fapador

Hyperbole level 100. Your effort to prove a misleading point is admirable... Lets shoot E-4 vs K-4 facts down 1 by 1. - 8cm of length ( yah right it will lead to massive handling differences. Almost certain this is bacause of the new Larger Prop Cone cover blending with fuselage) -Wow! 6 cm more Wingspan only to be caused by the elliptical addition to reduce induced drag WoW Totally different airframe! -62 cm^2 more Wing Area maybe some difference here but again irrelevant as Center of lift remains exactly the same. I suspect this was changed to support an overall heavier airplane. -Empty Weight : 675 Kg Heavier.... Irrelevant, as their distribution is what matters the most and as far as I know, E model had Oxygen tanks further aft than the newer models and also newer models deleted heavy Tail supports, + some other changes that I cant recall precisely atm - Gross weight same as above.. - 750 Hp more . Only difference would be on take of roll, cruise speed, Max speed and engine systems and management. + all 109 models after E-4 had a smaller more efficient lighter prop if I recall correctly.. ( Equilibrium maintained to balance for heavier engine) So only the MW-50 Tank addition might perhaps change Aerodynamical handling which I highly doubt since other changes were made to counteract this, like E-4 Wing Guns deleted etc + BF-109 E-4 vs K-4 has almost exactly same CoG location... Its like telling me a Cessna 152 flies differently than a Cessna 172 or a Piper Warrior III flies differently than a Turbo Arrow IV. I have flown all 4 of these two sets of aircraft and they don't fly differently.. most importantly they don't display angle of attack differences in between them at each flight regime compared.... Only difference they display in a nutshell are Speeds they achieve, Engine management, Use full loading capability, and max Range. Infact , like the one correct thing you said, all neutral stable planes fly similarly in a manner, that is they maintain their pitch attitude. Also most planes have their Center of gravity acting forward than the Center of Lift which makes them also similar Its why airline pilots start to learn flying in General Aviation airplanes and not Training jets like the military does which mostly likely always have their CoG behind the Center of lift . Myth Busted!.

I hope your long post shuts some mouths around here and finally gets this issue reported. Thank you for your time and effort you invested towards it. Now rest well my friend @Tim_Fragmagnet @NineLine @BIGNEWY time for action...

K-4 fly's like a hog strapped with bricks. I can make paper planes that fly better than the DCS depiction... Real Pilot with PPL here.

I have a PPL. Also I used to fly Piper Warriors and Cessnas for many years. I have stick time in many other airframes though, even some in airliners, for example a320 and many hours in professional flight sims e.g CAE. When it comes especially to rotary wing, I have high rank army friends that tested DCS helicopter modules and had at best mixed feelings about their depicted FM. Its not you that is the problem, nor the stick. It is the general DCS FM in most modules that I personally find not very realistically tuned. Don't expect much, In the end its just a 50dollar sim good for learning procedures and button layouts, Not very good for flight training, Infact, its even possible to pick up some bad habits from hassling too much with it. Accept it and use it wisely for what it is actually good for. Kind regards from Greece.

you dont understand what I am asking for I want to be able to shift my view only for the one screen without affecting the other...

Noone

For example editing left viewport viewDy in 3cameras. lua changes camera direction up/down. Is there a line I can add, possibly something like viewX = .. to move camera backwards or forwards on the left viewport only ? Because using eye_shift works on the x axis only.(moves viewport left and right)

Hello, Is it possible to move only one of the 3 viewports ( for example only left monitor) in order to adjust forward-backwards viewport position in a multimonitor setup?. Like pressing cntrl +shift +* but only for the left monitor. I tried adding eye_shift = (a random number) on the left viewport at 3cameras.lua but that moves the viewport left and right. I want to move it forward or backwards is this possible by some kind of C++ command edit ?

Not a Cessna 172 but a T-41D

Once again we find ourselves doing the work for ED... This is also only CAT I mode, CAT3 might be wrong as well so does the landing mode or even AR. Great test LJQCN101 and I personally thank you. Try my suggested curve it will also need 66% to reach maximum deflection but it will happen earlier in joystick travel due to curve, somehow fooling you and giving a better sense. I tried to somehow match it as best as I could from my memory on my go at LM sim. Its not perfect but its better than default. PS: As for the general FM I also think there is also something else a little off. I find that the jets nose drops too much with bank angle in most speed ranges, resulting in poor turn performance (most complain as they cant reach 9g in turns) but I think its due to the nose tendency dropping too much when banking in any weight configuration( I even tried unloading all the gun ammo to reduce nose weight but that only improves it very little). So maybe something is also little off there, if not aerodynamic wise possibly Ix Inertia is off or the rudder provides too much lift pushing the nose down when banking (it becomes like an elevator).

