Pilum

Well, I would hate to see DCS modules being done based on "feelings" and no, the F-35 pilots can't share "opinions" either, because that would tell whoever is doing the modeling if they are close or not, i.e. divulge sensitive information about system capabilities. Not for me to answer, but I'm not sure I agree with your take that "DСS is a game, not a military training simulator" because I believe DCS wants to be referred to as a simulator (and rightly so) and not be placed in the same category as games like Warthunder. And "secret" data cannot be used either, even if the "right" people doing the modeling have it. Would be devastating for any company to use leaked classified military documents. Read what BIGNEWY wrote above: They will only be using open sources to do the F-35 modeling. Sure they do. But which of those DCS aircraft are state-of-the-art like the F-35, and which will be used by NATO for decades to come?

My answer was not directed at you or anyone else in DCS. I was simply quoting and answering a post which I think gives the wrong impression that you (DCS) will be able to get reliable information from pilot's who have flown the F-35 that's all. And regarding going in circles, well I get that you think that we should wait and see the results and that I can then chose to get the module or not. You said so before.

A real F-35 pilot will say nothing. He can't. Not unless he wants to go to prison. I'm not from the US, but I'm sure everyone with access to classified F-35 data has signed an NDA. In addition, it would not only be treasonous by law to talk about the F-35's performance, but on a moral level as well, because even if you left the service yourself, why would you divulge information about system capabilities of in-service aircraft that could potentially kill your former wingman? I worked for years on the EW system on the JAS 39 Gripen. I can tell you that the EW/radar modeling in DCS is very simplistic. I could come up with a big list with what is OK and what is NOK in DCS regarding ECM etc. I'm not a pilot but an engineer by profession, but just like any F-35 pilot worth his salt I keep my trap shut. Do you really think anyone who has flown an F-35 will sit down with DCS developers and say, "Yeah, well you know in the F-35, contacts don't show up at X km on the RWR, we can see them at Y Km. And on the display, we can see the name of the Su-35 pilot's girlfriend and what he had for breakfast". No, DCS should stick to modeling aircraft that are no longer in service. Makes it easier for everyone involved.

I think you misunderstand me: I'm not against the F-35 as such and it would certainly be a module I would be interested in in the future when there is enough open source data available to do it justice. However, basically everything of importance about the F-35 is still classified, and I don't think you will be able to get enough data to render it close enough to its IRL counterpart to made a module worthy of the designation simulator yet. But a module that looks externally like the F-35 and like you say has entertainment value for some is certainly within reach. But that would be a product more suitable for a game studio, and not a company that wants to retain its reputation of producing high fidelity simulation products.

I can pass judgement right now: I worked for years with the JAS 39 Gripen systems myself. So tell me, are you able to build a credible model of it? I'm sure that that would sell pretty well as well. However, you can't can you? Because the data you would need to do that is still classified. So tell me, if you can't even make a credible model of the Gripen, how are you going to do one of the F-35?

Model the F-35? What an idiotic idea. DCS should stick to releasing aircraft for which they can get hold of enough open source data to build credible models on. If they make the F-35, that model will have zero credibility because everything about that bird it top classified and for a good reason: It's going to form the backbone of air defense in the West for decades to come. I'm hoping that this is some silly DCS management and marketing department idea, and that the engineers and other sensible people at DCS will shoot it down ASAP. DCS credibility hangs in the balance.

Well, I mean no disrespect either, and I think the DCS F-18 on the whole is a great module, but also that the air-to-air refueling could do with some refinements based on the evidence that has been brought up in this thread. However, I see you classified this thread as a "no evidence" thread and on that point we just have to agree to disagree.

You know, TBH, I suspected all a long that this was why you were so insistent that I do a track myself when the evidence has been there all along in the other DCS track videos I posted earlier on. I'll happily admit I need more practice on mastering the in-game FM. I think I even said so in the OP. But to reiterate, this is not the point: The point with this thread was to understand if the wobbliness in the DCS F-18 FM was intentional or not. And now based on your answer, it seems that you truly believe that the wobbliness and tendency to PIO we have in-game FM mirrors the reality we see in the IRL videos I posted. And seeing you carry the "ED team" tag under your sig, I'm assuming your answer represents DCS official position on this, which I must say I find a bit disappointing. But if being an Ostrich and sticking your head into the sand is going to be DCS position on this then so be it. I have no intention of banging my head against a wall of denial. Arguing with a flight sim developer who has made up his mind and won't even acknowledge the problem is an exercise in futility.

