Hummingbird

We can actually find out by simply looking at the F-16 performance charts and see which one matches the figures on that diagram. Specifically, at what altitude and configuration does the F-16C achieve a peak of 3.2 & 4 G's sustained, and 8.2 & 9 G instantaneous. The diagram that most closely matches this turns out to be the one for 26,000 lbs DI = 50 @ 30,000 ft, where the F-16 hits 3.2 G sustained at @ M 0.8 and 4 G sustained @ M 1.4, where'as 8.2 G instantaneous is hit @ M 1.18 and 9 G @ M 1.73.

I just hope they can get their hands on the EM diagrams for this bird so that we get realistic performance out of it.

Probably delayed due to them having their hands full with other modules atm. Not great as I'm eagerly awaiting this module, but have to accept that ED might be behind schedule due to corona and all.

Does anybody know wether the introduction of FBW with the Su35 incorperated automatic 1G trim in pitch to decrease pilot workload ? Or did it keep the old manual trim?

No need, we just did a good amount of flights together where he saw the Hornets noticably superior turn performance compared with the Viper in DCS, and he was a good sport and quickly acknowledged it as well.

Copy that, applied.

Saw it, and like I said in the PM, the Hornet pilot wasn't even approaching is best STR. And like I also said, I'll gladly demonstrate it in 1 vs 1's if you so wish.

Sorry, but the measured load factors don't lie.

8 G's @ 0.66 M is very impressive. That said the only thing really letting the JF-17 down is the thrust to weight ratio of 0.95, meanwhile its wing loading is surprisingly low (Chinese really made the aircraft very light, probably at the cost of structural strength, hence the 8 G limit) and it makes use of both large LERX as well as ofcourse LE & TE maneuver devices.

F-4E first for me, but I'd certainly also buy a Naval F-4.

Same load outs for both, clean full or 50% fuel, or both with + 6x AAMs.

Doesn't matter what you do in the Viper if the Hornet pilot knows his plane, as the DCS Hornet currently out rates the DCS Viper in both ITR and STR across the speed range. So it's a losing battle what'ever you do assuming equal pilots.

You do realize there are performance graphs for 50% fuel and DI = 50 (i.e. 4x AIM120's + 2x AIM-9's + 2x fuel tank pylons + 1 centerline pylon) right ? Hence most testing is done following the normal A2A load out above at 26,000 lbs.

That's pretty rich from someone who litterally doesn't understand what the chart says. I'd say learn to read such charts and understand what is ITR and what is STR before you criticize others of not reading it correctly. Getting a figure a tiny bit off (0.64 vs 0.67) is forgivable, but not even understanding what the chart is saying, like you, well sorry but spits you right out of the conversation. RL ITR as pr. HAF manual: 26,000 lbs = 9.0 G @ 0.67 22,000 lbs = 9.0 G @ 0.62 This is what the DCS F-16 needs to match.

Yes, that's a likely explanation, question is wether or not the FLCS should compensate for this.

No it actually happens whilst I am accelerating with full aft stick, so max G command. (clean jet, light at 22,000 lbs, lots of Ps). Note as I hit 0.92 M (around 0 min 27 sec in vid) the G's start to drop steadily until at 8.5 G at 0.99 Mach, where it stays until 1.02 Mach from where it slowly begins to increases until hitting a hard limit of 9.0 G at 1.06 Mach. SPO4T30o-Bk?t=27

Yes, that's my impression as well. It seems to slow at 7 G's until it reaches a crawl at 8 from where it takes a long time reach 9, which is not what we see in the RL footage where it shoots quickly to 9+ G rather linearly. As a result the RL footage shows the F-16 hit 9 G's about twice as fast as the DCS F-16 if you measure it. That said I've been going at it for 7-8 hours now almost non stop testing the onset rates (as well as ITR & STR) at all sorts of speeds & weights/drag indexes, timing everything and comparing with EM charts etc. So my mind is filled to the brim atm and I think it's about time I take a break, get some sleep and then look at with a fresh set of eyes tomorrow. In the meantime, please test away guys, the more people we get to collect results the better - esp. since undoubtedly there are people better at compiling & illustrating it on video than me.

To be specific in what I've noted so far: At 500 kts IAS and below, it's only from approx 7 G's on that the DCS F-16 seemingly falls way behind the real aircraft in terms of onset rate, up until that point it seems OK. At very high speeds however, above 600 kts, the DCS F-16 is now very slow to pick up in the beginning, but then atleast the onset rate is now a little bit quicker than before from 8 to 9 G. In short the onset rate is very inconsistent and different between speeds where 9.0 G's can only be hit instantaneously, and where it can be sustained.

