HWasp

I don't think that is needed in this case, it doesn't even make too much sense at this point to start a debate about the subject, because the MiG-21's radar modeling is extremely outdated with all kinds of workarounds. It has little in common with the latest and greates, like the F4, I think, that is common knowledge. It just simply needs a proper overhaul. Hopefully with the release of the Corsair, the team can start real work on the MiG-21 2.0 and it will be redone to the current standards.

Those more modern 29s would be a trap if you are after capabilities a competativeness, because they would not fit well into the late 1980s cold war scenarios, while still at a large disadvantage in more modern scenarios with their base model R-77s against the aim-120 carriers. More air to ground capability but in a worse overall position. The 9.12 we are getting could be very competative in the late 1980s setups against all the other 4th gens limited to aim-7s, the FC3 we have already is. There is an audience for older machines, people buy the F-14A/B, even though it's not the latest version, they also buy the F-4E, even though it's not some late modernised version. I'll skip the F-35 but I'll buy the good old MiG-29...

I have no problem with ED using reasonable assumptions and public knowledge to create a sim game module, just don't call it full fidelity then. And since reasonable assumptions are on the table, go ahead and create a J-20 and Su-57 etc with it in the forseeable future, so that this becomes a proper part of the game that is fun to play on the long term.

The US had a lot of accurate information on Soviet jets (CIA>ED imo ) so I don't think this is a good point. They also acquired Soviet jets to test, when they could.

I don't know why so many people are interested in replaying/playing US vs 3rd world one sided conflicts. Yes, those are the ones that happened in the past and are the most likely in the near future, but still, what is the purpose of it? Roleplaying? That's ok once or twice, but it will get old for me quickly. I have no intention to fly against 4th gens in a 5th gen, or to do "realistic" missions against some old SAMs. I need an interesting environment for this, like J-20s and latest chinese ADs for example, but those cannot be realistically recreated either, because there is simply not enough info out there obviously. The question is then, why would I learn to operate an aircraft in the sim just for the sake of learning, when I know, that it will not be anywhere near as accurate as the F-4 for example, which was created based on tons of accurate docs and SME info (without all the secrecy). My point is, if ED wants to go 5th gen and modern warfare, then just do it separately from the rest. Create a new product line, that is not advertised as full fidelity, and then go ahead and create the proper environment as well with interesting adversaries. I would honestly be interested to fly an "expert level educated guess" of a J-20 or Su-57, knowing very well that it's just a game at that point, but at least it's interesting.

The honest way to do this would be to introduce a new "medium fidelity" product line positioned between FC4 and full fid. Doing the F-35 is fine, just don't try to pretend that it will be on the same level as the A10C or the F-4 is...

This should have been a FC4 level thing with an "educated guess" of a J-20 and Su-57. I don't believe, that this will be accurate, sorry, not a chance. What would I even use this thing in DCS for? Hunt blind 4th gens and drop jdams on targets defended by 1980s SAMs that have no chance?

There was on old thread, still with the old FM, where I tried to compare DCS to some HUD footage. In DCS it took quite a bit less AoA to reach the same G. Just for info, as these are of course connected.

The core issue was/is the split between HB and Mag3, they were one company at the time of the 21s initial release. Mag3 never really got traction and fell behind without any serious releases, it just looks like that they never had proper resources since then. I think the only way forward for them is to finally release the Corsair in an acceptable state, and finally earn some serious money to be able to move forward. I also want a MiG-21 update ASAP, and I'm willing to pay for it. I hope, that once they get some new cash flow, they can finally expand their team and start working at a better rate. That all being said, I'm still a happy customer, I can have fun with the plane as is, but the MiG-21 really deserves a proper overhaul.

That's understood, thanks. Just to avoid any possible confusion, that last post was based on my own test submitted here previously, at equal fuel levels (both at 50%), not based on Contact Light's work. I think ED-F-18 vs ED-F-16 basic performance in-game should not be up for debate, that is something we just need to test with reasonble accuracy, and that's it.

In GAO config (60%fuel, 2xaim-9m, 2xaim-120b) I'm getting 19,8 dps at 405. That's 0,6 above the published data. (19,2) Tacview-20240629-182709-DCS-F_18_STR_GAO_405_2.trk.zip.acmi F_18_STR_GAO_405_2.trk

What is the situation with the F-18's fuel burn review? There was a thread, already closed about that topic, but it looks like, it's not fixed yet. I've just tested it in DCS at around 360 kts (just because it works for both jets): The F-18 burns around 64000 lbs/h there in full AB (total) while the F-16 burns around 68000 lbs/h So: F-18 -- (total static thrust : ~157 kN) ---- fuel flow: 64000/h F-16-- (total static thrust : ~131 kN) ---- fuel flow: 68000/h This looks like unrelated, but it is not, because this has an effect on the starting fuel requirements and therefore weight. So this is very much connected to the bfm experience in DCS in practice.

