wilbur81

**Please Disregard** This behavior was only repeatable on one (older) mission. With further testing, it seems to be working as normal.

Gotcha... no worries. Wasn't quite sure what you were referring to with the Cruise missile allusion, but the A model Hornet could Super Cruise in certain configs. Though not as sleek as the Viper, the clean Hornet can get movin' a bit as well.

Sorry, man... I'm clearly a very simple man and I'm just not following you when GE themselves say their engine produces 29000lbs at Sea Level. Not sure what else to say there...though I could understand that thrust 'class' certainly could just be an "averages" way to talk about a more dynamic thing. They certainly could market their engine better by going with your dynamic numbers of 35K lbs at Sea Level. As to drag indexes of 50, "speed has almost nothing to do with T/W ratio," etc.... T/W has everything to do with speed, as long as drag doesn't over-compensate for thrust. The EM charts, as far as I'm aware, don't give you the three-bag, six-missile type info. So, drag index of 50, M1.9 capable - My questions: Does a Viper with three full bags and six Aim120C's (two of which are on the wingtips) have a Drag index greater or less than 50? Or, put another way: are you claiming that the Viper will do M 1.9 in the configuration shown in my example above? ED clearly doesn't believe so... for good reason. I'm not sure if you've ever read Hasard Lee's account of taking a completely clean Viper on a top speed run, but here's a brief excerpt: "Despite a significant amount of thrust still coming from the engine, the drag at 1.9 Mach [at 35K feet] caused the jet to rapidly decelerate, pushing me forward until my shoulder-harness straps locked." https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/this-is-what-its-like-to-take-an-f-16-to-the-absolute-limit/ And finally, Karasawa... I'm not quite sure what to make of your private message to me that stated: "Hi, thank you for these info. A 402 powered hornet should perform very closely to a viper." Are you using a different persona on the Public forums from your Private Messages? I'm just a bit confused, which I know you're very comfortable pointing out.

Did you read read my post and look at the screenshots carefully?

Indeed. I remember the first update a good while back when the Hornet first got its more realistic pylon drag implemented... and I wasn't happy. After that initial, "What did they do?" moment, I felt good about them getting closer to real-world for sure.

Literally everything you've stated in the above quotation is valid. I was responding to Carbon715's post with my test, not trying to say all there is to say about 'all the things.' Taking into account ALL that you've stated above, it is still VERY WELL possible that the DCS Viper is now more accurately depicting stores drag, which is why it appears draggier than before in highly loaded configs compared to more well-baked flight models like the Hornet.

I have taken these other variables into account... there is absolutely no question that the Viper is a sleeker (and in my opinion, a better looking ) and less draggy design than the Hornet, with less parasitic and overall airframe drag clean than an also clean Hornet airframe. The question you're seeking to answer is this: Does a three bag, six missile Viper at nearly full weight, heavier than the Hornet, have less drag than a no-bag, two pylon and lighter/higher T:W Hornet? I will let you PM the devs to have their experts answer that question and/or explain to you the rationale behind why they (may) have adjusted the drag on our latest Viper. As to your "Always trying to prove that the DCS F-16 should be nerfed" comment... I am a day-one pre-purchaser of the DCS Viper, have a 1:18th scale Viper hanging over my simpit (which is covered in 5 different Viper Sqd patches) have some real simulator time on the USAF ANG Blk 30 sim, close contact with a good friend who flies Viper's for the 75th (YGBSM) at Shaw, etc. I've been a Viper fan longer than the Hornet... ...but getting closer to reality is not nerfing. Ad hominem never makes one's case look very plausible.

