Hummingbird

Btw, I urge everyone to test this themselves.

Alright, but they don't match, and anyone can test it. Just do a some max rate level turns, doesn't take an experienced pilot to do that: I'll stop talking about ITR in this thread now. As mentioned I made it by timing the G onset rates in the videos I posted, i.e.: https://www.instagram.com/p/BojNMR7FSps/ Btw, I've asked TheFighterPilot, who is also a RL F-16 jockey, to weigh in on the matter.

First of all remember we're currently discussing two issues in this thread: 1) G-onset rate 2) Instantanous turn rate For example the two videos I posted just before was to illustrate the subpar ITR performance, not the G-onset rate (although the latter one, test 3, can be used for that too) Hence it's important to distinguish which one we're addressing when. I hope you understand Im not trying to be mean either, I am merely desperately trying to get this issue deeply looked into as the real Viper is clearly pulling G's quicker than the DCS one. Regarding G-onset rate: The graph I posted at Hoggit was meant to illustrate the issue, not to be pin point exact (hence the lack of a grid), to make sure the problem is understood. I simply timed how long it took to reach 9 G's, and how linear the evolution was in the real footage and ingame recordings. In these two vids for example I try the level break turn (in a clean Viper) as in the RL footage, and here the sudden pause around 5.5-6 G really shows up:

Ok, let me explain again: The controls are not going to an issue with the F-16 because it's not like the other fighters/aircraft ingame, and that is because the F-16's FLCS sets a limit to how fast & far the control surfaces can at all move in accordance with speed & AoA, and this is irrespective of how fast full deflection is commanded by the pilot. (Also I doubt my joystick can command full aft stick faster than the pressure sensitive F16 stick anyway) In other words if the F-16 pilot commands full aft stick then said command will run through the FLCS which then translates that into movement of the stabilizers for max allowed AoA at that specific speed, which up until 9.3 G's is 15 deg AoA. In short, I litterally can't command the F-16 to exceed its limits irrespective of what controller I'm using, because in the end its the FLCS which decides how much the control surfaces will at all move.

The one at Hoggit is based on G meter footage, which I already showed. There is no graph for this in the HAF manual, or any other F-16 document I know of. How are my tests not valid? Keep in mind I did the ITR test in two ways, 1) where I eased the stick back to full deflection and 2) where I just janked it back. So there's no way it could've gone wrong, at all.

No need to warm up when G effects are off. If you are refering to myself warming up, I did the test over and over again before recording, and then loaded out and in again to show temp etc. The EM diagram is for SL, hence I try to stay as close to SL as possible. What curve? If you're talking about the RL ITR, it's on page B8-65 in the HAF manual (hope it's ok to post this screenie considering all references already made to this manual on the board):

Mover also says it's easy to hit 10 G's by accident in the real Viper when transitioning from a heavily laden two bagged one you've flown for a long time and to a clean one, i.e. he got used to pulling 'this' hard to get 'this' amount of G in the heavy one, now all of a sudden pulling 'this' hard gives you a ton more G. So there's that. Again just proving that the G onset rate in the Viper is so fast that if you just jank the stick (as in apply too much force) then it will throw 9+ G's at you within a second. That aside the control aren't the issue with regards to the F-16, because as TLTeo and I point out, the FLCS limits the amount of AoA the aircraft is able to pull. Once you reach a speed where more than 9.3 G's would result from 15 deg AoA, the FLCS switches to G control instead of AoA control.

Testing from April where I deliberately eased my way to full back stick and max ITR, so no abrupt pull: 6s7XfzAVrrk Quick testing just now with abrupt pull, i.e. fast full back stick (note the time it takes to hit 9 G first at 2:15 min): 4ORuLOpyAVs Result = No change, still ~8.6 G @ 0.64 Mach where it should be 9 G, and 9.0 G not being hit until 0.76-0.77 Mach in DCS. So there's the proof that the ITR performance is too low, and by speed margin of 0.10+ mach.

I'm curious as to why are you running the tests with G-Loc enabled at all? All it does is make testing more difficult. IMO it's important to always turn of G effects when testing aircraft performance. PS: Keep in mind that graph is for a level (horizontal turn), not a pull out. In other words if your results are from pull outs they are not valid.

Real life F-16 hitting 9+ G's a in a break level turn: https://www.instagram.com/p/BojNMR7FSps/ The onset rate is visibly much faster here than in DCS. Note the initial turn is paused at ~8 G's to keep within the showline, however later he pulls to 1 to 9+ G's much faster than what is possible in DCS.