Please watch the videos I sent NL, and note the time it takes to reach 9 G in them: Then compare it with the RL footage (time it as well) : https://www.instagram.com/p/BojNMR7FSps/ Note: the 1.2 to 9+ G pull happens near the end of the video where he banks hard left. Now compare the times for when 9 G is hit between DCS & the RL footage. That's all I did, and I measured 3.1 sec from 1.2 to 9.0 G in the RL footage and 6-8 sec ingame depending on entry speed, the last bit from 8.5 to 9.0 taking ages. The hoggit onset graph was based on the measurements from that, but it was never meant to be precise, just an approximate to illustrate the issue, hence the lack of a grid or actual time figures. In short the graph was there solely to illustrate the issue to make it easy to understand incase my the written explanation wasn't. Now I can redo the tests with stick inputs visible if you wish (you're gonna have to tell me how though as I can't find that option), the results will be the same however as I wasn't trying to cheat anyone by not pulling full aft stick or something (what would I get out of that?).

Yeah I noticed that too, but the time to get there is also long according to that plot when compared with the green line. Hence I fear it's the same as now, that 9.2-9.3 strangely can be reached within a very limited speed range at very high speeds (Mach 1+), but not at the lower speeds where it's possible in real life, i.e. ~ M 0.68 onwards. To illustrate what I mean: In summary at 26,000 lbs 9.0 G is possible between 0.78 to 0.97 Mach, and 9.2-9.3 between 0.97 - 1.02 mach, above that 9.0 G is suddenly the hard limit again. However watch as something very curious happens if you take out a clean Viper @ 22,000 lbs: Note how I am able to reach 9.2 G's at 0.75 mach (according to HAF charts it should be reachable much sooner at 22,000 lbs [~0.65 M]), but as I reach 0.92 Mach it suddenly dops back down to 9.0 G (stick stays full aft the entire time), and then starting at 0.95 M it starts to gradually drop until finally reaching 8.5 G at 0.99 M. 8.5 G continues to be the hard limit until 1.06 M where you then again return to 9.0 G which is the final hard limit. This is very inconsistent and strange behavior by the FLCS in DCS.

Sadly I don't think it is LJ, according to what NL said it's only G tolerance that's different in the dev build. Also the graph there is one I made to show what the real progression looks like based on RL footage and the DFLC laws you've posted earlier, NineLine then overlayed his results on top of that. I mean I hope something has been tuned in the dev build and that the limit is 9.3 instead of 9.0 there, but based on what NL said I don't think that's the case.

and I still feel the same, i.e. either: 1) something wasn't done right/thuroughly enough or 2) they might have looked at the wrong EM charts etc (human error) or 3) they're accepting discrepancies within a much larger threshold than I am (I hope not) And I don't say this to be disrespectful, I've just tested it so much by now that I can't understand how they could come to different results unless it's for one of the above reasons, as I'm sure I did everything to get peak performance at the specified conditions (and I documented it too) - something it doesn't take a RL F-16 pilot to do, it just demands thuroughness and a relatively basic understanding of flying & aerodynamics. In short, we're all human, F-16 pilots too, so just because a real F-16 pilot looked at it doesn't exclude human oversight. (And yes I know this goes for me as well, I just can't see where I could've possibly gone wrong in my tests at this point) It wasn't my intention to ruin a day at the park NineLine, so please don't hesitate to wait with responding to issues such as these until you have time. I bring up these issues out of passion for the aircraft & sim, not to be annoying. A good weekend to you as well.

I just fail to understand how I have messed up my level turn tests, both for ITR, STR and G-onset. I mean I am definitely not saying I am = F-16 pilot, but at the same time I don't see why it takes an F-16 pilot to do a proper test of ITR, STR & G-onset rate in a simulator as long as you understand the dynamics at work. I simply don't see where my testing is flawed to the point that it isn't reflecting max performance in level turns (instantaneous & sustained) as well as in onset rate. I also don't understand why the FM would be "signed off as is" if even ED's own paper on the FMs shows the DCS F-16 to be underperforming in STR below 0.6 mach (where most dogfights end up) and at peak rate: Point being what's then stopping the same from being the case with the observed & measured issues with G-onset rate?

I'm sorry, I tried to illustrate and prove the issue as best I could, and I believe I did more than just show a graph and claim something is wrong.