This is probably ED getting a more accurate pylon/stores drag model on the Viper. The Hornet in this little test mission I created before yesterday's update has a better than 1:1 thrust to weight over the Viper's only 0.75:1 (the weights of both jets are shown in the screenshots attached). The Viper achieved Mach 1 in the exact same amount of time (32 seconds from mission start with full A/B and altitude hold, at the same altitudes and starting airspeeds) as the Hornet that had thrust to spare. Additionally, the Viper achieved a maximum speed of Mach 1.26 while the "slicker" Hornet only achieved Mach 1.2. Again, the Lot 20 Hornet's two F404-402s produce a total of 35,400 lbs of thrust while the Block 50 Viper's F110-GE-129 only produces 29,499 lbs of thrust. It sounds like they have gotten the drag values more realistic for the Viper.... but I've yet to test my attached mission on yesterday's new update. ViperHornet TtoW (1).miz

An air lunch decoy could help a lot of folks who struggle to say 'no' to those extra calories at mid-day-meals. But seriously, as someone who RELISHES landing the Hornet manually on the carrier in all weather, day/night... I'll take a complete, 99% bug-free, fully MSI integrated and working TWS, air-to-air radar before even thinking about anything you've listed above.

I've been compiling a list of Radar bugs (air to air stuff only) that are already marked "reported" or "investigating" that I've been considering asking ED about the possibility of either: a) Creating a separate "Radar" subsection in the bugs area of the forum. or b) Allowing for a sticky thread of marked -"reported" links to each and every Hornet Radar bug. This would merely be to keep important radar bugs from getting more and more deeply buried. (i.e. the TWS/MSI "jump around" bug, enemy missile lock bug, ghost TWS track bug, etc. ending up on page 6 or 7 of the bug tracker forum section.) The purpose of the thread WOULD NOT be for bitching and whining about the current state of things, but just to prioritize a bit and allow new reports of old or new radar bugs to get filtered to their appropriate place and, ideally, get addressed more promptly. (I'm sure ED has their own in-house bug tracker.) The conviction here is that the radar is the heart and soul of this awesome Navy fighter and it should (in my mind) be prioritized over other sensors that are a bit less complex. FLIR is awesome, but it doesn't have all the same complexity of the Radar and it's implementation. I would LOVE to see a real focus on our APG-73 and cleaning it all up. Again, on an entry level... it is an AMAZING achievement that ED has going with our current radar. But as you drill down a bit into multi-bogey, maneuvering engagements, flowing in and out of various modes, settings, and weapons...you notice all kinds of craziness that is hair-pulling-ly frustrating. To ED's credit, these are mostly acknowledged and, again, marked as "reported." Just wanting to see those marked as "fixed" in the nearer future if possible.

Looking forward to the surprise (at least to me ) expansion! Keep up the awesome work on this epic map!

Read the F-16 Program Manager's words from four posts back.

That is perfectly valid.

Couldn't have said it much better.

That is true. And yes. I've also heard of plenty of G-loc deaths... in the Eagle and Viper communities. Eagle, Hornet, Viper, Raptor, Talon, and all others have to deal with spatial disorientation and target fixation. But there are a higher number of G-loc incidents in the Viper community... leading (among other reasons for sure) to Viper getting it first. To get back to the original point made: F-16 pilots, along with ALL OTHER 9G platform drivers, can and will G-loc if they are not at their best... and some who are "9G Monsters" will have a bad day where, after the G-warmup, they'll say, "Not today for me..." It's not that hard. I know what everybody wants, though: This is a game and we want our virtual pilot to be that one guy who can talk comfortably at 9G's for 60+ seconds... and we want him only on the days that he's at his best... or we'll just pull a Growling Sidewinder and turn off G-effects, pull the Paddle-Switch in the Hornet, etc. etc. etc.

Pulling 8G's forever? You're right, not realistic. As with most things DCS, they've got a ways to go and they often (to our benefit and frustration) bite off more than they can chew. But "not at all" means not at all. And their present simulation of the benefits of G-warmup for tolerance are not "not at all." But who needs nuance?

The RWR on the HUD/JHMCS is literally a top down view. It works exactly the same way as the RWR MFD page and the (worthless) circle RWR buried in the bottom of the pit. I never pull up the RWR page in the Hornet because the nails on the HUD work the same way...and it's actually quite brilliant to have it right there in the HUD/JHMCS.