Yes it's close, but "anecdote" clearly states, that the F-16 has the slight advantage. That does not happen in DCS, so we can't call it perfect just based on that. "Clean vs clean, and we just have a very small advantage in the F-16." "Both Clean wing, and they are virtually the same with a slight advantage to the F-16." This is not the case in DCS. If the F-16 had that little +0,5 dps at some point, then we could say case closed.

Big mess, as always... I think, it's important to note, that with the usual dogfight server setup, where fuel is set to give 5 minutes of AB time, people will start with a 83% F-16 against a 50% F-18, that is why Contactlight's F-16 chart is set for that weight, so people will experience a 19dps F-16 against a 21 dps F-18 in practice in DCS intially. Both at 50%, STR is close indeed. It's important to note though, that the F-16 does not get the advantage at any point afaik. If we take the text quoted by Wilbur as a datapoint, we'd need to see the F-16 ahead somewhere a little bit, in my opinion.

I turned off G modeling, it would be miserable to test this otherwise, also fuel is set to unlimited to give me time to do the same exact circle over and over again, with the exact same weight.

No problem. STR is a close to 21 dps in that test.

Contactlight's F-16 chart for 83% fuel max STR is accurate for clean aircraft at 15 C (as expected) My STR is slightly higher, just above 19dps, because limiter allows 9,3G in this condition, so that is what I used. If that is the equal AB time fuel vs the 50% F-18, then the Hornet will have the STR advantage clearly throughout the fight. (Yes, without the damned paddle, 7,5G limit!!!) I hope, we can finally put an end to this debate about obvious facts, because it is really annoying. F_16_STR_83%_M08_1.trk Tacview-20240628-130547-DCS-F_16_STR_83%_M08_1.trk.zip.acmi

Let's continue with this: So, first of all, the best rate speed for the viper at this weight is not at 450, but I did the test there because, that is what you claimed. A big problem with your tests is, that you don't have unlimited fuel, so basically only your first turn is valid (as weight decreases rapidly as you know) and of course your speed varies way to much. So the fact is, the Viper is not between 22 and 23 dps, but it is between 20 and 21 dps (around 20,5) for that speed and weight. (Of course all tests done at 15C) Your speed control is inaccurate, the weight is not constant and you are measuring with an inacurrate tool (that tacview table), so that's invalid. As you can see, in my test speed is held within +/-10 kts to the target at worst and +/-5kts most of the time. Tacview-20240628-123234-DCS-F_16_STR_450_1.trk.zip.acmi F_16_STR_450_1.trk

Ok, so I didn't want to react to this BS before I could actually demonstrate it, so here you go: F-18 (50%) happily sitting right on the limiter between 7,4 and 7,5 G doing 390 sustained. For an extended period. You can't just make stuff up based on what you can or can't do. Is it practical in BFM or is better to target 360 instead? Now that is your choice, but when flying tests vs charts, that is not how it works. (BTW the actual max STR will be around 385 for this weight, because being right at limiter is already decreasing performance a little bit.) F_18_7_5_STR_390_1.trk Tacview-20240628-115721-DCS-F_18_7_5_STR_390_1.trk.zip.acmi

You have valid points, but as you can see here, even the most simple stuff, flying the plane around in circles at constant speed causes all kinds of disagreements, so let's not mix in the complex stuff just yet.

This is getting really, really interesting, I can't wait to get home to see all this for myself. Shame that my flight got cancelled...

I'd put some money on that... I've seen some incredible "tests" by very vocal people on this forum before, my current favorite is one, where the temperature was set to 41 degrees Celsius to prove that the F-18 STR is lower than the F-16s...

Here is the 2024 one. At 7.5g approx 20.5 dps

I'll do a test on friday, when I get home, so we'll see. ED should model and test the whole flight envelope correctly, because it's a sim, and is meant to go beyond normal ops. That said, there are no separate flight models for this, it's the same flight model with different G limits. The Hornet already changes it's normal G limit depending on weight, this is not different to that, and it does not make diagrams magically invalid. What might be a problem, is that the diagram shown here is from 2022, but we'll see.

Please, don't start this nonsense about the paddle, it changes the G-limit, and that's it. It can be accounted for by drawing the 7.5G limit on the chart, as shown before, that's it, no magic involved. That being said, I'll probably end up uploading some tracks during the weekend, and I'll.do it without the paddle. I'm much more interested if that 23 dps for the 50% fuel F-16 claim by Hulkbust44 will hold up or is it complete bs...