I am currently using a curve at roll axis to improve things to my personal taste. My curve is sophisticatedly setup 'd in a way to better emulate lag "artificially" and increase responsiveness in the near center zone. This is just a sneaky workaround I am working to further improve ,but you can give it a go . It makes things more realistic than default IMO but its still not Perfect compared to a real F16 sidestick. PS: It might make AR a little harder and possibly easier to overcontrol but it's closer to what I would expect. Feel free to switch back to your previous setup and note your current settings in case you don't like.

The result is an F-16 that achieves 324 degrees per second maximum roll-rate command within the first ninety degrees Instead, consider this: the F-16 is as fast to ninety degrees of bank as just about anything you'll run across; and although there are areas of the envelope where the computer limits the F-16 to less than 100 degrees per second, you still have nearly twice the roll rate available, under similar conditions, as any adversary you may meet. Very interesting review and site from a test pilot that sadly lost his life in a F16 . However note the above about roll rate. Currently DCS F-18 is much more sensitive and thus more agile in roll axis than F-16 in the same full linear setup , I can bank DCS F-18 much faster in ninety degrees than F-16, it doesnt make sense. Yes the lag is very much sensible in FBW systems. However, note that it doesn't reduce the commanded roll rate or the sensitivity thus the control surfaces amount of deflection (in a way that DCS does) it just delays for some ms the command from happening. Its hard to describe if you have never had a go on a FBW plane. The term reduce sensitivity is incorrect IMAO. It just makes the command happen at a later time (few ms).

Yeah Roll rate (Max) might be good, I never questioned that. However the roll axis behavior is way off. Might be the way ED has chosen to replicate real non moving stick implementation to common joysticks. It just doesn't feel correct though.

I

As the title says I find the viper's roll axis incredibly sluggish even at empty loads. Years ago I had a go at the Lockheed Martin Viper Simulator and I remember the high roll inertia distinctively, DCS F16 is very far from what I remember. I tried different curve settings but all failed to satisfy me 100%. I cannot pull sharp instantaneous wings levelling, a maneuver I have seen live on many Aerobatic shows like in the Video I post. According to what I have read on the book Vipers in the Storm Captain Keith Rosenkranz states that F16 In fact requires opposite stick movement when banking sharp in order to stop roll due to high roll inertia. For this I am creating this post. He also states that at high speeds F16 FLCS becomes incredibly sensitive to the slightest movement something also not currently present. Anyone out there having the patience (I lack) willing to perform tests? What are your opinions ? I am using a t16000 full linear setup Look at 3:56, 9:15 and 10:34

on that screenshot I can see it below horizon. Possibly it has something to do with an empty loaded plane out of fuel, the shock strut moves the plane upwards so the cross goes higher. In DCS no matter what load it is always above .

There's also this screenshot of hud which shows the jet aligning but the horizon line is definitely on the correct position.

I dunno matte, the line depicts the horizon not the ground. Its possible with view angle that the horizon is above ground like this picture.

I tried a takeoff roll It still is off, even with speed going through it. It appears not to be modelled correct

I dont think the horizon will change in that video because it seems to be pretty close in the correct position if you look the end of the mountain . The tapes though might possibly move upwards with aligment. Also there is no explanation about the AOA bracket as in dcs it seems to be always too low nearly out of hud in dcs. IMO something is off in dcs HUD, but I still cant exactly point to what that is. It just doesn't convince me 100%. EDIT: I just noticed DCS AOA bracket has a tendency to change position even when waiting still on the ground. Perhaps the sensor position changing with wind affects its location on the HUD? as it randomly moves from -10 back up to -5

Possibly. I can also note that the AOA bracket is in different position than in dcs on takeoff roll. The tape's bracket is in middle of -5degrees while ingame it's quite below -5 degrees.

Hi, Is it possible to reduce terrain textures to medium while at the same time maintain high textures of airplane and therefore cockpit?. The graphics option texture setting seems to affect both at the same time. Does a workaround exist via a config file?

Here is Hud footage of f16 loaded with external fuel tanks and 2 maverick missiles on . 1:39 On takeoff role cross seems to be more of less inline with horizon. At least not above as in dcs

I don't think so man. It happens even with a complete empty loaded plane, perhaps even slightly worse. Also look the hud tapes on right and left, their top's part on dcs have noticeably larger distance from the horizon line than the ones in the video

Hi all, a thing that has bugged me from release. The gun cross seems to always be slightly above horizon even with a fully loaded plane. I don't know if its a gun cross position or a horizon line approximation not being correct. However, years ago I had a go at Lockheed's Martin Viper simulator and I remember the gun cross in line with horizon when landed or taxiing. I post this video also where you can see at 1:32 the gun cross being below horizon. I don't know what exactly is the problem. It seems to me that the horizon is estimated differently on dcs but I am not too sure. It might have even something to do with the flat dcs maps??? The Hud projection????? Any opinions out there? PS: I can also note that the AOA bracket is in different position than in dcs on takeoff roll. The tape's bracket is in middle of -5degrees while ingame it's quite below -5 degrees.