bkthunder

Test conditions: Standard day, GW 20000 lb, no stores. Note: we consider a drag index of 0, because DCS doesn't simulate pylon drag and weight even though pylons are attached to the aircaft MIL POWER ACCELERATION Sea level, acceleration at MIL power, from 200 KIAS to 550 KIAS Real life: 29 seconds DCS: 35 seconds 10.000 feet, acceleration at MIL power, from 200 KIAS to 550 KIAS Real life: 48 seconds DCS: after 1 minute 30 seconds, the aicraft reaches a top speed of 543 KIAS MAX AB ACCELERATION Sea level, acceleration at MAX AB power, from 200 KIAS to 750 KIAS Real life: 25 seconds DCS: 30 seconds 10.000 feet, acceleration at MAX AB power, from 200 KIAS to 750 KIAS Real life: 34 seconds DCS: 47 seconds All tests were performed starting from a speed lower than 200 Kts to allow time for the engine to spool up, I started timing when the speed passed 200 Kts and stopped once it reached the 500, 550 or 750 markpoint according to each test. Track attached in case it's needed. F-16 level acceleration discrepancies.trk

The corner speed for the F-16 is in the range of 330 to 440 kts. At sea level on a standard day, the F-16 should reach 9g at mach 0.67 (right about 440 kts). In DCS, at M 0.67 the jet only pulls a maximum of ~8.7g with full joystick deflection. The g buildup is also pretty slow, an initial pull only reaches 8.2-8.3g before the airpseed starts to be too low to allow pulling maximum g, for this reason (not necessarily a problem/bug), in order to reach 8.7g I have to start the pull above the 440kts, at which point the peak g is 8.7 down to 440kts, where it will start to decrease. I have checked the EM charts available from various sources.

the cross should be in the center of the box, not at the bottom

The VV/VAH hud mode switch position should enable a VVI indicator tape and change the bank angle indicator from the bottom of the hud to an indication around the FPM. None of this happens.

Just please don't overdo it! The F-18 sounds just perect IMO, bets internal A/B sounds I've heard to date, and closely matches what we know from RL videos (considering helmet etc.). The F-14 is a fantastic module, but sound wise it's a little overdone. Maybe add this as an option for those of us who like it "as real as it gets"?

As seen in the image, it's like the helmet visor is displayed above the canopy glass texture. This happens when viewing the pilot from certain angles / when the pilot's head is facing the camera in a certain direction.

G tolerance in DCS has always been that of a heart patient, regardless of the warm-up. Many videos of both centrifuge and airshows are a testimony that fighter pilots can withstand 9g for longer than what we have in DCS. G-resistance should also be higher in the beginning, and degrade as the vistual pilot becomes "tired", unless given time to recover. They should overhaul it as a whole, and give the Viper an extra level of tolerance due to the reclined seat. My 2 cents.

RPM and FTIT discrepancies enigne limitations for the GE-129 are: [TABLE]Max RPM at MIL/AB = 108% Max FTIT at MIL/AB = 980 [/TABLE] In DCS, [Please note of possible bug: there is a difference between MIL (throttle against detent gate) and AB (throttle past the detent)]. [TABLE]MAX RPM at MIL = 100% MAX FTIT at MIL = 880 MAX RPM at AB = 101% MAX FTIT at AB = 901 (at mach 2.0, I reach 940) [/TABLE] Nozzle position discrepancies: Furthermore, at FULL AB the noz position should be between 40% and 70%, in DCS it sits at maximum ~38% in FULL AB at sea level, except at mach 2.0, which is at about 50% open. DEC discrepancies: According to the same document, the engine increases IDLE rpm at high altitute in order to maintain ECS bleed air and avoid engine instability. This results in a higher IDLE and consequently, fatser throttle response. Not only that, but above Mach 1.4, the engine IDLE is near MIL power, meaning that moving the throttle to IDLE above mach 1.4 will result in ~ 100% RPM. For both instances above, the DCS model doesn't behave correctly, with the engine reaching an idel of ~70% regardless of altitude and mach number. All of the above tested on a standard temperature and pressure day. EDIT: track attached.

On main DED page, the radio presets show as frequency instead of as preset numbers (1, 2, 3...). Also, moving the arrows next to the preset and clickign the up/down arrows on the ICP does nothing. In the COM1/COM2 menu, switching to different presets only changes the frequency but the number is always "1".

Can ED please acknowledge this? It's obivously bugged

Guys, honestly, is it that difficult to use derstand the difference between stores drag and pylon drag?

More than his, we need the ACTUAL DTC to be implemented :music_whistling:

Can you please clarify which tape version are you simulating? I see a number of threads asking for clarifications / reporting missing hud symbology, and you keep answering that it is correct for the tape. But you never say what tape version it is. I guess it’s no secret right? So just state it, please.

No, you don’t need to trim the F-16. In the video Wags made pretty bad approach IMO, with a too high AoA that could result in hard landing and a tail strike. Keep it at 9-10 degrees and go to 11 as you flare. Use your pitch to control your flight path and you engine to control the AoA, kinda like the opposite of what you do in the hornet. The F-16 is an “always-on” FBW airplane, unlike the Hornet where in landing mode (PA Mode) the fbw acts to simulate a conventional aircraft.

