TobiasA

It seems correct though.

I need to try that.

I haven't been able to enter one yet. But I have seen people getting into one.

Yes, I do have the module and I am flying it a lot. Probably a few hundred hours by now. Yes, I think the pitch ladder is readable to a realistic amount. Yes, I understand what you showed in the video. No, I was not replying to you but to the one above me (whom I quoted). And it was about overlapping datapoints (or pictures, in this case) on different frequencies which is part of my daily work. But since you want to discuss it... I think it is realistic even though probably not being perfect. A similar effect can be seen on this video during the GCAS pullup, you see the pitch ladder not being perfectly stabilized on the horizon. It always moves a bit as a result of HUD updating frequency. Also, the speed and altitude readings are updated slower than the pitch ladder is. Also note that the Youtube video is at least one fourth the speed (no slower than that), probably recorded on the HUD itself, and your video is way slower than that and recorded in very high resolution. 20Hz is 50ms update rate, which would result in a 1 degree "jitter" at a 20deg/s turn. Which is about the same in that video I posted. Probably a bit faster, but as it is recorded on a tape, it is hard to tell. Also, GCAS tops out at like 8G so no full 20deg/s. HUD videos showing pure pull-up or pull-down are pretty rare, and the VHS frequency of 24Hz doesn't really make it possible to claim the update frequency to be higher or lower. However, the amount of movement in the pitch ladder up or down in rapid and sharp pulls will allow for some guessing because of the jitter from one picture to another caused by the update frequency on the data displayed on the HUD, and based on that, I think 20Hz comes pretty close. This video also shows a similar effect, watch the horizon line passing through as the nose passes through. And then there is this one, showing the lag during pitch and roll (see the horizon line lagging behind) You are free to explain why you think that the HUD update rate should be higher based on evidence supporting it. The stage is all yours, I was just discussing frequencies when filming and displaying sensor data and as to why those aren't necessarily the same and why it is wise to record data matching a multiple of that frequency. But this is a complicated topic, English isn't my native language and I'll see myself out, leaving that material in here so you all might discuss that topic.

Theoretically you should record at a multiple of that refresh rate. However, the practical difference if you are already at a multiple of 7 is probably negligible. If you record on almost the double frequency, then your jitter is about 50%. But we have three different framerates here... The HUD fps, the ingame fps, and the recording fps. And on top that of the screen. So... Difficult to say if frequcies overlap. And, more important, the HUD refresh rate says nothing about the frequency in which the information on it is updated. See the Tomcat for example. There is usually some smoothing in sensor inputs, some delay in inputs being processed so you may display information with 20 Hz but the information might be refreshed in 10Hz.

Definitely closer to the book, and one of the best patches for the Viper in ages. Much easier to aerobrake as well. Thanks a lot!

Triplanes were stable though There is no way to bypass the FLCS and it is better that way.

Multiplayer always saves tracks. Maybe you still have these?

It broke the FLCS rudder input when rolling at high AOA and made landing a nightmare, but other than that, it changed nothing.

As soon as you have a bit of turbulence on a server, the Viper becomes a daunting challenge to land. Please, whatever you changed, revert those changes and drop a hotfix. I already deleted my rant, but please... It is directly coupled to AOA. As soon as the AOA goes up, any roll will lead to almost full rudder deflection. However, it seems to be worse when having the gear down, and it gets better when you tilt the aircraft a bit to the side and apply minimal rudder, slightly offsetting the FLCS input to one side. Which might help for the time being, but isn't a solution either. Probably coupled to landing gains. But even thought the landing gains should be applied when opening the air refueling door, opening the door does not have the same bad effect as having the gear down- but that might be my personal control input...

Same. Rudder input from FLCS is way to high when you roll. It also happens with the gear retracted.

The real F-16 FLCS tries to roll around the velocity vector. You can see this in some videos, but I can't find the manual right now. Think it was somewhere in NASA paper 1538, but I am not sure. This is intentional. The F-16 should roll around the FPM.

You die in like 95% of all cases unless something small like a MANPADS hits you. But historically, the pilot rather often survived.

Apart from the AP not engaging: If you have AP enabled but a stick input greater than 0, the plane will move in that direction. So zero deadzone will always drift somewhere.

A stick input on its own should not disable AP.