Yes, I'm sure a longer extension and a stiffer spring will help to get better results out of the in-game FM, but I invite you to look at the Growler video I posted above. You can see that as soon as he moves the stick, the aircraft moves as well. However, and here is the important part: As soon as he returns the stick the movement stops immediately, and there is absolutely no tendency to PIO. So IRL, the "FM" looks more like an "on-rails" FM than a wobbly one. And this is the reason I asked the question I did in the OP. PS: Just a minor correction when it comes to the Cooper-Harper scale: "It is important to note that a Handling Qualities Rating (HQR) can not be assigned to an aircraft, as in 'That aircraft is a HQR 5 aircraft.' Any HQR that is assigned requires a well defined, repeatable task, a well trained pilot that is actively engaged in accomplishing that task, and an aircraft."

So attached to this post is a track (Thrustmaster stick with short extension 25% curve) showing that even though I hardly move the stick at all, the aircraft starts oscillating around when I do the first attempt at hockup where I try to do minute corrections to try to fly straight into the basket. This is unsuccessful so I back off, then come back in again in a path that I judge will hit the basket basically not touching the stick because I know that doing so will start the PIO’s. So this shows exactly the same problem as out lined in the other videos I posted previously, but in addition to that showing that I need some more practice to master the in-game FM as well. But this is not the point: the point is that this in-game method bears no resemblance whatsoever to what is going on in the Growler video below where the pilot has crisp and responsive control with no tendencies to PIO at all during the whole sequence. He can (and does) chase and fly straight into the basket. No careful more or less straight approach from afar into the basket flying needed like in DCS. Wobbly FM example 1.trk

Was not planning to post anything more here but I see now that the question in my OP was actually answered earlier in this thread and that I unfortunately missed that: So it seems that this (the wobbliness) is tweakable in-game after all, and that someone in their wisdom decided that doing tanker hookups in DCS was too easy before, and decided to make it more difficult. Well, for the reasons I have outlined in a number of posts in this thread, IMHO I think this is a mistake. But for sure, this is of course just an opinion, one which the postings in this thread by some other simmers has made abundantly clear is not a sentiment shared by all. Anyway, getting back to the subject of evidence: Unfortunately, opinions are all the evidence there is when it comes to this aspect of the sim. Because when it comes to flight characteristics, these are by nature subjective. You can’t like for other performance aspects like speed, turn rate or climb rate etc. provide a single value or chart to prove this either way. So asking me to provide evidence to “prove” that the current FM is wrong is just as futile as asking for the evidence why the developers made the tanker hookup more difficult in the patch Razor18 is referring to above. And this is why we have the Cooper-Harper scale. The pilot flies the plane and rates certain flying characteristics a value from 1 to 10. Different pilots will have different opinions as to which value is correct. And my rating of the DCS F-18 when it comes to tanker hookup is a 7: The controllability of the aircraft as such is not in question, but it’s not controllable enough to hook up to a basket that is moving, even with maximum effort. My rating of the IRL aircraft as shown in the Growler video is a 3 or above, because even in the excessive turbulence the pilot is faced with, he still manages to hook up which was impressive. Rating it 3 is warranted I think because rating it 4 would indicate that there are deficiencies that warrant improvement, which seems unjustified given that the pilot was successful even under the extreme conditions he faced. In addition, the USN would hardly accept anything into service that was still a 4, i.e. as in having “Deficiencies that warrant improvement”. So a good move IMHO would be to eventually do a patch that will move the rating of the DCS F-18 from a 7 closer to a 3 on the Cooper-Harper scale. If not now, then this will anyway be sorely needed if tanker turbulence is ever added to the game, because all the DCS tanker instruction videos I’ve seen so far will be pretty much useless to catch a basket that is moving around like in the Growler video. And before simmers jump in to point out the obvious: But it's exactly this that is the beauty of the Cooper-Harper scale: It builds on opinions. And everyone is entitled to one. But it's still as scientific as it gets.

Absolutely. I think the F-18 is a top notch module and thoroughly enjoy flying it. With that said, sometimes even the sun has its spots.

