HWasp

Withholding all payments, if true, is a real brute force method even if the cause is legit. Priority should have been to keep the show on the road while lawyers fight in the background, if necessary. This way both parties loose in the long term on this.

I think, way too much damage was done already. Talented and seasoned devs leaving DCS completely is real long term damage... This whole thing is just sad.

Just to make it clear for those people, who are not familiar with this: Outside air temperature has a very large effect on jet performance. Usually a standard temperature of 15 degrees Celsius is used for tests and diagrams. DCS default is 20 C. Higher temperature leads to decreased performance.

I've finally got to replay the track in DCS, and this is much worse, than I thought. OP has set the temperature to 41 degrees Celsius in the "test" to get the wanted results.... So it turns out this is not a case of simple incompetence and lack of knowledge, but an actual attempt at disinformation (a really bad one though ) Not sure if this should be just laughed at or reported to the mods. I would think, spreading misinformation on purpose here just to bait people is a bit too much.

That's unlikely due to the radar of the F-4. It will be difficult to avoid merges. Once there F-4s will need to be very careful not to get sucked into a low speed fight, because as mentioned above, the DCS 21 does overperform there quite a bit. It will be interesting, can't wait...

Well, both are at the G limit in this case. Corner speed is the minimum speed, at which the aircraft can pull the maximum G available (regardless of speed loss). In this case, the lowest speed, where 7.5G is available. This will also produce the max ITR. Max STR will come at a higher speed, where the Ps0 line meets the 7.5G limit. OP flew much faster than either of these speeds for the given weight, so it's all invalid.

Just to keep it short and simple: Maximum sustained rate occurs in this case, where the 7.5G limit (in this config) can be first maintained without losing speed at constant max.AB. That speed will be around 400 or less for the given weight. OP is flying much faster than that, resulting in lower rates than the maximum available (even 490 in the second turn). OP is also obviously not keeping constant max AB, as that would result in acceleration at those speeds and Gs. What you see on the tacview are 2 random turns at different speeds (not even held constant..,), neither of which are anywhere close to the actual maximum performance of the aircraft.

It is obvious, that you lack basic understanding of the subject you are trying to post about. Please, at least try to educate yourself about basic concepts, like what maximum sustained rate is, before trying to correct others...

There are 3 modern fighters in DCS World (that I know of), where no public EM diagram or similiar solid performance data is available. I didn't want to start a discussion about them, since this is the F-16 thread, but it's easy to find out which ones I'm talking about.

I think the F-16 is correct as is, it matches public data, it's been reviewed multiple times. IF relative performance of the modules is not accurate, I would be more suspicious about some of the other modules, where there is no public data available...

Yes, I've seen many. That's one of the reasons I never liked the old FM.

I love some aspects of the update, the general handling, the new nose authority, but there are aspects of the performance, that are very difficult to believe. The way, it can pull though the vertical at low speed at 40+ degrees of AoA, and the things it can do inverted.... These things should be looked at I think. Here is another very safe demo flight: newF18_50%demo.trk

Maybe you should look at the actual diagram instead of just reading the numbers only, then you could observe, that at the 7.5g limit the "normal" speed for max STR is around Mach 0.6, which is close to 400 kts and around 20,6-7 dps.

50% fuel take off DCS standard 20C Some of these maneuvers, especially the negative AoA ones look very wrong to me. What is the TWR at 50% fuel? newF18_50%_2.trk

I'm sure there will be many people complaining. My guess, how it will go in multiplayer: Get F-4, load full fuel, 3 bags, 8 missiles, take off 30nm from frontline. Try to use sparrows, but all the MiGs are in the ground clutter of course, so waste one shot maybe. Drop the tanks, merge with MiG-21, still having full internal fuel and 2-3 sparrows and all the aim-9s on the aircraft, try to use the vertical, but this a 21bis and DCS so it does not work, loose speed, struggle with controls, get shot, go complain on the forum. (Just joking ) Regarding the video, I think, everyone needs DCS hours and practice on the given DCS module to get good at flying that particular DCS module, regardless of their background and training. Even if you'd get an F-14 pilot there, who has never flown DCS, practice would still be needed most likely because the actual controls are completely different for example.