Nonsense, sir. Tell that to the USAF. You think that they implemented GCAS into the Viper community first based upon one individual case or because they were bored?

My buddy who flies Vipers for the 79th FS (YGBSM) at Shaw is 6ft 2in he said, aside from the neck problems that all the guys have that keep the base PT on full time therapy duty, a big frustration for him is that he actually has to crouch down and forward to even see through the HUD which, with the added awkwardness of the JHMCS, makes the neck problems even worse. Without the seat recline, my friend would literally not fit in the cockpit... particularly with the old-Viper-pilot-fist-above-the-helmet-test. Given that the added G tolerance is less than 1 G as said above, no new fighter design has implemented this. The benefits do not appear to outweigh the grief. I'm 5ft 8in barefoot and when I've sat in the Viper cockpit, it seems to fit absolutely perfectly, like a glove. The tall guys? Sheesh!

Hmmm... Interesting. They certainly look different to me... but I'll stand corrected, I guess.

Indeed. This is very true... particularly with JHMCS.

Indeed. And that guy or gal that is good at it may have days where they are not... or they'll be good at it for 15 minutes of intense BFM, then they start to tire... that's the point. DCS already actually does a fairly cool job with G tolerance. Put the wheels up and immediately crank into a 7+ g turn in the Hornet... the pilot will immediately start to black out in DCS. Do a few G warm up turns... the pilot will handle 7+ no problem. It would be super easy for ED to simulate accumulative G-exhaustion on a flight (e.g. first 9G turn after warmup: golden. second 9G sustained turn: getting tired and seeing a bit of the tunnel. third turn: starting to black out).

Indeed... here's an actual Viper pilot G-loc'ing for less than 2 seconds of 7G... life saved by GCAS. A person sitting still, staring straight forward in a centrifuge or in the back seat is WAY different than a pilot trying to actually fly, think, process, keep SA, check six, etc... As for the reclined seat... all indications are that General Dynamics made that design decision for really one reason only: to make the seat and pilot fit into the tiny cockpit of the Viper. The little bit of extra G-comfort was merely serendipitous... Hence why all the new modern fighters that are 9-G capable (Rafale, Typhoon, F-35, F-22, etc.) did not implement the 30 degree sit incline. People that think a pilot can tool around at 9 G's at will are just wrong. One of the main reasons for the G-warmups done before every BFM flight isn't merely to check the bleed air to the suit, but also for the pilot to see where he's at that particular day. His sleep, hydration, diet, mood, etc. could all dictate that, on one day, he might be able to pull and sustain 9g for a few goes... on another day, 6 or 7G might be too much. Anyone who's ever done any weight-lifting knows that some days feel like you've lost a ton of ground compared to what you lifted last week.

And here's an actual Viper pilot G-loc'ing after less than 2 seconds of 7G... life saved by GCAS. A person sitting still, staring straight forward in a centrifuge or in the back seat is WAY different than a pilot trying to actually fly, think, process, keep SA, check six, etc... As for the reclined seat... all indications are that General Dynamics made that design decision for really one reason only: to make the seat and pilot fit into the tiny cockpit of the Viper. The little bit of extra G-comfort was merely serendipitous... Hence why all the new modern fighters that are 9-G capable (Rafale, Typhoon, F-35, F-22, etc.) did not implement the 30 degree sit incline. People that think a pilot can tool around at 9 G's at will are just wrong. One of the main reasons for the G-warmups done before every BFM flight isn't merely to check the bleed air to the suit, but also for the pilot to see where he's at that particular day. His sleep, hydration, diet, mood, etc. could all dictate that, on one day, he might be able to pull and sustain 9g for a few goes... on another day, 6 or 7G might be too much. Anyone who's ever done any weight-lifting knows that some days feel like you've lost a ton of ground compared to what you lifted last week.