karasawa

Could you please stop yielding as if I owe you money

The data shown in Excel is clean. I just checked the DI of 6 AMRAAMs and pylons. The wing tip pylons are already included in basic aircraft. 2 AMRAAMs at wing tip yield DI = 8, 4 AMRAAMs under wing contribute 20 to DI, 4 pylons contribute 24 to DI. That makes total DI = 52. That is very close to 50

Thanks for the update

It's worth noting that even at sea level, when the AOA is high, the indicated air speed is significantly lower than true air speed. This is due to the deflection of the incoming airflow inside the pitot tube. Surprised that this effect is simulated for the F-18, because the look up table is related to the type of the aircraft, and normally not published. The calibration curve in flight manual is for low AOA only.

Here is my estimation: DCS adopts a wrong drag polar. To reduce the error of peak sustained turn rate, DCS increases the thrust as compensation, however the equation does not hold at lower speed or at higher turn rate, which means the sustained turn rate error at lower speed is still significant, and the energy bleed rate in an instantaneous turn is higher than the manual. In some "competing product flight sim" (can't mention the name here) the F-16 feels have much more energy, even though the peak sustained turn rate is similar.

I am about to get my new joystick, then I'll do a complete test myself

So the question is whether the 1G is the normal load or centripetal component only.

We are complaining around 4g - 7g lines, which has nothing to do with the 1g line.

Only the 1G line is problematic. From 2G to 9G line they are all accurate (one can verify any point on the 2G-9G line satisfies the equation turn rate = sqrt(G^2-1) * 9.8 / airspeed * 57.3 ) You can not simply subtract a delta turn rate because the equation is not linear, and the 2g - 9g lines are accurate that need no correction. 2g - 9g lines are not based on the 1g line. They are calculated separately. The deviation on the 1g line is not accumulated onto other lines.

DCS_f-16c_26000lbs_10000ft.xlsx Oh boy, the real F-16C-50 with much higher loadout drag index (=50, equivalent to 6 amraams + pylons) sustains 12.9% higher turn rate than a clean DCS F-16 at 500km/h. (11.5dps vs 10.19dps) Mind explaining this, ED? (You can guess where I found the real F-16 manual.)

Hi, I just converted your figure to 26000 lbs and compared it with HAF manual. DCS F16, clean, 26000lbs, 10000 feet, sustains 10.19 deg/sec at TAS = 500km/h (278 knots) Real F16C-50, 6 amraams + pylons, 26000lbs, 10000 feet, sustains 11.5 deg/sec at TAS = 500km/h (278 knots) DCS_f-16c_26000lbs_10000ft.xlsx

Thanks. we can see clearly that below Mach 0.5 there is a 0.5-1deg/sec error compared to the manual. That is a problem since day one on release. I assume that is still an issue in version 2.7 since nothing has been changed. It feels so strange that ED can just copy-paste published drag polar to achieve identical performance compared to the manual. Either ED is lazy as hell or there's not enough engineers working on this project. Not all users are patient to wait. Some DCS players were young during LOMAC era but they are entering their 30s or even 40s and are busy dealing with work/home affaires/mid-life crisis. The player base is shrinking over time.

I wonder if anyone has made the same test at 10000 feet.

So the DCS viper is still 1deg/sec lower than the manual, at least at this speed.

Boy you are focusing on the peak turn rate and ignoring again the turn rate error below mach 0.5... As I said before, the peak turn rate alone is misleading. Current DCS F-16 has significant lower STR below mach 0.5 (compared to manual), even though its peak STR is slightly higher than Mig-29, it is still difficult to fight a Mig-29 in a 2C fight.

GR only measures the peak turn rate, while we should measure all turn rates across the speed envelope. The peak turn rate of F-16 is not bad, but it feels so sluggish in 2C fights. The turn rate at lower speed is lower than flight manual.

My prediction: If the same test is done at 3000m (10000 feet), F-16C-50 will outturn everything else in DCS, because the 9G limit won't constrain the F-16 to fully exploit its aerodynamic efficiency at higher speed.

I already answered your question in my previous posts. Check my measurement on turn rate at 513km/h

Shouldn't we stop crying or complaining and start comparing DCS with flight manual? A quick check on the flight manual: Condition: 22000lbs total weight (9990kg), clean, speed = 513km/h Real world F-16C-50 sustains 19.5deg/sec at sea level, and 16.5deg/sec at 5000feet (1524m). By linear interpolation, it should sustain 17.53deg/sec at 1000m. https://dcs.silver.ru/66-831 However the DCS F-16C sustains only 15.5deg/sec at 1000m. THAT IS RIDICULOUS

The only good thing to know is that a clean F-16 outturns a clean Fulcrum by a tiny margin, at least in 2.5.6.

The F-16 manual gives turn rate at sea level and at 5000 feet (1524m). With interpolation we can easily get the turn rate at 1000m and compare it with DCS.

Please stop crying and complaining. Shouldn't we check the flight manual and point out the difference? I checked the turn rate at 513km/h and it is noticeably lower than the flight manual. Shouldn't we start from here?

A quick check on the flight manual: Condition: 22000lbs total weight (9990kg), clean, speed = 513km/h Real world F-16C-50 sustains 19.5deg/sec at sea level, and 16.5deg/sec at 5000feet (1524m). By linear interpolation, it should sustain 17.53deg/sec at 1000m. https://dcs.silver.ru/66-831 However the DCS F-16C sustains only 15.5deg/sec at 1000m. THAT IS RIDICULOUS

A quick check on the flight manual: Condition: 22000lbs total weight (9990kg), clean, speed = 513km/h Real world F-16C-50 sustains 19.5deg/sec at sea level, and 16.5deg/sec at 5000feet (1524m). By linear interpolation, it should sustain 17.53deg/sec at 1000m. https://dcs.silver.ru/66-831 However the DCS F-16C sustains only 15.5deg/sec at 1000m. THAT IS RIDICULOUS

Guess what, on seeing this figure, I am pretty sure if you do the same test on 3000 m (10000 ft) the role will reverse (both without pylons). You can see that the turn time of viper is slightly higher than that of the hornet but the viper has the tendency to decrease the turn time even further at higher speed, which is not possible on low altitude due to 9G limit. At 3000m the 9G limit is not a problem and the viper can fully exploit its aerodynamic efficiency at higher speed. I estimate the roll reverses at about 1000km/h.