It means 9.0 G's is hit at 0.64 Mach @ SL in the real jet (page B8-65 in HAF manual), whilst it can't be hit until 0.78+ Mach in DCS under identical weight, DI & atmospheric conditions. Best you get at 0.64-0.66 in DCS is 8.6-8.7 G's. In short the DCS F-16 can't hit its best ITR until 0.10+ Mach later than it should. Now I think it's linked with the lack of G-onset rate that I am even afraid to mention at this point as my last post on the matter was deleted, but here's a video of a real F-16 hitting 9 G's A LOT faster than the DCS F-16 is capable of: https://www.instagram.com/p/BojNMR7FSps/

Just two notes regarding the paper and the F-16: 1) The paper actually shows the DCS F-16's STR being too low below Mach 0.6 (difference gradually worsens the lower the speed) 2) It doesn't address ITR which has been proven too low (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=263877) compared to the same performance manual used for comparison in the paper, i.e. 9 G's cannot be hit until 0.10+ mach later than it should.

Since he got a lot of those values grossly wrong, I wouldn't trust those figures. This is the best we got on the Su27 (Picture is from this forum):

So the real F-16 struggles to hit 9 G's, and takes a long time to do so? That news to me, and not what I've now had several 16 jocks tell me. A lot of people are going to be very sad to hear this. To be clear: Atm for the DCS F-16 G onset rate is fast below the speeds where 9 G's can't be attained, but as soon as a speed where 9 G's can be attained is reached (high speeds) the G onset rate slows significantly, and you get odd stalling in onset rates at around 6.5 G's after which it then starts picking up again only to slow to a crawl around 8.5 G's. I've never seen a single HUD footage show such slow & inconsistent G onset rate for the F-16, and it doesn't occur in that other F-16 sim either where G onset rate is fast & smooth irrespective of speed. Something aint right. PS: That onset rate slows around 7.5 - 8.0 G's is normal, but according to the pilots it happens smoothly, and it doesn't take even a second to reach 9 G from there. That's NOT what happens in DCS. Here's the Gripen, also a statically unstable FBW 9 G limited design, hitting 9 G's quickly and smoothly at 5:34 min (what you'd expect the F-16 be capable of): eXaPfUs6sQw?t=332

I slows down way before that though BIGNEWY, around 6 to 6.5 G's, and abruptly so, not smoothly. Furthermore it gets esp. bad at high speed in the DCS F-16, where G onset rate is incredibly slow and reaching 9 G's is a struggle (usually you only get 8.8-8.9) The progression should be like in that other famous F-16 sim verified by F-16 pilots, where onset rate is very fast and reaching 9+ G's doesn't take ages. So I'm very worried to hear that this is considered "Correct as is"

So it's been 8 months since this was first reported, and over 3 months since @BIGNEWY said they would look into it, but since then we've neither seen nor heard about any change. The FM really is the most important aspect of a flight sim, hence this ought to be top priority, but considering the time it has taken so far, without a word in between, it obviously hasn't been. Communication on the part of the developers regarding the matter is long overdue.

Pretty sure most people would love to have the F-14D, and pay another 69 USD/EU for it, but if HB can't model it then we're simply outta luck.

I actually don't think so as it only needs to be so good before imaging software can actively track as well, such as you've probably recently seen in US Navy footage of F/A-18's tracking unidentified objects off the eastern seaboard. The optics, sensors, gyro stabilizer, laser & imaging software in PIRATE are all supposed to be state of the art, so I'm rather confident it can rangefind much further than 7.5 km. How much further? Not sure, we don't even have a source for the 7.5 km figure, and it's obviously going to vary a lot depending on the weather. What we do know is that it can track a target up to 150 km away under certain circumstances, and usually in between 50-80 km. That says a lot about the capability of the optics & sensors alone. Sources: http://grupooesia.com/en/portfolio-productos-ingenieria/flir-irst/ https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf https://www.bundesheer.at/truppendienst/ausgaben/artikel.php?id=807

I read the same a long time ago, and heard similar about the F35, i.e. canopy being limiting factor. No idea wether it's true or not on operational jets. I tend to think it's more about shockwave formations around the air intake(s).

I don't doubt that, but with a good enough gyro stabilizer plus tracking system it can be done with amazing accuracy.

Yeah the F-14 is borderline useless in MP atm

That's what I'd call a noticable difference

Well if it picks up same targets at basically the same range, then I don't really see what parameters you're missing?

Yeah, same here.