Kosmo

I never said my sources where from GF, I said real Viper drivers. Anyway I'm gonna stop responding now since this could go on forever without anyone convincing anyone of anything.

Vekkinho, yep I agree with that, it should be compared to F4 ;) and MSFS is a great platform for realism too. mvsgas, I don't doubt what you say, I'm not saying you're making it up or anything. I just happen to have heard many times from different Viper drivers that you don't have to trim for speed. As I said weight imbalances are a totally different subject, and there is also the possibility of trimming for airframe fatigue in old planes, that's why you probably see the trim needles not centered. To put my opinion/point more clearly. I have been able to reproduce real world F-16 flight and attack profiles in F4 to the number, including bank and dive angles, G's, speeds, altitudes, fuel rates etc, everything, and also reproduce what is seen in HUD tapes entirely, including the way the aircraft moves and feels.

mvsgas we've had this discussion before over at GF. No the F-16 does not have to be trimmed under normal flight, it does not have to be trimmed for speed like other ac as the FLCS does it automatically. Trimming for a weight imbalance or battle damage is another thing altogether, and while I agree that it's one of the few things not modelled (the weight imbalance) in F4, for me it's a very very small price to pay, mainly cause in all my Falcon years, I have never had a major weight imbalance anyway (one that would have an effect in the ac's behaviour). Just like deep stalls that are incorrectly modelled like Acedy mantioned (complex manouvering). I have never stalled the F-16 except on purpose so I could care less. GG.... I am not bragging, but I have wathced every video and HUD tape of the F-16 available on the net, and many that are not on the net, have read every technical article, manual, book and pilots' take on the F-16 I could find. The F-16 being my all time favourite fighter jet. And as much as you could tell by sitting in front of your computer and not feeling the plane actually moving through real air, yes as far as you are concerned it does fly on rails. Note I'm talking about the F-16 specifically, not FBW ac in general, becuase the others like the F-18 are not as advanced and actually behave a lot like to non FBW ac. The F-16 flies completely different. BTW: now where did I say FC's SFM is unrealistic? :) BTW2: Falcon is not the first and only sim I ever flew, I am perfectly comfortable with trimming in other sims.

It wasn't an attitude, I simply said he had no idea what he was talking about. He said that F4 had an unrealistic FM. False. Yes it does not feel like LOMAC. You don't feel the tertiary effects for example. Why? Cause that's how the real F-16 flies too. It's not unrealistic, as a matter of fact it's extremely close (99% identical actually) to the way the real F-16 flies and handles. Both in numbers and in feel. I was also annoyed a bit by the phrase "nothing beats LockOn for fighter jet realism", which in that context I read as "the only thing that makes a sim relistic or unrealistic is it's FM". I am just defending F4 here, not bashing or flaming LOMAC or it's users. I never got into LOMAC too much mainly because of it's lack of depth in systems and avionics modelling, which is my main concern, but I did fly it for about a month. Personally I found the FMs in LOMAC very good but a bit weird sometimes, the planes felt too twitchy and I couldn't get them to stay in trim for more than 5 seconds which was frustrating at least. I did play with my joystick settings a lot, but to no avail. But maybe that was just me. Or maybe I just had a really hard time adjusting to non FBW aircrafts after all this time flying the Viper. I have also (regrettably) not flown FC, where the Su-25T from what I understand should be miles ahead of the rest. Hey RT, nice to see one more familiar face here :) I am VERY interested in DCS and consider myself a customer already, however I don't care much for LOMAC or some (very few admittedly) of it's community members and their mindsets. But I'll probably pop in every now and then. As a fellow OF flyer, I would think you'd already know the answer to that question ;)

Damn. I knew from the beggining I should have never come to these forums. I know I shouldn't bother with this. But damnit it is so childishly annoying that I can't. Well here goes. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Well ofc, if they decide to model both it will be great, but I don't think they will. So If they model just one it's logical it will be the single seater, that's what I meant. And did it say what an F16C50 (d) is? Can you post a link to it? Maybe I read through the whole thread too quickly, the discussion was evolving around the CJ designation and I saw you mention a 50D. So I thought you meant the D model, my bad :)

Hi guys, first of all Feuerfalke, by blk 50D you obviously mean F-16D50 which is not the CJ (C model block 50/52), but the D model block 50 (the two seater). B and D are the two seater models of the A and C respectively, and there is no real meaning in modelling either one in DCS since they are not missionized in most countries that use them. The two seaters are used for training, the F-16 has a reduced workload and is a one man aircraft. AFAIK the only missionized F-16 D's are Israel's Sufas. The HAF D52+ is a trainer since somebody asked I think. Also in the picture you posted taken from the back seat, in the upper part of the reflection is definately the DED. If you watch it's position in the cockpit, the display's colour and the information's layout (if you are familiar with the F-16's DED - or just flip it and compare it to the rear DED barely visible in the pic), there's no mistaking it, while in the lower part of the reflection you can clearly see the front right MFD being on the same page as in the rear cockpit. Finally, the backup ADI is indeed not working. As you can see it displays straight and level flight while the attitude bars in the radar display (left MFD) show a left bank, and you can also see the red warning flag in the instrument, meaning it's not working. It's most probably just caged as mvsgas already pointed out. All the other instruments seem to be working fine. BTW mvsgas, the right eyebrow light you were missing is the Canopy light :p