See, this is what’s called building a strawman: You start an argument with a someone who has a Masters in aeronautical engineering specializing in aerodynamics, flight mechanics and structural engineering and who has worked on the JA 37 Viggen and JAS 39 systems at SAAB, and who had colleagues working on the FBW FCS systems and who at work saw his fair share of HUD videos without wobble in them. Seeing your situation is untenable, and that you are out of your depth, you now leave you Bailey and retreat to your Motte, claiming your opponent just googled everything. BTW, I really enjoyed this video you have on YouTube: Looks like you get into some nasty PIO’s there and had to back out to come back in to catch the basked. Not always so easy to catch the basket in-game is it? Maybe it was a bit too wobbly for you? Now again, compare that to the Growler AAR video I posted earlier: Does the aircraft behavior in-game and in the Growler video above look even remotely similar? No they don’t. One last time: If you can’t interpret, or understand why I posted these videos, then there is no helping you. I didn’t post them to show that AAR IRL was easy. That’s not what I’m not saying at all. I posted them so people could see how the F-18 BEHAVES in-game and IRL, i.e. their flight mechanics. But if you really can’t see or understand the difference, then we are done.

Well with regards to ridiculous, I find simmers who's feelings are hurt just because somebody points out that what they have mastered is nothing more than a virtual flight sim FM, and that this may not fully represent how aircraft behave IRL tedious. And the OP was never meant as a dig at DCS in general or the F-18 module: I love it and think it's great fun flying it. Just be ready to accept that it may not always exactly replicate IRL. The nice thing is though, in many cases you can find good info from open sources. You just have to be willing to accept it when you see it..... But I think this thread has just about run its coarse for me: I just wanted to get input on WHY the in-game FM was wobblier than IRL. Not be informed I need different equipment or spend more time practicing to master it. On a tangent, I mentioned earlier on that I have a past working with EW systems. In fact, I worked with the EW systems for AJ 37, JA 37 Viggen and the JAS 39 Gripen, and without divulging any sensitive information, I can tell you that the EW as modeled in DCS in terms of how radars and jammers interact is not actually how it would have worked in the time span that the F-18 we have in-game was operational. IRL it's far more sophisticated. But this is a game and just enjoy it for what it is. Some parts are great, but your milage will vary. So just for a minute try to contemplate, that what is true for EW in-game may also be true for the current DCS FM's. But if you can't, then fine by me, I have no horse in this race......

No, I'm not saying that, and I would be very interested in hearing their take on how air to air refueling in DCS compares to IRL. That being said, I do trust what my eyes tell me, but if you can get them to join and weigh in that would of course be great. And for sure, PIO do exist also IRL as well. In fact, this was why both the first and the second JAS39 Gripen prototypes crashed: There was a known issue with the FBW FCS (which was still in testing) and both the pilot (the unfortunate Lars Rådeström crashed both) and the FCS were both trying to correct the same deviations leading to these being overlaid in the FCS without the proper filtering which in turn lead to PIO’s and divergence (especially in the first crash). I actually worked on the Gripen at the time (EW systems, not FCS, and hence my Viking Crow sig) but I still got to know a bit about those issues and how they were solved, and I can tell you that the type of PIO behavior we have in-game now when trying to hook up to a tanker would never have passed muster. But getting back to the game, just do a sanity check: What do you think would happen with a bit of turbulence added to the tanker basket in the current in-game scenario? Would you be able to mirror those rather rapid in-close adjustments the Growler pilot did when he was basically in the basket? I really doubt it with the current wobbly FM..... You obviously have not been reading my other posts: I've said it time and again: I do tanker hookups in the F-18 myself but due to the wobbly FM I don't find it realistic, that's all.

A very good point. We lack the seat-of-the pants and depth perception feedback which is very important IR. However, that does not change the facts of how aircraft in sims generally behave compare to IRL, and that they do tend to wobble more in sims. And TBH, I find it amazing that people can't see the rapid precise movements in the IRL videos I posted and how this differs from in-game. But to get back to in-game: Even without the IRL feedback, it should in a well behaved FM be perfectly possible to fly without getting into PIO's based only on visual input as a flight marker on the HUD or a canopy rim versus horizon/tanker or such like. And in many sims, this can be controlled just fine at higher speeds, but not when you are going slow, which is just what we are seeing in DCS. PIO occurs when the pilot input is lagging or leading the aircraft's tendency which the pilot is trying to correct. At higher speeds this is not an issue in-game either, but for some reason this is occurring in-game at lower speeds while as we can see from the F-18 videos I posted, it's not IRL.

