-16. The deeper I look the more I think the FM isn't that far off- if any, given the available data. What I do think is that flutter should be modelled. There is a flutter analysis from 1977 on the A model airframe which can be seen here: https://core.ac.uk/reader/42876251 I'd love to see flutter modelled. Visible for example here: However, the Block 40's Dash-1 seems to say to not exceed mach 1.6 with the external stores apparently, which can be read here: https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16344 So it seems possible even on the Block 40 with a slightly less powerful engine. So no, I don't think that the viper as it is now is too fast.

You guys notice anything when mounting the TGP besides a small roll tendency to the right due to the weight? I can't see the ball offset to any side on my system, maybe my monitor is too small or something. I have a typical loadout (2 bags, 4 slammer, 2 heater) and the TGP and it is hard to tell if there is any offset in yaw trim. I just do one short click on "trim left wing down" (coolie hat left) and that's it. Straight and level. It's true that due to tolerances, the real thing requires some trim depending on speed and such, but our viper is perfect so it doesn't require that. Are you sure you don't have a wrong middle position on your pedal axis by accident?

I do not have RL experience on the Viper, but know of one manual that mentions that the yaw trim is always centered on takeoff (HAF F-16, you can google this and download it for free), and I know of one fatal accident caused by accidently turning the yaw trim all the way to one side by storing the checklist there. If the ball is between the two lines in the middle of the ADI, then you are flying straight and you do not slip. Middle means flying straight. Having the TGP attached might lead to a little slip, but I usually ignore it as it is very small. You may however click the yaw trim to have it exactly centered. The stick controls do the same as turning the knob on the left side panel, except we don't have the yaw trim on the stick. Only pitch and roll. Because you usually only need roll and probably a little pitch sometimes, but rarely yaw trim.

A-10C is a great module, but I'm not the typical tank buster or mud mover in a slow attack plane. I like mainly CAP's and Wild Weasel, and I like them fast. Paveways are great too. JF-17 is not going to happen, just not my plane / nation even tho it looks well made, but the tiffy will be on the list as soon as it comes out. It's also not from ED, so we will probably see more progress on the tiffy. All those planes I'd like to fly are mainly just on the horizon to appear, the viper being one of them. Hornet... Another EA module together with the one I already own? Just to own only two EA modules? No. If I'd have to choose between any module right now, it would be the Viggen (not sure about that one too, but I've heard only good things about it), F-14 or the persian gulf map. Combined Arms is on the list of modules I watch as well, probably gonna get it but I can't say if it really is what I think it is. A free to play month would be cool, I guess. Even without the discount. Would download viggen, F-14, combined arms and persian gulf in one night. Don't get me wrong, I'd buy the viper again because... It's an F-16, and if DCS wouldn't have the F-16 I wouldn't have it on my hard disk. It would just be cool if it would get some love. I think they planned too much at the same time, and i won't be angry about it. That's the wrong approach, and if you moan about it or not doesn't change a thing. They realized it, but for now the hornet gets the love because of the new map and the supercarrier module.

As far as I understand it a higher scan frequency results in less lost tracks if the target maneuvers (The publically available F-16 MLU M1 manual mentions that TWS is more likely to lose track if the target maneuvers than RWS). It seems that if the radar does not "find" a track again it had extrapolated because it changed direction in the meanwhile, it might lose that contact. Bad thing is that we don't have the spotlight search with TMS up without a target underneath the cursor because it is not implemented yet. It seems to be made for exactly that purpose.

If you use 10' Azimuth, the scan frequency is three times higher than on 30', because you scan a smaller area. So you get faster results.

Planes with small wings like fighters are don't really have a tendency to slip like gliders to with their large wings. The viper's fly by wire compensates for it when you roll the aircraft, and we don't have real life issues like a slightly bent airframe (which are caused by production tolerances back then). That is why you almost never see the ball offset to any side. Kick the rudder, and it will move as it should. If you have an asymmetric loadout, you can compensate that with a chart. I usually don't do those, because if you have too much asymmetric loadout, it becomes real nasty and increases the risk of a stall. Also, the flight model the viper currently has, is having not enough lift on slow speeds so landing speeds and such are higher. With an asymmetric loadout, this is even more a problem. A HARM on one wing and two GBU-12 on the other won't hurt tho. You can actually see that if you release ordnance and there is for example one maverick less on one side, the ball on the yaw indicator touches the line on this side because drag on the other side is a little bit higher. You can simulate the "bent airframe" if you load two racks with 3 bombs each on one side and leave the other side empty, the plane will skid to a noticable amount. Then, you trim yaw, then roll and it'll be cool. As long as you fly straight of course, because the weight will be a pain in the a** when turning. If the ball is centered, the plane isn't slipping. And in our perfect world, we have perfect airframes without tolerances, no bents, no uneven weight distribution- just nice and sweet. It would be cool to have an option to place some random "trim offset" but then most people would leave that option unchecked. Once you have the yaw centered (which is the case for us), you can stick with roll trim. I developed the habit of as clicking the trim hat once or twice when I pull the finger off the trigger, depending on what I released. AAM's are one click (if any, you can live without), GBU-10's might be 3 or 4, or hold the button longer. However, you often release bombs in pairs, so... Since roll and pitch trim is on the HOTAS next to the trigger, it becomes second nature. The reason you trim yaw first is that yaw affects roll, but roll doesn't really impact yaw.

