sinn

The only way this would work as you wish it to would be in VR, if the headset being used had eye tracking, and the eye tracking was used to animate the eyes in real time. The pilot head animation isn't tied directly to the VR head position since the DCS VR view philosophy is to allow free viewpoint movement in VR even if it breaks the bounds of clipping the canopy or exceeding the limitations of the pilot model. So it could potentially work if you didn't move your head to far out of place. I'm glad it was released as is though since adding that functionality would have delayed having it all for a long time.

The redrawing elements to a higher level of detail and accuracy than the default liveries and adding missing fasteners, panels, sealants, and other details is a big reason why the liveries authored by these three creators are of superior quality. Without meaning any disrespect to anyone, I agree with Magic Zach on this. If there would have been some way or still is a way to make it possible, a collaboration between the top creators to build upon all of their individual research and knowledge if nothing else would ensure that the new liveries do not miss details they have uncovered in their studies and included in their own works.

I suggest checking out this excellent user created livery which greatly improves the look of the DCS Viper. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/310196-f-16-viper-textures-overhaul I hope ED can take inspiration from or somehow incorporate the level of texture detail and quality from this mod eventually in addition to your suggestions regarding the 3D model. A lot of the details you're hoping for in the landing gear bay cannot be achieved in mods until the model itself is changed by ED. That being said, there are many major improvements with this livery like adding missing panels/other details, correcting fasteners as well as some larger overall improvements I really appreciate. In the default stock livery, there are incorrect colorations visible on the wing that look almost 'pinkish' in some areas to me which this corrects as well as the incorrect scale of weathering/scratch marks which are clearly visible in your screenshot of the main landing gear area. Also the default livery does not have the correct balance of gloss to matte compared to your photos or any I have seen of the block 50 and the mod comes much closer to actual finish.

130 seconds load time into main menu. Two Samsung 990 Pro. One for OS and one for DCS. Ryzen 7800X3d with 64GB DDR5 6000 RTX 3090 This system was at least twice as fast loading into the main menu before the patch. Mission loading times seem the same as before though. These are some of the fastest SSD drives and RAM available in this computer, so I don't think it's a hardware issue. dcs.log

Nice job separating the issues concisely. Hopefully it will help move this discussion forward in a more productive way. The Viper accelerates like crazy when unloaded at zero G, but even mild G loadings (2-4) can prevent it from accelerating at all below around 300kts when aircraft like the F-18 and Mirage 2000 accelerate easily under similar conditions. This is a significant factor in the "experience" because you must either give up all the angles to unload and regain speed while other aircraft can just pull around the circle while gaining speed. I totally agree this was not a subtle change, and I think you're onto something here because while ED has been confident in the turn performance, this is a proven area of the model where they have been open to and made changes. There are also well written posts posing questions about the FLCS parameters/performance where ED has not had a response yet. Maybe they haven't had the time, or maybe that is another area they are open to or now looking at.

I have a 3090 with a Ryzen 7800X3d and 64 gigs of DDR5 6000 ram and the same reverb G2 version you have. I still get stuttering/ghosting like crazy when looking out the side. Even with shadows all off. Motion reprojection helps a lot but doesn't fully remove it. I moved this 3090 card from a 10 year old system with an x99 chipset and 64gb of DDR4 3200 and there is barely 10fps improvement on average for me. In DCS VR, the GPU is by far the biggest upgrade if you have even a remotely capable CPU

I know you are right about what you're saying here, and I freely admit my suggestion is not comprehensive or perfect. If anyone can add to it to make it better than what I thought of, I'm grateful for that. Also, if it's a non-starter because it doesn't do enough to address the issue or other reasons that's fine with me, but I would love to hear someone else's better alternative. I'm interested though in what people think of the gameplay option idea though. Maybe we need more options to fully solve everything? Is this a better way of framing issue for consensus and progress to be made?

Just to add some more clarity to my last post, part of my thinking is that since the Viper doesn't include systems like the paddle that allow someone to voluntarily enter an unrealistic gameplay state whereas other aircraft do. The F-16 forces you to "behave" or follow its rules but other aircraft make it the pilot's choice (and the breaking wings mechanic is currently not sufficient to control this enough to where this thread was created). This restriction would enforce more of a level playing field/gameplay scenario and make it a server or mission creator choice, which hopefully fosters a feeling of improved fairness. Clearly, this doesn't address the M2k because it's a beast without even using the "elastic override" switches (sorry if I messed the name up) that can allow it to go past its G limiter. I just hope it's a way to take a step in the right direction.

