Dee-Jay

Well. Not anytime soon. DCS crash on launch (black screen) ... "DCS Repair" didn't worked. Will have to suppress/re-install from scratch.

@Snake122 I've made a video for you showing the CATI vs CATIII effect: Search on YouTube "F-16 CATI / CATIII roll departure protection (Dee-Jay for Snake122)" ... it should be visible for now. I don't know. I'll do the test, but CATIII is currently bugged. Its roll rate on max deflection is about half of what it should be.

Hi! If FM/FLCS are realistically made, it is implicit since the FLCS it maintaining "artificially" the control of the a/c which is naturally unstable. Remove/inactivate the FLCS module (if DCS is modeled as is) ... the F-16 should be "unflyable". I do not remember the exact procedure/configuration, but something you can test is on a specific CATIII asymmetric (or not) conf, fly HART under CATI. You should depart much easily. Regards.

Hi! Not that easy actually. ;) Many of those pilots are experimented and/or discovering the AGMS tectonics. To be demonstrative, the Anti-G pant/G-suite is not worn and/or not connected ... or ... not inflated depending on the protocol running. For instance, when I've made my centrifuge session some years ago, I didn't had my G-suite plugged. Goal we just to discover/refresh the effects, AGMS maneuvers, ... etc ... not to practice/train in full scale. To model it "correctly" (standard model), the best is to work in collaboration with experimented pilots and mostly with aeromedical technicians/doctors. This is how I made it when working on the subject, helped by the staff of the french air force IRBA institute (Military Biomedical Research Institute) based on Stoll model and adapted to flight simulation. Regards.

Nope. CATIII is a protection against roll departure. It is not and has never been a G protection since under CATIII FLCS allows to pass over 5.5Gs whatever your actual loadout. G protection is a urban legend and common mistake/misunderstanding of what CATI/III switch is.

Hi! ... since no Frankenviper planned , so it should not be implemented in DCS (US F-16 BLK50/52). + + Discussion there : https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3914343&postcount=1 AFAIK, LAU-88 has been "approved" for operational use on IAF only. Risk of destroying the optics of other missiles present on pylons during launch is very high. So the interest if somehow limited and risky. Regards.

Actually, it is the opposite. AOA is paramount. Remember, AOA is about a/c control. Over G is over G ... well, no big deal. Over AOA is loss of lift and loss of control.

Of course we can give credits ... if it is based on factual arguments. I have a bit more flight hours than him, something about 6000. If speaking about my own aircraft, I can tell you roughly if something is consistent or not. But I would be unable to tell you the exact distance required from brake release to lift off at 28°C, on a 2800ftMSL airfield ... I need the charts for this. My remark is then "global". I mean: Do not simply (and sometimes blindly) trust a pilot whatever its rank, experience ... whatever. Especially on computer simulation. There is too much "feeling" into this. One can give "weight" to a 5000+H pilot of course ... but I am somehow "surprised" that he didn't noticed some flaws well known by non F-16 pilots! ... Of course, you are free to give your trust to whoever you want and I fully understand that it is this man. However, that does not prove that he is right. Personally, while feeling is also something to consider ... I tend to trust facts and figures. Past development also tends to show that is is actually a safer approach: We have several example where our F-16 driver were wrong and he had to prove himself wrong by looking at actual figures obtained on serious test in flight rather than "a feeling". IIRC, air-brake efficiency was one of the last case I remember: He said "air-brakes are too much efficient", *we* said "Nope buddy.", he said "Yes brothers", we said "Do the test in flight using xxx protocol, we predict xxx ..." , he said "Ok I'll do the test in flight tomorrow" ... then two days ago he said "Ok guys, you're right." Something to note: In some cases, official technical manuals/documentations were been proven wrong/out to date. This is to be considered also during development from time to time. Can't tell anything about the F-18. I "do not know" that jet. Cheers!

CATIII is limiting roll rate. But I can't tell you now if it is a consequence of AOA limitation or directly limited by FLCS. It is however about two (IIRC) times too much limited on DCS's F-16.

Hi Gavagai! You should ask him if he noticed that, when established in constant roll, releasing stick action stops instantaneously the roll motion with no inertia just like if roll rate was countered by FLCS ... Ask him also to fly inverted and switch in landing gain, see what happens ... Ask him about the roll rate in CATIII ... ... etc ... and more ... Your pilot is typical to some friends of mine (with the same amount of flight hours) who didn't noticed that the M2000 they were flying in my sim were just a skin over an F-16 FLCS. I am jet pilot too ... (not F-16 though) be careful with pilot's feedback. ;) FM evaluation is not just about a feeling. It is about figures and specific behavior/functions. Please refer to that discussion: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4384854#post4384854 There is still some work to do on that F-16, stuff to correct and fix, especially on FLCS. No need to be a 5000H F-16 to know/see it. Do not fall into any kind of authority bias. Anybody, including RL F-16 pilots can mistaken or miss some points. Approach has to be scientific to be valid. Kind regards.

That could be another typical example: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.phpp=4433457&postcount=2 Something looking like: "Try this, tell me what do you think." "Its great! Awesome!" "Okay, validated." ... Mmmm...

Sure it is possible in dive. But airframe won't really suffer from overspeed (except maybe abnormal structural fatigue in long term) ... But engine (mainly compressor) will suffer.

F-16 airspeed limitation is an engine limitation. Not an air-frame limitation.

Hi! 1. Nope. 2. Early acess = wip

TGP gives a fair amount of asymmetry and requires roll trimming with airspeed fluctuations. Not because of weight per say but certainly because if drag. Trims could be easily fixed if they do not make it simply as an all or nothing logic. Everything is on RL FLCS diagrams, they just have to copy/paste the logic.

The real challenge on F-16 about AAR: Very "existing"! :thumbup:

That doesn't exist on F-16 (not BLK50 generation at least ... don't know for 60/70).

Hi Mower! It is ... but badly (CATIII is wrongly implemented).

Hi! If DCS F-16's FLCS is correctly simulated, the build-in curves are already implemented. Adding (or reducing) curves will affect the flight model and flight behavior (same about dead zone). But it is up to you. Regards.

And ... if the tanker itself climb few feet of descent few feet (air mass is not perfect, Tanker's AP is not perfect, ... etc ...) Your FPM does not tell you anything relevant relative to the tanker. Same about your airspeed. Your absolute reference is (must be) the Tanker. Again, it is formation flight. You will detect any relative speed/position deltas better and earlier than with any instruments. Trust us. Practice without HUD ... once you know how to fly in formation, your life will never be the same. :thumbup:

I do also see this issue. But I do not fly the F-16 anymore for the moment because it is to much WIP/unfinished/bugged. (F-16 and Stable) ... Patiently waiting for something a bit more ... F-16ish.

Whatever you may think or believe ... The best thing you can do for progress is turning you HUD off and stop refering to your flight parameters. Your absolute reference is the tanker, not your aircraft. You dont need a speed, you need a relative speed ... etc ... AAR is formation flight, and there is only one way to fly in formation => visual.

Hi! https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4304759#post4304759 F-16 do not have variable air inlet. Could be the reason ...

I imagine the "good" old INS which were requiring 30min of alignment and no GPS hybridisation (no GPS at that time). And about 2Nm drift per hours in nominal cases. Now IRS about 8min. EGI about 4min. And stored heading alignment ... 1.5 min ... 1.5min ... Big deal! :smilewink: And furthermore, fully GPS hybridised! :thumbup:

I did in some ways on another thread ... ;) Just curious about when it will be noticed by "Beta Testers" active on OB/EA. Now you know it is about landing gear. :smartass: