Hummingbird

Need atleast a video recording where the infobar readings are visible, and also a track file according to ED. Otherwise it's moot.

Im sorry but the above quite simply doesn't correspond to actual ingame values atm, which can clearly been seen when watching the posted videos and noting the G's attained at a specific speed and then comparing it to the real charts.

I don't understand this, I was as smooth as in the video I posted, and used the same technique, and ofcourse also level with the horizon, esp. at the relevant speeds (otherwise maintaining altitude wouldn't be possible): I really don't see how the above can be considered 'rough' in any shape or form. Furthermore no G warm up was required as G-effects were turned off, as I always do when testing so as not to allow this to affect the results. Really important (!): From testing I know that above 454 KTAS (452 KIAS) in full burner the DCS F-16 will accelerate at 9 G (at 22,000 lbs, clean, SL, 15 C), hence I need to be at full back stick & 9 G right before that. Also I need to be in full burner when noting the load factor, as anything less will result in less ITR/load factor at the same speeds for the DCS F-16, eventhough thrust shouldn't affect ITR. (This is easy to test, try a full back stick turn at full mil vs full AB, and note how a lower max ITR/load factor is attainable at the same speeds) Crux of the matter: In the DCS F-16C a 9 G instantanous load factor is only attainable from 432 KTAS (M 0.65) upwards, and in full burner only, whilst the real thing is capable of attaining it starting at 409 KTAS (M 0.618), at which speed the DCS F-16 will only manage 8.8 G instantaneous. This lacking behind the reference values continues down to M 0.488 where finally it matches at 7 G DCS vs 7 G reference. Finally the use of tacview really surprises me, as I've experienced it not matching infobar figures on numerous occassions, and hence have always rejected tacview as inaccurate. The figures from the infobar are live, clear and unmistakable in all the tests:

No, earlier in this very thread BIGNEWY litterally said: "When we compare our Viper to the data it is correct. We still have some work to do on G-onset, but that is all. " and then later: "Just reiterate, we have tested our viper with the real world data and it is correct, if there are track replay's that we can check that shows it is wrong we will take a look. " To which I responded regarding the ITR (didn't mention G-onset because that issue had already been acknowledged), hence no trolling going on here. But glad to hear the ITR issue is acknowledged and still WIP, that is all I wanted.

Ok, here's the track: ITRF16.trk

EM charts say nothing about G-onset rate, they do however say something about energy retention (Energy Maneverability).

Copy that, will make sure it's only one aircraft then. Don't use any mods, so that shouldn't be a problem. Will quickly redo the test and send the track once I get home.

No, I didn't know that the track replays worked at all. Otherwise I would've naturally provided it, it's the easiest thing in the world.

Ok, how come? I thought the track replays didn't work and the aircraft were bouncing all over the place.. But I'll provide a track replay once I get back home later today then.

Just realized my recording wasn't in the best image quality (although you can still make out the numbers in the infobar), hence I just re-did the test in 1080p to make sure the numbers are clear for everyone to see. The results were obviously the same, now it's just easier to see the infobar numbers:

Regarding the maneuverability of the 'copter, other than the P/W ratio, doesn't the disc loading also play an important role much the same as wing loading does for fixed wing aircraft?

Well so will the DCS F-16. Thing is you need to be at a certain speed depending on altitude, weight & configuration for this to be the case. For example at sea level and 22,000 lbs clean, the F-16C will accelerate whilst pulling 9 G at speeds of over M 0.7.

@ED Are there any plans to address this, or is this considered an area where realism must take a backseat to "balance"? (Honest question btw, not attempting to be passive aggressive) Just wondering, as currently our pilots (esp. the F-16 one), seem to fall way short of documented average pilot capability in this regard: https://www.sto.nato.int/publication...ARD-AG-322.pdf Excerpt: "The maximum G level obtainable using the anti-G suit and AGSM has never been systematically measured in the laboratry.: The maximum G level duration attempted in an upright seat using only an anti-G suit and AGSM was 9G for 45 seconds which was attained by 9 of 14 subjects in a study conducted at USAFSAM in 1972 " This coupled with the earlier excerpts in the OP rather strongly indicates that we should be able to sustain 9 G's for longer in DCS, esp. in the F-16 which is documented as having at least 0.8 G advantage in max sustainable G tolerance due to seat angle alone. It would IMHO only be fitting if this were simulated in DCS as well, for a more realistic experience, just as has previously been done in relation to other modules (F-86 vs MiG-15 for example).

ITR is still a bit too low however. 22,000 lbs, clean, 25% fuel (unlimited), ICAO std. day 15 C, sea level no wind: 9.0 @ 432 KTAS / 0.653 M 8.9 @ 416 KTAS / 0.628 M 8.8 @ 409 KTAS / 0.618 M 8.7 @ 404 KTAS / 0.610 M 8.6 @ 399 KTAS / 0.603 M 8.5 @ 394 KTAS / 0.595 M 8.4 @ 388 KTAS / 0.586 M 8.3 @ 383 KTAS / 0.579 M 8.2 @ 378 KTAS / 0.571 M 8.1 @ 373 KTAS / 0.563 M 8.0 @ 368 KTAS / 0.556 M -------------- 7.9 @ 363 KTAS / 0.548 M 7.8 @ 359 KTAS / 0.542 M 7.7 @ 354 KTAS / 0.535 M 7.6 @ 350 KTAS / 0.529 M 7.5 @ 345 KTAS / 0.521 M 7.4 @ 341 KTAS / 0.515 M 7.3 @ 338 KTAS / 0.511 M 7.2 @ 332 KTAS / 0.501 M 7.1 @ 327 KTAS / 0.494 M 7.0 @ 323 KTAS / 0.488 M The above figures overlayed on the real life chart: Now this could ofcourse be down to FLCS logic, which also affects G-onset. We'll see once the next FM update hits.

That's very interesting, should help make me feel a bit more safe when overflying urban areas with manpads, currently Im a nervous wreck when doing so in the Hind

So it can detect manpad launches?

Will the AH64D come with any automatic IR countermeasure system?

Copy that, not expecting things to be perfect in EA, just good to know what to look forward to further up the line

Ok, because in Wags video there appears to be lag even when he's moving the head at way less than 120 deg/sec, even when he's moving his head up and down slowly like at 10:46 min: Anyway thanks for the answers Remco & kgillers

So IRL there is this slight delay between moving your head and the PNVS image moving? Makes sense if so, just wondering.

Yeah that one gets a lot of people

Would be a nice thing to have vs older insurgent manpads

Exactly, the problem lies with the missiles. I haven't been shot down once by AMRAAMS since the update whilst flying a jet, which is telling.

Wondering wether this will be added at some point?

Noticed AIM-9's also go almost 90 deg off the rails in MP, losing a lot of energy. It feels like it's only the Russian missiles that are properly functioning atm. Scoring kills with them is easy peasy. Btw, the 120's issues have nothing to do with the F14, the 120's are equally bad against all the other jets, it's just awful. Still haven't shot any jet down with it yet, only a couple of helis. And haven't been shot down by it yet either when flying the F16 or Su27