karasawa

Thanks

TOTAL DRAG (not limited to wing drag) = 1/2 * drag coefficient * air density * square of air speed * wing area. This is the DEFINITION. The drag coefficient is acquired in this way: 1) Testing the TOTAL drag. 2) drag coefficient = 2 * TOTAL DRAG / (air density * square of air speed * wing area)

Sorry I didn't make it clear. Put it in EXT and at low speed that amount is adjusted automatically to a percentage. In my case that is near 6%

From 10000 ft and up, the F16 rates better than the JF17, by 1 deg/sec.

Can be done manually.

Oh boy, that is zero lift drag coefficient, not drag. You need to multiply it by the wing area.

1. Did you remove wing pylons manually? 2. Did you do the 2C fight above 10000 feet as suggested earlier?

Sometimes I bleed below 280 knots and I found out that with 6% flaps it helps turning. Do not deploy 100%. And it reduces roll and pitch rate, be aware.

Great. I appreciate ED fix the energy loss issue.

You have no idea what dynamic thrust is. Example: A F110-GE-129 at sea level Mach 0.8 produces 35000 lbs of thrust, almost twice as much as a F404-GE-402 produces at the same condition.

Static T/W ratio is sometimes misleading. The thrust profile is changing over speed. I remember some one has made a "dynamic T/W ratio" which is a better metric.

A sample pvp combat: Check 17:00. There is a hornet entering the merge with higher initial energy and the F-16 turned the table after an ascending turn.

2 tips: 1) Never, never take wing pylons. Remove them MANUALLY (they are included by default even in the "clean" loadout). They are DRAGGY. 2) According to ED's measurement, the DCS viper is under-performing by about 5% at most altitudes, except between 10000 - 15000 feet. Between 10000 - 15000 feet is the sweet spot to max perform the viper. Trust me, at 50% fuel, a clean viper can sustain 1-1.5 deg/sec faster than F/A-18, JF-17 and Mig-29 between 10000 or 15000 ft. keep your speed above Mach 0.7. This is the best BFM trick before the upcoming FM update.

I'vs got a perfect answer for you. The best metric should be measuring the specific energy loss rate in a turn, since actual dogfight involves such turns. Here is an explanation: PS = specific excess power which means how fast the jet gains/loses energy in maneuvers. Q: Why is it insufficient to measure STR (sustained turn rate) alone to verify the energy maneuverability? A: There is an illusion that STR alone stands for energy maneuverability. If the game adopts a wrong drag profile, and tries to compensate the higher induced drag with modified zero lift drag or engine thrust, we may see an accurate peak STR, but the energy bleed rate at higher turn rate will still be higher than the flight manual. That is determined by equations of flight dynamics. That's sometimes misleading. Some people claim the peak STR has small error, while some other people cry for high energy loss and they struggle to recover energy. They are not contradictory. We need to check the PS loss. Q: How to get the ps since Tacview does not show that? A: PS = (thrust-drag)*speed/gravity = longitudinal acceleration * speed / g = longitudinal G * speed. Just check the “longitudinal G” in Tacview, read it, and multiply it by the true air sped (TAS), you get the ps value. Example: (these numbers are for sample only) make a level turn at true air speed of 300 knots (154.3m/s), the lateral G force is 7G, and the longitudinal G force is -1.5G, we have: Ps = -1.5 * 154.3 = -231.45m/s = -795feet/s Level turn rate = square root (7^2-1) * g / speed = 6.92 * 9.8 / 154.3 = 0.4395rad = 25.18deg/sec Read the flight manual for “300knots, 25.18deg/sec” and check if the ps is -795feet/s (We may double check if the Gs are in body frame, but that won’t affect much the result) Q: Why using true air speed instead of mach number? A: The speed of sound in flight manual and that in DCS are slightly different. Using mach number causes some error. The speed of sound in flight manual is about 333.5m/s. This can be proven by picking a point in the E-M chart and do the maths.

I already thought about it. Will post later.

I checked the comprison video and used a stop watch to measure some numbers. The energy retension is almost 3 times as good. It takes 7 seconds to bleed from 490 to 470 for the old viper, and takes 18.9 seconds to bleed from 488 to 470 in the new viper, and the turning G is higher by 0.1. The energy bleed rate in this case is noticeably better.

Read this yourself. This is from ED. The F-16 is still under-performing at many altitudes. Is the error small by your standard? It is under-performing. There is still 4%-5% error and that sometimes means whether the F-16 comes out victory or victim.

Remark: At 3:14 where the F-16 beats the <profanity> out of the F-18, the F-16 didn't even use the afterburner.

Another proof Hope this helps:

Proof that current DCS F-16 suffers twice as mush energy loss as the flight manual indicates:

A brief explanation why the energy efficiency is so important in 2C fight even though the peak STR is not changed much: This is a schematic of conventional 2C fight turning cycle. The trajectory can be divided into 3 phases: 1) hard pull, depletes energy, and turn radius decreases. 2) light pull, energy increases, turn radius widened. 3) straight line acceleration. The FM tweak lessens energy cost in phase 1), and increases the energy gain in phase 2) and 3), making the energy balanced, or even increased in each 2C turning cycle. Check the first dogfight in GS's video (F-16 vs F/A-18), the speed at the end of the first 2C turning cycle is almost 530 knots and he has to reduce throttle to avoid over-speeding. In the past the drag profile was wrong and it was compensated by thrust, the peak STR is close to true value but the energy depletion in hard pull is doubled or even tripled in some cases, and struggles to regain energy in light pull, leaving the F-16 far from a balanced energy usage.

The new flight model won't change the peak STR much, however the energy bleed rate is much more realistic and making the jet very energy efficient. That's what I keep repeating: if the FM has wrong drag profile and you try to compensate for it with a wrong thrust profile, you may end up with an accurate peak STR but inaccurate energy bleed rate and acceleration. People has verified it with tacview. In hard pull the energy bleed rate (negative ps) is almost twice as much as the flight manual shows. The FM update is a valid fix. I still remember how USAF measures a jet's agility: pull hard to turn 180, and accelerate back to the initial speed. Use the total time as agility metric. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960041232/downloads/19960041232.pdf In reality, F-16's agility metric is way better than any 4th gen fighters because it turns fast and loses little speed, however that may not be the case in current DCS.

F16Trainer9G.mp4 Even the civi at the back seat sustains high G better than the plot in DCS!

"be spot on" is a vague claim. You need to pay attention to the errors. Last year ED measured the sustained turn rate of the DCS viper vs the real viper. At sea level the peak turn rate is still 0.5deg/sec slower than the real viper, and at low speed the turn rate is 0.9 deg/sec slower than the real viper. There is an official PDF issued from ED. At other altitudes the ED viper also turns 0.2-0.4deg/sec slower than the real viper. And there is another thing I keep mentioning: having accurate STR doesn't mean you have accurate energy bleed rate. It is noticeably higher than the real viper. ED never claimed their viper has accurate energy bleed rate. The new version seems to be a valid fix.