So obvious, yet for so many it seems so hard to grasp this very simple concept. Probably because Early Access release has become synonymous of release. Make no mistake, there will be no other release than this for the F16, just as it was for other modules. The cash is in, we’ll get 3-4 months of developer focus, after that, it’s on to the next money cow and the F16 will go into maintenance mode just as the Hornet did before this release. Besides, when would be a good time to worry about missing features or reporting bugs? In 5 years maybe? Come on guys, cut it with the “it’s EA” catch-all argument. If you truly understand EA, as you claim you do, then you should know better than me that this is the time to test the hell out of this, cry to get what we paid for and have our voices heard to help the devs with our feedback.

Yes, I posted about this in a separate thread also. We need some info, this is confusing. To say it’s “not from that year” makes no sense in F-16 terms, we need the exact tape number.

Stores drag or pylon drag? They are two different things. The sure thing is, pylons in DCS have no weight. Try removing pylons from the f-18 and you have no difference in weight from the load out screen, and no performance difference in flight. I’m pretty positive that pylon drag and weight are not taken into account, which is not a small issue IMO. E.g. take two identical aircraft, same fuel. One is loaded with Mavericks and triple ejector racks, the other has only two AIM-120s on the wingtips. They both jettison all weapons except the wingtip missiles and enter a dogfight. Obviously the cleaner one should have an advantage over the aircraft that still has TERs and pylons hanging under the wings...

Just seeing that the dgft hud mode looks different than what most would expect from the block 50, but nine line in another thread said it is correct as is according to the hud tape version simulated. Unfortunately the thread was closed so I couldn’t ask there. Can you share some more info on this particular tape version? What tape is it, any docs etc? I’d like to read about the differences between what we know from that other sim and what is simulated in this particular block/tape/year. What we have seems like a step backwards because the hud doesn’t de-clutter in dgft. Thanks

While i’m sure with time the FM, weapons etc will get ironed out, there are some things that I just have that funny feeling they will never get done in a timely and satisfactory fashion: 1. RWR sound library. We all know what the RWR is supposed to sound like, each radar has a different chirp. Now, are we going to see this pretty substantial and SA-Enhancing feature of the F16? When? 2. Stores drag. This is a big one, it somewhat defies all logic that a sim such as DCS has issues / doesn’t model stores drag. Not only that, but pylon drag and weight is not even considered in any module apparently. What’s ED’s stance on this big issue? 3. Data cartridge and all functions such as: Mfd presets, CMDS programs, flight planning and timing, additional threat symbols and lines that can be displayed on the hsd. 4.MFD symbology looks strangely washed out, especially blue lines. Any hope for a fix? Would be nice to hear about these things, and as much as ED hates it, remember we are all comparing your F-16 to the other sim that can’t be named. You have a lot to live up to, even when discarding the surrounding environment (dynamic campaign, AI, etc) but considering just the jet itself. Please, get it right, this icon of aviation deserves nothing but the most accurate and complete representation.

+1 The Viper is really squirrelly on the ground, in any video you can see the nose pitching up and down very visibly when taxiing, and most f-16 landings include some small bouncing. You literally have to fly the airplane until all 3 wheels are on the runway.

As I've said many times, you guys are doing well (very, very well) in the art department. What's missing is coding. It's great that you update the textures etc, but really, that doesn't fix bugs with the systems, it doesn't make the FM less "on rails" or the engine behavior less scripted. It doesn't fix the damage model. THese are the fixes we need, art is fine.

Honest questions can sometimes be rude. It is the first 3rd party module. Where can I download your version of the MiG-21? Mine has had a number of unresovled bugs for the past 4-5 years :music_whistling: @Hiromachi, thanks for the answer. This means unless you plan to fix all the bugs and correct what's not working as intended (e.g. the rwr) - and provided you are able to do so -, the MiG-21 will forever be a half finished job. It is your IP, no doubt about that, but in a way it seems a bit like when you own an old house that you have no time/money/skills to maintain. On that note, is there a road map for fixing the bugs or do you call the MiG-21 finished except for some re-texturing and touching up the 3d models?

Question to M3: would you consider releasing the necessary files so that the community could fix the bugs, implement what's missing and release a finished version of the MiG-21 finally? Maybe as a mod, in a similar way as the community A-4 or MB-339? I don't mean to be provocative, it's an honest question. The MiG-21 is the oldest DCS module, I realize you're probably not gonna make much progress and it is probably not bringing in any amount of money substantial enough for you to hire a programmer and invest in finishing it. On the other hand, there are a lot of talented people who could help make the MiG-21 better, for the sake of those who bought it and supported its development, and for the community as a whole. I am thinking, what does M3 have to lose from this? If anything, the community would love you for it. Just a thought.

You completely missed the point. The HSI on the F-16 is called HSD (basically the same thing). The HDS displays your flight-plan, waypoints, SAM/threat circles, your radar coverage and locked radar contacts, datalink contacts such as the position of your wingmen and their A-A radar targets etc. It is by all means very similar to the SA page in the Hornet, minus the moving map. There are two very useful features, given the lack of a moving map: 1. custom dashed lines can be drawn anywhere during the planning phase, and will be displayed in the HSD. These can be used to create areas (boxes), or as single lines, for example to mark the boundary where the FLOT starts. 2. Threat circles, according to where the threat is and what type of threat, you can place a sort of mark point that will display with the threat name and a yellow circle that becomes red if you enter it. These points can also be used just as a name tag (without circle) that can be useful to place names of cities or points of interest. The above makes the moving map much less necessary and allows very precise mission planning.