If you mean, that they should properly finish the existing ones first, thats ok, nothing against that. I don't really want anything that much, I'm just signalling my willingness to buy an A version of those planes, any of them, if/when they are available.

Valid point. My counter argument is, that new versions of the same plane could (and should) be used to finance graphic/system upgrades of the existing version. My other point would be, that I think the "fun" factor peaked in the 80s latest, and with all the other cold war jets in development, it would make sense to concentrate there and develop a more complete plane set for that period.

I don't really see, how this is connected to what I wrote, but you are not wrong. It really is annoying sometimes, I'd also prefer if modules would come out of EA quicker and get completed. I think that having more versions as I propose would not be against that, it might even help, since that would mean a dev group is more commited to a single type even if versions are quite a bit different, instead of starting something completely new.

I'd buy a F-16A, 15A, 18A "downgrade" even though I have the current modules. Weapon restrictions can solve the problem even right now, more or less, but of course that is not perfect.

I've made a track: You can easily take the DCS 21 into the vertical even below 400 km/h (215 kts), low speed handling and turn rates can be excellent if you don't mess up. Try doing this with the F-5... MiG-21_lowspeedhndlg.trk

The DCS 21bis is not a brick, far from it. It's even overperforming compared to the RL charts in the low speed regime, you just have to be able to control it well enough to keep it on the limit and avoid the stall. You can even keep it nice and stable beyond the red line on the AoA indicator, you just need coordinated control inputs (no slide slip) and careful pitch control, then you can have extremely good turn rates with it. With the emergeny afterburner power is not an issue either. Roll rate is very good as well. The DCS 21bis can dogfight against an F-5 or any other 3rd. gen on equal terms, there are many people doing it daily online on the Cold War servers...

GS is not the right place to start flying the MiG-29. Try BlueFlag '80 (the 1980s server version) or Tempest's server, there you can fight on more equal terms. (1980s weapon restrictions, no amraams flying around) The MiG-29's advantage over the Su-27 is it's superior kinematics, great acceleration and climb rate. You can pick your fights and get away from very hairy situations (if you have the fuel ) and you can give your R-27s a large boost in effective range with your speed. Flying low, trying to ambush people is a valid tactic on GS, with everyone else having amraams, but in the 1980s setting against Sparrows it's a completely different game. There, being high and fast is usually the winner tactic, and the MiG-29 is very very good at that.

I'd argue, that MiG-23 vs F-16A is not a bad comparison even in 1v1. It's much more problematic, when people compare it against the F-15 and F-14 directly in 1v1. That is when the economics and numbers really come into play, and that is completely disregarded in so many cases. By any metric (price, production numbers, deployment numbers), these top jets should be able to win the fight against superior numbers to pay for themself. Most arguments are about STR, missile and radar ranges, etc, only 1v1, but can the F-15/14 reliably beat MiG-23s in a 2v4 for example? Maybe, but it won't be an easy fight with Sparrows.

While older planes certainly need a bit more skill, learning and patience to operate, they can have a great advantage in this regard: Usually here one switch does one thing, and even if there seems to be more stuff on the surface, there is less complexity altogether. I have too many modules, and I often realize, after not flying a 4th gen for some time, that I can't remember the DMS left short + TMS down long + China hat forward + boat switch aft + blink twice + clap 3 times HOTAS command I would need for the mission... maybe it's just me. I never forget, how to operate the MiG-21 or the F-1, all I need is usually 5 mins of aerobatics, to build back muscle memory. That's much more fun for me compared to relearning the HOTAS. So, learning curve is steeper but useful knowledge is less perishable I think.

They'll certainly need to finish the F4U first, no way around that, but that can be a good thing as well, as that could generate a nice amount of income for the company, more resources for the next projects. Interesting plane, I'll buy that as well. What I really don't want them to do, is to handle a potential free MiG-21 2.0 upgrade as kind of a side project in between the new modules. I hope, that it is planned as main project, and for that, it needs to generate proper income. That is why I'd like to communicate my willingness to pay for it. I hope there are enough potential customers, like me, to support this route.