bkthunder

Unrelated but have a look at the OP here Tust me, in the F-18 I beat any Viper flown by anyone online (without pulling the paddle), as a matter of fact I beat any airplane except sometimes the Jeff. Let's say that I am a very decent dogfighter but by no means the best, in all honesty probably in the top 10 pilots that you usually see on mobettameta's or just dogfight. I am sure any experienced PvP dogfighter will confirm the Hornet is above anything else and outrates anything else in game. EDIT: these stats already tell the same story https://justdogfight.com/top-planes/ Before they changed the F-14 FM, the Tomcat was the top one with unrealisitcally high turn rate at low speed (people flying it with full flaps.....). One mor thing to point out is that on such servers, the Hornet starts at 50% fuel which lasts forever, while the F-15 at 50% fuel has a much lower endurance. The F-14 and Mig-29 had such low endurance that they set the to start at full fuel, so this is obviusly a big disadvantage. The Viper starst at 50% liek the Hornet. However I refer back to my "as accurate as possible" climb test I linked above, where a nearly empty MiG-29 can't even begin to keep up with a Hornet.

I stand corrected (by my own test data), the Viper climbs slightly faster, as for the F-15 and Mirage, no chance: the F-18 is much faster (clean and given a fuel qty that results in the same theoretical T/W raito). In 1C yes, but I am saying that the F-18 is the best rate fighter, while it is commonly referre to as being a radius fighter. In DCS it's the best radius fighter bar the Mirage, but its also the best rate fighter. Best of both worlds.

The F-18 is currently by far the best dogfighter in DCS. It has a better sustained turn rate than any other aiplane (except the Jeff which I know close to nothign about), it also climbs just as well as the F-15, F-14 and much better than the Mig-29A. This is coming from direct experience flying all these modules in hundreds of PvP dogfights. The F-18, even if you don't cheat by pulling the paddle, is basically unbeatable. If this is correct or not we don't know, because there are no EM charts for the -402 engined Hornet, but it sure as hell goes against the general literature and anecdotal evidence available, which says the F-18 is pretty slow and not a rate fighter compare to e.g. the F-16.

Yes that's how it should work, but in DCS the slew rate is always the same, pressed or not. Hence my question

So basically it doesn't work the way it's supposed to work. Can't say I'm surprised, lol.

Anyone?

Funny, this was reported as fixed in the changelog of 2.7.8.16140:

Hi, I am starting to get back to the Harrier as hopefully a few of the big bugs seem to have been improved. One thing I noticed is that the TDC Action/No action doesn't seem to do anythign at all. Shouldn't it change the slew rate of the DTM/TGP to "sweeten the lock"? I have tried both with the toggle button "TDC Action/no action toggle" and with the regular "TDC down (Action Position)", as well as both option turned on and off in the Special config tab. No luck. Is it bugged or am I missign something? I remember early on some years ago it used to work. Thanks

Came here after a frustrating F-16 dogfight session... I feel this is really overdue now. It's great to see the FM getting close to RL performance, however that is all made pretty much unusable due to the unrealistic g-tolerance modeling of DCS. Plenty of official documentation and real pilots of any kind attest to that, so I take it for granted that there is no doubt on the fact a fighter pilot doesn't black out after a few seconds at 9g. Why this isn't considered a priority fix I don't know, but I hope it's not one of those things ED gets stubborn on not fixing despite crushing evidence.

As long as it is realistic.... that's what I'm interested in

From the manual: "The Mirage 2000C autopilot is designed to be used in most phases of flight thanks the AP standby command; It is a long vertical paddle behind the stick that puts the autopilot in standby, memorizing the current modes, allowing the pilot to easily change the aircraft attitude and re-engage the auto-pilot by releasing the paddle. The paddle is naturally pressed when the pilot holds the stick." I suppose most of the sticks we use lack such paddle (at least mine does), making it really hard to fly the Mirage with the Autopilot, as it is supposed to be flown. I tired assigning a button on the stick but it's just not very convenient to keep my thumb or pinky on a button while flying, so I have an idea: put an option in the special options tab (user choice), that with the AP activated, it will put it in standby when the stick is moved, and then restore the active state when the stick is centered again. This can better simulate what happens in the real plane when the pilot grips the stick he "naturally/automatically" presses the paddle. What do you think?

I don't know if I just got used to it or what, but I remember the burble effect being much more noticeable when it was introduced earlier this year. Is it still there or has it been silently removed?

I also would be interested in knowing more. It seems the engines are somewhat more responsive, but it still takes woo long to go full A/B and from full A/B to idle takes several seconds. It seems there has been an improvement in spool time but not in A/B light-off time.

Is there a reason why you are so secretive about this value?

The graph is showing thrust from 0 to >M2.0 at altitudes up to 20Km. I haven't seen an uninstalled engine fly at any altitude and speed other than 0, so I suppose that graph represents installed thrust. Good point, I don't think any of us have considered this in the "ground-roll" test. That said, the in-flight tests I did before are all gear-up and main intakes fully open, definitely not as precise but they do show the MiG-29 has the worst climb performance compared to F-18, F-16, and F-15 in game (see OP), so pointing at something. Correct, in fact Cmptohocah here did the test measuring only up to 100 Km/h. But you make a valid point about the air intakes being closed. Again you are right, and at mach 0.37 according to the graph the thrust would be 7700 kgf per engine, which is the lowest peak in the graph happening around that speed. We should consider that up to that point the thrust is higher, but even if we supposed the thust was 7700*2= 15400 kgf from brakes release, we still end up with a test result of 13500 kgf in the best case, so more than 12% below the thrust stated in the graph. All great comments form your side that put things more and more into perspective, but at the end this whole discussion revolves around a simple number, as I've asked now already 3 times, could you point directly at the installed thrust of the DCS Mig-29A?

Please read before you post, otherwise you only create confusion. The chart provides installed thrust at different speeds.

This is a problem with all ADIs in game, no matter what module, they all drift at much higher rates than IRL. Been reported a zillion times for the F-5 as well, but same happens in the P-51, Spitfire, Ka-50 and even the F-18 standby gauge.

Can you give us a number? According to user testing it's between 12.5k and 13.5k Kgf in DCS (total thrust with both engines in Full AB). According to the chart in ED's own document, it should be around 16k Kgf. So a bit less is how much? 13000 is 18.75% less than 16000.

Hi Yo-Yo, I mean both static and at M 0.5 at sea level. Thanks!

@GGTharos @sylkhan guys I don't wanna play moderator here but please keep it on topic, the thread is very interesting and Yo-yo honoured us with his presence, I don't want to have it locked please. @Yo-Yo you didn't answer my direct question though: can you confirm what is the installed engine thrust of the DCS MiG-29A? Thanks!

I think you completely misunderstood the point, please read the thread again, especially the OP and the post linked below where it clearly shows the problem with nozzle scheduling. It has nothing to do with the afterburner.

@Yo-Yo can you confirm what is the installed engine thrust of the DCS MiG-29A? level acceleration and turn performance don't necessarily mean that thrust to weight ratio is correct. Thrust can be lower than it should be and if drag is also lower, with higher lift, all numbers would match except the thrust to weight ratio, and this seems to be the case according to the various tests presented throughout this thread.

Yep

As per title. This would be useful for carrier operations

I haven't used DCS for BVR in years. Missiles have always been terrible and whatever "improvement" they make seems to make them even worse (the 120 especially). I use DCS for guns-only dogfights and A-G. as an A-A BVR sim, it's non-existent.