After reading all this discussion, I wanted to throw out the idea that this discussion be reframed as a gameplay issue rather than a flight model/realism issue. Without claiming that there are or aren't potential realism or FM issues, just to redirect at least some of the focus at a different type of potential solution. Let's say all of these following statements are entirely correct for the purpose of considering this viewpoint just for a moment even if you don't agree, just to explain the line of thinking behind this: ED has the flight model correctly implemented or so close to it any tweaks from this point on will be minor and won't materially change anything with respect to this discussion. The SMEs are correct in their recollections of relative performance. The stores configuration was likely different than the one being focused on this thread and and dissimilar aircraft situations, the F-18 and F-15 pilots were not pulling the paddle, over-G-ing the aircraft or flying outside of safe limits in these IRL scenarios. The OP of this thread and DCS multiplayer guns pilots making supporting arguments are correct in their observation that the F-16 performs poorly relative to it's near peers in the typical online guns configuration for the majority of its its usable flight envelope in online servers where the paddle on over G are used whether intended or not because there is essentially no practical way to enforce their usage at this time. The G model is a known factor at this time and ED has stated it is under review, but this affects a crucial, but small part of the flight envelope. DCS already has gameplay options such as labels, external views, G effects modeling, etc. What if there was a gameplay option added to either limit or disallow entirely the use of the Hornet paddle or more comprehensively, limit or disallow over G globally within the mission? This would allow the mission creator or server operator to decide whether to keep things exactly as they are now or use this option. Even if this is not technically feasible (and it may baked into each flight model currently and be extremely difficult to add a global limitation or control over) is this a way of viewing this topic that helps move it past the current discussion cycle which seemingly stalls after people who (in my opinion legitimately) use DCS in different ways for different purposes cannot reach a shared understanding of whether one group's problem even is a problem or how to address it? I'm hoping this approach at least has a better chance to make everyone happy, because it's basically saying in principle that "everyone's right" and it would just add an option to better support one desired use case than it is currently?

Check carefully -I think they may all have the nerf pods in guns arena even if they are not active on some, but I could be wrong.

Thanks for the fast update and great work collecting the data! This is correct and they did this intentionally in the guns arena to even things out. The chart reflects what my experiences on the DCS Dogfighters guns arena where a well flown F-18 or M2k can beat the smoke pod carrying F-15 in slow vertical fights or slow two circles when they achieve a guns solution before the Eagle can extend or regain speed. I need to check, but I believe the DCS Dogfighters guns arena may now use smoke pods on the M2k for the same reason. I'll look into this and report back unless someone else knows or finds the answer first.

So do you think the observation of the Viper being an outlier among these aircraft in the chart would be materially different if the paddle was not used? My expectation is that even without the paddle, the Hornet will still perform much closer to the other aircraft at than the Viper at most speeds. The 7.5 G limit would reduce the Hornet's performance at higher speeds where loadings beyond the limit would actually be possible with the paddle. To put what I was saying before more concisely, the chart shows that in DCS, using the configuration most likely to be encountered by someone doing multiplayer guns BFM (the scenario described by the OP where they observed poor relative performance), the Viper is clearly and substantially the worst performer among its closest peers in DCS to an extent where some people find it surprising and want to learn more about why this is the case. The reason that the test was done with the paddle is because that is how the aircraft is typically used in the scenario described above which aligns with the multiplayer guns context of the OP. It's worth noting Gortex went out of his way to say he makes no claims about realism of either the performance numbers in observed in DCS for the tests or the aircraft setup used. The use of the paddle does not invalidate what this graph shows about the scenario where the data was collected. I do think there is merit to studying this setup/scenario (with the paddle) because it reflects what many users will see in their DCS multiplayer guns experience due to the choices made by the server operators regardless if it's realistic. The M2k and (especially) the Eagle are still going to put a hurting on the Viper in DCS as things are now regardless of the paddle. The whole paddle realism thing definitely isn't the main factor for the observations that led to this thread starting. I'm not criticizing anyone for their opinion on the use of the paddle just be clear, just reiterating what others said about the fact that it is typically used in the scenario being investigated here. Based on my experience in multiplayer DCS, the statement that the paddle is used unless there is a a gentlemen's agreement not to use it is correct.

This is by far the best post in this thread so far. I was able to very closely reproduce these results myself and I recommend that everybody who's interested in this topic try it also. The aircraft stores configuration and fuel load is one that is widely used in the most active multiplayer guns servers and regardless of what any thinks about it, this represents the setup and altitude range that the OPs referred to multiple times. Looking at the right side, it's clear as day that the only point in the flight envelope for this configuration where the viper is not performing worse than the others is mostly unusable because you will black out in a few seconds if the DCS g modeling is enabled (which it will be on nearly every server). It is interesting to note how the viper is such an outlier over almost the entire range of the chart while the others are closely grouped until the F-15 begins to diverge. The size of that gap tells a large part of the story of why this thread was created. This chart clearly and convincingly supports the perception of the poor relative performance of the viper being reported. The factual basis to the experience reported by the OPs of this thread is right here. I do believe that ED have done their best to model the aircraft accurately based on the available information. If at the end of the day after exhaustively reviewing this topic they determine they've got it right I think that's fine and a success at their goal of accuracy. A thoughtful explanation of how they arrived at that conclusion with some more detail than past explanations would help eliminate the speculation like this thread and be appreciated by the people reading this thread I'm sure. I also think they deserve some time to figure this out since the product is still actively being worked on. Clearly, the viper is unique right now among these other DCS aircraft to a degree that is causing frustration because an explanation has not arrived yet which satisfies a large part of the community. Some people will never be happy of course and feelings and speculation should not deter the developers from their goal of accuracy, but I think it has been sufficiently proven that there is a reason people are feeling something is very different about this aircraft in a way that doesn't seem right or intuitive. and one last thing... I hope you're joking about the Gonky vs. Mover rematch being an example of the Viper dominating. With the utmost respect for the IRL achievements of both in that video, the magnitude of the of BFM errors happening in the Hornet would result in getting your butt kicked very hard on the DCS Dogfighters servers. This video mainly shows someone defeating them self. The outcome of that or really any fight is not as helpful to this type of discussion as the results of repeatable experiments which can be independently verified.