The F-16 has a warning light for that. Apparently other planes don't... I'm shocked.

The only hope is that the launchers run out of missiles pretty fast. In addition, real life SAM sites are pretty "nested" with SHORAD and smaller air defenses nearby to protect against low strikers which might come through undetected. Even for some variansts of the SA-2 there is an optical guiding kit which never ever triggers a warning. I have not seen a flight sim with the full IADS capability, although some come close.

Aaaand back again. To be honest, I have no idea what was going on. I think something isn't right there, but it is hard to check since those tiny brakes are easy to "override with the throttle". After the next restart, I have the same settings as before now. But somehow it feels like they are only half engaged sometimes.

Yes, such systems exist, but they work with an active radar to detect incoming objects or detect the flash of the missile launch. But for the RWR in real life the radar signature from the fire control radar does not change so you can't tell if it is tracking or guiding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track-via-missile https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300pmu.htm Same with the Patriot. But I guess it would be difficult to remove the launch warning in all modules for those systems in terms of how the community would react to it.

So I installed the latest OpenBeta update and wondered why my nose now sticks to the ground like glue and I need full burner and 150kts to get that nose in the air. Turns out I had to invert my brake axis on the rudder pedals now for some reason. So, folks, if you can't keep up your nose during landing, you might have to set "slider axis" and "invert axis" in your axis settings... Or your wheel brake may be at least half engaged all the time.

Do you get a launch warning from the SA 10 in DCS? Those are track via missile, so they don't trigger a launch warning in real life, making it impossible to tell if they have already fired or not. Once the fire control radar comes live, you can assume it has fired or will within seconds.

Came here for a read if the viggen is worth buying, I don't own it, but here are some things to consider: Exceeding the Vne can be modelled quite easy. It can break your engine blades by exceeding the speed of sound inside the engine, ripping apart the whole engine. If the air inside your engine goes supersonic, your engine goes down the drain. At best it has a flameout, at worst parts of it rip everything apart. https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/how-things-work-supersonic-inlets-35428453/#:~:text=When a jet airplane is flying faster than,with fuel—is capable of handling supersonic air flow. Flutter can occur (and will, on the F-16, with certain A/G stores above ~550kts sea level) which can result in hung stores or damage the airframe if you ignore it. The reason why you often see AIM-120's on the outer stores is that they stabilize the wing more than a sidewinder does. Another limit in the F-16 is the bubble canopy which might even break because it will heat up and get weak. You simply do not exceed Vne because there is a specific reason for it and it will fubar important parts of the plane you are sitting in. A Vne of 800kts (1480 km/h) at sea level seems to be a "magic border" which no one has not exceeded yet... The tornado rides that line, and it is said that it can exceed it. But then, you probably shouldn't. Viggen sounds fun tho.

Nvm... I forgot I am not carrying the ECM pod And I just found out that the AB detent wasn't exactly on the mark, so I was on stage 1 AB. My fault. Since the ECM pod adds a lot of drag, the performance seems reasonable. I'm just so used to carrying one...

On the other hand, it is way faster than the real thing with low AOA's, especially with stores. I think the stores drag is a bit off.

Partly. Depending on the POS mode selection (which is currently not fully modelled), the HARM will glide. That means that the missile will enter a shallow glidepath until it finds an emitting radar of the specified type (or any radar, depending on the setting of "target isolate", called "flex", which is also not modelled yet iirc). That means that if the radar is switched off, the HARM will enter a shallow "glide", allowing it to have a longer time in the air in case the radar goes active again, using the rather large seeker head angle of 60° off the nose if I remember correctly. HARM's that miss in POS mode have a tendency to overshoot- which can be several miles, especially in RUK (range unknown) which is the only mode we currently have in early access. The missile will go for the radar emitter- which is usually on top of any vehicle. It should hit somewhere near that, but it isn't nowhere that precise as far as I know. However, if the operator switches off the radar and you have the glide option selected (and I think that is the case in the current DCS implementation), it might go just over the heads of those guys. But I have no idea if that aspect is modelled. HAS goes straight for the emitter if I remember correctly, no flex, no glide. I'm not sure about that however.

No, I never bothered with Easy since I came from "that other sim" and I can confirm that the TMS works in other modes. TMS is a Dx mapping. It locks the first contact, then stops until you break lock with TMS down. Does it work for anyone of you in Open Beta? I think it's just buggy currently.

And another one in bad weather with limited visibility and crosswind: I must say that wet runways are a bit difficult sometimes, especially if they come with turbulence and crosswinds.

Well, I did but I can't cycle targets with TMS right in TWS even with a newly created mission. Am I doing something wrong or is it a bug?

Since the F-16 is my first and currently only module (it's the reason I have DCS), that might be a good idea.