Yes, I'm sure they told you that hooking up to a tanker in DCS is spot on right? I mean, that our eyes are lying to us when we compare those videos right?

Yes, but what's happening here now never seems to fail: I've seen this also in WW1 & WW2 sim forums: People spend hundreds, if not thousands of hours mastering these in-game FM's and I can understand that with so much invested, you don't want to hear that what you are flying is unrealistic. In WW2 sims, you see people with full flaps, gear out, in hard slow-speed maneuvering pulling stunts defying flight mechanics because the in-game FM allows them to do that and they have mastered the art, which sadly is not mastering the IRL art, but is in this case becoming aces of the FM's the developers give them, nothing else. I started this off with a genuine question, because state-of-the-art FM's in many cases exhibit this wobbly behavior. You can see it in WW1 & WWs sims as well. And what I wanted to see was if someone here could shed a light on this in DCS and why we have the wobble we have. But now I fear this will devolve into an avalanche of simmers lining up to tell us just how realistic this sim really is, which is not very helpful at all in answering the original question......

Look, I'm not saying it can't be done. I actually do it myself from time to time. I think the F-18 is a great module and I like doing the carrier T/O and landings as well. However, my point is that the in-game DCS FM is wobbly in that its easy to get into PIO's, and that this is not realistic, and that the IRL videos I posted shows that. That is all. Just to reiterate: Take a look at how the Growler pilot catches the basket by small precise movements in the turbulence: Use the canopy rim and the horizon as a reference to see just how precise and controlled these movements are IRL. I would love to see an in-game video tanker video with an F-18 replicating that. However, since we don't have turbulence yet exactly that scenario is of course impossible to reproduce. However, I've yet to see an in-game video where a pilot is off in height and angle and rapidly gets lined up again and catches the basket in the same crisp way as it is done IRL.

Yes, you flew into the exact right position for catching the basket and you were in perfect control of your aircraft. Which is a result of enough training on the in-game FM. However, as I said, you can with practice learn to fly basically anything, and your video is a perfect example of that. However, that does not mean an aircraft has acceptable, or in this case realistic behavior. So no, what you demonstrated was instead exactly my point: To hook up, in DCS you basically need to fly super smooth and straight in. Notice that both your airplane and the drogue are almost perfectly stabilized in-game. Now compare that to the way the pilot in the video I posted is battling to hook up and the rapid changes just before he catches the basket? Sorry, but if you can't grasp the difference in aircraft behavior between these two videos then I can't help you.

First point: Notice that whoever is flying is in a perfect position. The basked is literally released right onto the probe. This DCS pilot is perfectly aligned both sideways and in height. All that is required is to move forward a few meters. Now why is that? Can we suspect that whoever did this video has done it before? The answer to this rhetorical question is of course yes. And when it comes to airplanes, you can master flying basically anything. All it takes is practice. And this is something gamers love and I can understand all that: It's nice to finally master something that requires a lot of practice. But the question here is realism. Is it realistic? And the answer is no. Because a plane like this would never be accepted into service. It would probably land at 6-7 on the Cooper-Harper scale. Probably a 7 because you would not be able to chase a basket that is affected by turbulence without getting into PIO's. This bring us to the second point: Notice that the basket in DCS is always perfectly stabilized? If you are perfectly aligned you can drive straight in. In fact, that's the way one of the DCS training videos I posted above showed: The recommendation was never to try to adjust, but to line up perfect straight behind and then go back and forth until hookup. Problem is that that is not how it works IRL: IRL the basket moves and you need to feed in small inputs, and you actually chase the basket. So I post this yet again: Notice the small precise movements the aircraft makes with no tendency to PIO? In fact, it looks a bit like he is flying an "on-rails" FM. Imagine that..... F-18 drogue refueling in turbulence

