karasawa

From Pakistan pilot interview: https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=2554&sid=4bbe983d8b47e275d5111b5115afc12d&start=60 Check his comments on WVR fight in an JF17 against a F-16. JF-17 with PL-10 mod (currently in pipeline) will trump F-16 with AIM-9M any day of the week, but currently on brute performance F-16 has the edge. Which aircraft have you flown DACT against- which was the most challenging and why? “DACT : F-16 Block-52+ , Mirage, F:7P.

Wrong. Based on the test in this thread: Below Mach 0.5 the DCS F-16 sustains 1deg/sec lower than the manual. Above Mach 0.5 the sustained rate of turn is close to published data, but the energy bleed rate is much higher than flight manual.

Just found out that you need to update to Tacview 1.8.3 beta 3 or newer to get the longitudinal G.

You can also test the clean case. No difference. F-16 is more sensitive to external stores.

I posted an instruction on how to measure the ps loss in tacview: Hope it helps.

At sea level yes, above 10000 feet no. Try clean or load up with 6 amraams and do the test for both jets at 10000 feet, and maintain 450 Knots IAS (not TAS) in a Viper.

Calm down. What I am trying to find is a makeshift for this broken FM. Above 10000ft and mach 0.8 you have slight STR advantage against other Gen 4. That is the only chance this broken FM leaves us with. Why not get familiar with it, and make full use of it. Lets say a mirage finds out he is outrated by a viper in a 2C fight and he reverses the turn in an attempt to switch to 1C. The viper also has the option to reverse to switch back to 2C.

And you can still rate fight in a viper above 10000ft/Mach0.8. It works.

If you want to rate fight in a Viper, stay above 10000 feet and maintain Mach 0.8 or higher (about 440 knots indicated air speed), I am pretty sure you can outrate a F-18 or JF-17 in this condition. Don't go below 10000 feet. The current blackout mechanics prohibits you from doing sustained turn that fast.

Please check your message box.

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 above mach 0.5 is good, 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.

For F-16's minimum turn time, check this: Starting around 0:34

Note that in the HAF manual the 21000lbs is "with missiles, gun ammo, and is not accurate and could not be used for performance calculation". In the same manual the number used for performance calculation is as follows: https://i.postimg.cc/MKJnVDWR/19261.jpg

deleted duplicated post.

Just google "F/A-18E/F will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement" written by GAO Check Page 30 F/A-18C-402engine, 2 amraams, 2 aim9s, 60% internal fuel, no tanks, sustains 12.3dps at 15000ft. F/A-18C in DCS performs 6% better than this. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251091&page=19 a little test, compared the results to the numbers in the HAF supplement manual, it seems that the engine of the viper is somewhat underperforming 1- Clean aircraft, 24000 lb weight, 20k feet, 15°C at sea lvl mil accel 200-400 kias = 59 sec (should be 56) AB accel 200-400 kias = 25 sec (should be 22) 2- Drag index 100, 34000 lb, same conditions mil = 4 min still at 395 kias (should pass 400 after 115 sec) AB = 42 sec (should be 36 sec) 3- DI 250, 38000 lb mil = unable to pass 365 kias after 7 min (should be at 400 after 234 sec) AB = 55 sec (should be 46 sec) ------------ Verification from flight manuals ------------ From flight manual F-16C-block50 sustains higher turn rate than F-14B, however in DCS F-16 is constantly out-turned by F-14B in 2-circle fights: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251091&page=21

I once heard from discovery that modern missiles use smokeless engines.

I like the damage system, simply the way it works gives me a sense of realism

Still waiting for a F-16C or F/A-18E sim

They "announced" it, but they did not actually make it...

ED did anounced a F-18 patch when the first LOMAC came out, in about 2003

Since the aspect ratio changed, is the field of view also changed? And what about the draw distance?

So glad to see that AIM120 and R77 are rated 40G

Are you using a win 7 or XP?

To pepin1234: Since there is no evidence (such as hud footage) showing Mig downed a Falcon, we shall apply the so called "innocent until proven guity" to falcon or eagle, right?

I think ED is too concentrated on the number of polygons. In fact polygon number alone does not improve graphics that much, but consume enormous performance of your machine. Look at the Ace Combat 5 or 0 back then, they have less polygons but the scenery looks comfortable and colorful, even though the majority of city buildings are 2D textures.