It is not. In the F-16, you can actually move the stick to quite some amount and even temporarily override the AP. When you let go, it will resume the AP. Conditions to disable the pitch switch (see HAF F-16 manual 1-135 and following, publically available but never than 1980 so I am not allowed to post it here): AIR REFUEL switch - OPEN. ALT FLAPS switch - EXTEND (below 400 knots). A/P FAIL PFL occurs. AOA greater than 15 degrees. DBU - Engaged. LG handle - DN. Low speed warning tone sounds. MPO switch - OVRD. STBY GAIN PFL occurs. TRIM/AP DISC switch - DISC. Additionally, it will disable the AP if you roll over 60 degrees bank angle, but the manual isn't clear there. Which is exactly the way the DCS Viper behaves if you leave the dead zones at the default values. See track attached. The paddle will temporarily disable the autopilot while held, resuming with the parameters it had when releasing it (just moving the stick will have the AP returning to the values it had before moving the stick). Even Wags is not correct in his video. But the implementation is correct, according to publically available documentation. See attached track with me moving the stick with the autopilot enabled- you will even see the stick moving if you look closely. AP stays enabled until I command a full roll, disabling the pitch switch by exceeding the bank angle. This behaviour is correct imho. Unsure about if it disables the AP when you lower the gear though. However, the criteria for disabling the autopilot without the FLCS dead zones seems to be wrong. If you leave everything at default, it works as it should. It does on my end, and I did not touch the deadzones- I am on the FLCS defaults. There is no need for special settings regarding the autopilot. PLEASE don't adapt other airframe's logic to the F-16, it is pretty unique in that point as it was one of the first airplanes with a FLCS. AP test.trk

Honestly I don't think that there are many people in the closed beta that at least cold-start the F-16 or take it on multiplayer events. Quite frequently we had bugs that multiple people in our squad discovered on the first ride after a patch. But yes, you might be right there. Good point.

Known bug, gonna be fixed in some future patch (hopefully).

There is no beta and stable version anymore, stable and beta became one some patches ago. So technically the stable version is the open beta, and vice versa. Which one is which is up to you. But imho, bug fixes > new features.

Keep in mind that the english manual is usually somewhat up-to-date while the other languages lag behind, so it might be worth a look into the english manual if your first language isn't English.

Fear not, because both Orbx and Reflected simulations deliver products in a working state. And they put a lot of effort into it, with a serious love for detail and immersion. Pretty sure there is a bigger F-16 patch incoming, since there has been quite some activity in the bug section and even the three threads about the forgotten radar modes got merged and some TWS issues got labeled as "reported". So the bugfixes might comes as a pair with the campaign.

Bug is still present in September update.

However, I won't complain any further. I criticized the things I didn't like, and it is up to you what to do with it. Overall, I appreciate DCS too much for being negative in total. There are more modules than the 16, and some day, even this one will be finished. Have a nice day everyone.

My frustration is not caused by slow progress or something. It is things like the may update (?) that would have been pretty nice if it had not broken the radar mode memory, which might be fixed in the September patch (hopefully) which is five months. And the radar worked fine before. After a few months somebody asked for a track even though this was the third time it appeared on the forum in the bug section. Why do I even write these? Otherwise, I appreciate the work going into the sandbox DCS and the progress to logistics and such. It's just the 16 that is frustrating from time to time.

The Viper is easier in terms of avionics. Almost never requires you to take your hands off the HOTAS, I mostly use the mouse to switch AG weapons if necessary and toggle the light switch. Efficient, intuitive, bubble canopy, 9G, one of the best accelerations you can imagine (especially if you unload). But: The Viper is more difficult to fly right. In terms of air refuelling it is one of the hardest planes to master, especially at night. Easy to put into PIO for unexperienced pilots. If you want to land a hornet, just keep it straight until it touches the ground. Slam it onto that tarmac like there is no tomorrow. Don't be gentle, it's rental. If you do that with a Viper, you might break the gear. You have to flare it. You also have to flare it to be able to aerobrake, especially with HTS and TGP equipped- once the nose is down, it will stay down, and it doesn't have the brakes of a Viggen. Refuelling the hornet is not as easy as the M-2000C (which is a rocket on rails) but it comes close. Landing on a boat is difficult compared to landing on an airbase, but the hornet got tons of helpers and assistance and a beep here and a warning there and if you don't hit the bridge or the aft of the ship, it should do. A crosswind landing in bad weather in the Viper can be harder than landing on a boat- not only that you have to correct for wind, flare, and then get the nose straight on the runway while holding 12° AOA, you also have to sacrifice a part of your already poor braking performance to counter the crosswind force pushing your nose into the wind while slipping around on the wet runway. Also, the Viper doesn't have the insane nose authority of a Hornet. But I'd pick the Viper any day over the Hornet, because it is extremely satisfying to fly, a joy at low altitude, and an absolute beast when it comes to SEAD / DEAD. Depends on what you like. I never really got into the hornet, because I never understood the user interface. It is fun to fly, but I got lost in MFD screens and in thousands of menus without hitting the way back to where I have been. The A-10 is logical, the F-16 is logical, the F-18 is logical for people that started with it. Who don't know the joy of popping through three different presets with 6 MFD pages each by DMS right / left and the override switch, never leaving the HOTAS between engaging a SAM with HARMs and launching a 120 on an enemy MiG-29 just seconds later.