==Wiggy==

CAT III limits AoA to 16-18° depending on GW. And limits roll rate to~40% of CAT I and further limits it based off Airspeed and AOA. It also limits yaw based on AoA and roll rate. And as was said already above, had nothing to do with G, and everything to do with not departing controlled flight.

What I posted above is correct.

I should.clarify that the above is how it *should* work. I have not tested this in DCS but based on my experience it feels like this is happening on some level. Is it correct or over done? I can't say at this point.

I was incorrect on aoa only. It's also roll rate. Approx. Something like this: With CAT III AoA is limited to 16-18° depending on GW . Roll: Max roll rate is reduced ~40% of CAT I. Further reductions are function of AoA and Airspeed. Yaw: Max pdeal deflection reduced by AoA >3° or roll rates >20°/sec.

CAT III should simply limit AoA to 15. That's it. I don't think it should change the input sensitivity at all IRL, but I'm not 100% on that part. If I understand correctly. The DCS version of CAT III changes the sensitivity making the jet feel heavier by damping the control input. That has been my experience as well. There are specific loadouts that require CAT III otherwise it's CAT I. But even 2 wing bags and TGP and ECM is still CAT I. It takes a lot to go Cat III.

Good points Skyblazer et Al. I'm really glad to see that all responses here have been helpful and/or mature. Thumbs up. Skyblazer good points. Important for guys to remember that just because an airplane has the ability to do something doesn't mean that a given pilot is flying to that game plan or has the discipline to.fly to specific parameters without getting buck fever. So there's still ample opportunity for skillful execution to play a factor in the fight. If you're fighting your clone, well, then you have to hope for a mistake to be made.

Hummingbird, what configuration? Clean only? (Which is unlikely scenario to ever meet one) unless you're in JDF server I suppose.

I believe there is a warning in the 3-3 that talks about fighting superior AoA adversaries. So.there is much to be said about "know thine enemy" when it comes to air combat. There is also something to be said about the absence of the element of mortal Risk within a simulation vs RL. Meaning that unless you are training and fighting with others who share the same goals and objectives (in this case a realistic employment of BFM/ACM) then you'll find that people will do almost anything at times in order to come out victorious, including that which would never be done in reality (because for us it's only a game) because it's far too risky. So it's important to recognize that there is going to be an element of gamesmanship because there's no mortal risk or consequence for failed execution. If you.can find a group that shares your same goals for.the sim it makes all the difference. It will ensure that you are all on the same page regarding execution. Outside of that you may find that guys will exploit the sim to achieve victory. An example of this that comes to mind is AoA limiter paddle switch use in the hornet. AFAIK this is restricted for use in the real jet.

Hey deadpool, I agree the F16 currently feels a bit under powered. I do think that most people, myself included, can tend to over look our BFM errors and chalk things up to some known inaccuracy in the simulation. I bet we could go through the TV of your sortie and see where and how you could have changed your fight in order to drive toward a victory. I'd say some of the most common BFM errors are 1. Incorrect Airspeed at TCE. 2. Failure to identify winning or losing cues. 3. Failure to identify attack cues. 4. Failure to properly repo. 5. Incorrect execution of turn reversal. I'd say these are my top 5. These are just a few. But they are ones I observe a lot. These have nothing to do with a specific jet, they affect all jets equally. Do any of these, more than another guy and you're going to see some poor results. F-16 specific, My top 3 would be: 1. Failure to maintain TCE Airspeed. 2. Failure to achieve/exceed limiter pull. 3. Opening the turn circle due to high thrust.

The more I've tested the the Gex warmup, the more my mind is changed that the g tolerences are ok. The F-16 does need to change a bit in the sense that It needs to allow for a more sustained 9g pull without blacking out within 3 seconds. However as pointed out above your 9g threshold is small and with an actual combat load or observed Bingo fuel state, is not likely to actually appear. To the point of the OP, just a quick rough guesstimate revrals, 22% fuel is like ~1600 lbs of gas. So not really the fuel state you want to be in when starting a bout of BFM/ACM when you're still miles from home or a tanker. In reality you would.have Bingo'd out well before that. So.i.think you're right, a level headed approach as to managing expectations vs reality is always healthy.

Great paint scheme!

UPDATED DOWNLOAD LINK

JUST INFORMED THAT THE STARBOARD SIDE "OR" IS UPSIDE DOWN. fIXED AND REUPLOADING. SORRY FOR INCONVENIENCE!

Okay I think I'm finally finished with this one!

WWII Asset Pack B-17G. Thank you.

DOWNLOAD LINK

Guys look at the Sticky at the top of the forum.

There has for some time been an issue with getting the B-17G materials to look right in the game. After much trial and error, research and networking with other SME's, I'd like to recognize "Rudel" (at the present time, it might change) from the DCS:Livery Art Group Discord, for helping me figure out what the problem ultimately was with why Model Viewer and the actual Sim were not showing the same thing. The Problem is the B-17G XXX.JSON file located here: C:\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\tech\WWII Units\Shapes I'm not a an expert on the matter, however, deleting this file allows the SPEC files to be rendered correctly. There is still a problem with the Default SPEC files for the exterior of the B-17G. The GREEN channel must be inverted for them to display correctly. However that will have to be manually done by the user. This fix will allow painters to apply realistic materials settings to the exterior now. Following the SPECULAR file rules. I won't go into those here. The tires of the B-17G are also incorrect and look like they have a varnish applied to the exterior of the default textures. However, all this can be fixed, with this JSON file deleted. I've tried every combination of applying the "ROUGHMET" treatment. Using all variations of channel inversions with RGB and File naming convention. I cannot get the use of Rougmets even if called out in the description .lua to work. Nineline has suggested that the devs are aware that it is not operable at this time. Which is honestly fine. This fix more than makes up for it. And you can achieve essentially the same look. I have no idea, and don't claim to know if this fix will break IC. At the time of this writing I have not tried it. Personally I cannot tolerate the visual experience enough with the broken rendering that I simply would turn IC off in order to use the B-17 and have a pleasant experience escorting the big boys with their Little Friends. See the image below for my texture tests. I've redone the base coloring and built SPEC files from scratch. You can achieve very good results IMHO. Roughmets or not. Thanks, I hope this helps the painters out there to start populating the skies with authentic looking B-17's!

It's a reference to the A-12 OXCART program. The precursor to the SR-71. They were originally painted in a limited black, 2 tone with natural metal.

No idea bro. I just started painting it. Honestly, if it's not, I can't stand seeing the broken textures enough that I won't fly with them in the sim. It bothers me that much. So I'll fly with my group and we'll turn IC OFF if need be.

Ok, here's the fix -- Invert the green channel in the SPEC files. Delete the following file from the WWII Asset pack SHAPES folder: B-17G.lods.json

Wow, I just saw your reply. I hadn't taken it into the sim yet. But sure enough...doesn't work. I've brought it up with NineLine and sent him my files. So that ED can take a look at it. It should be an easy fix on their end. need to set the 3D materials correctly in the model .edm file is my guess. probably just missing a check box somewhere. then reexport the model. They can even use my RoughMets if they fix it and let me know. I'll do the work for them. You can't get a better offer than that! LOL...