Guys, I’m a retired aeronautical engineer with Masters in Aerodynamics and I’m also a pilot. But no, not a qualified F-18 pilot, if you want to disqualify me on that point. But I’ve flown everything from gliders to Pitts S-2’s etc. so I would say I’m not totally in the dark about flight mechanics, how aircraft behave, and PIO’s etc. TBH, I can’t tell if those who have responded so far in this thread really can’t see the difference, or are just being obtuse after spending hundreds of hours mastering the in-game FM’s and maybe for that reason want to believe that the current FM’s are as real as it gets. Look: I’m not saying it cannot be done: I do it myself in-game. I have a Hall-sensor Thrustmaster stick with an extension and have done it both with linear or S-curve settings. This is not the problem. What I'm saying is the problem, is that due to the wobbly FM's that’s seems to be inherent in the DCS modules, this means that you have to use the careful line-up and basically fly straight in method. And BIGNEWY: Here you go, here are some track videos: And like this one says: Never chase the basket as in trying to do last moment adjustment: https://youtu.be/tVJH_o3KmOk?t=229 https://youtu.be/FP74D4gCK_U?t=151 https://youtu.be/PX7nsYA_K-o?t=233 Now watch those videos and compare that to the two F-18 tanker videos I posted in the OP. Do the aircraft's in-game and IRL behavior look the same to you? Really? IRL, the pilot is inputting small, precise, last second adjustments with no tendencies to PIO whatsoever.

What? Are you REALLY questioning this? You mean you ACTUALLY cannot see the difference between the videos I posted and how it works in game? Just do an in-game tanker setup with the F-18, approach the basket and then try to chase it like they did in the two IRL drogue videos I posted and see what happens: You get massive PIO's. This is why every DCS tanker instruction video I have seen stresses the fact that you NEVER chase the drogue BECAUSE you get PIO's. This is why they're all adamant you have to approach it super careful basically in a straight line. Any late adjustments like we see in the IRL tanker videos I posted are doomed to fail. So to reiterate my point: You CANNOT make the same type of small adjustments late when up close to the basket in-game. Again, my question is more if it (the wobbly FM) is by design or a limitation in the simulation engine.

While not directly coupled to the F-18, I just happened to have dusted off this module to do some drogue refueling training which can be fun sometimes. However, the wobbly flight model bugs me. Sure, it’s not just the F-18. It’s something that DCS has across the board as most FM’s in DCS, be they a Bf-109, Spitfire or F-18 has this property. TBH, I find this an irritating aspect of the current “state-of- the art” flight sims (it’s not just DCS), since it seems to be the norm, and you can find it in others like Il-2 Sturmovik as well. Maybe initially it was a reaction to the so-called “on-rails” FM’s that many of the very earliest sims suffered from, and led to the rise of the wobbly FM’s that I remember were initially greeted with such enthusiasm by some customers who seemed think that the more difficult it was to fly, the more realistic it must be. However, if you take a look at the attached videos (you can find many like them), you will see that the “on-rails” FM is actually more realistic. There is virtually none of the wobbliness we have in-game, and there is a more direct response and ending to the stick input both in terms of a direct response and a direct termination of movement which makes it much easier to avoid the PIO’s that are inherent in current flight sims. So my question is this: Is this just an adaptation to what the customers wants, as in wobbly means more realistic and sells better, or is it an actual limitation in the simulation engine, as in the way it’s implemented leads to the wobbliness and there is nothing they can do about it? Again, the F-18 is not the only culprit, but since this seems to be one of the more active DCS forums maybe some of the forum members here have an answer this question? Is the in-game flight model wobbliness there by choice, or is it a result of a game engine limitation? Note in the first video how the canopy moves in relation to the clouds on the horizon as he gets close to the basket: The pilot is continuously doing minute corrections with no wobbliness and no PIO indications at all. He is literally “chasing the basket” which is a big no-no in-game because you’ll end up in PIO’s. F-18 drogue refueling in turbulence F-18 doing minute corrections to hook-up and stay in the groove Crisp and wobbly free Yak-3 rolling and flying

The paper linked below analyses the performance of the Kh-47 M2 Kinzhal, and how likely it is that this type of missile can be intercepted by air defenses. However, in order to keep this post free of information that could be construed to be politically sensitive, the linked paper has been redacted so that only the parts focused on the technical analysis remain. I did this paper because there have been so many rumors regarding the actual performance of this missile, not in the least in this forum, where there have also been some simulation scenarios posted which in some cases in my opinion have been overly optimistic about the Kinzhal’s capabilities. Link to page with the paper in pdf format. On my homepage I also have a page with a description of the simulation model used. Note that I in no way claim this paper to be the gospel truth, and this is just my assessment based on my simulations and the assumptions I outline in the paper. Consequently, I would welcome any constructive input on it. However, please remember to keep it all related to the technical aspects in order to comply with forum rules. Front page of paper: