HWasp

Controlling radar elevation is one of the most basic functions, that is extremely important in any complex scenario. Quick and efficient radar control is one of the most important things, that often decides in the end, who wins the fight. It's been a very long time since release, and there is still no option to bind Jester radar elevation commands, to control the radar quickly and efficiently. I'm wondering, why is there still no option for this? Is there a game limitation? With any other single pilot module, it usually takes me 2-3 seconds to pick up new contact called out by GCI at some random direction and altitude. By comparison trying to control Jester to have the radar look where I want it takes forever, going through all those layers of that damned menu. Please, introduce a system, to control the radar more efficiently! One idea: Keybind to jump +/- 5000 feet elevation at the currently selected range Is there any limitation, why such a thing cannot be implemented? How is it going to work with the upcoming F-4?

OVER G OVER G OVER G OVER G OVER G OVER G Oh no! I can't pull 13 Gs casually, all the time anymore, what a tragedy.

Real aircraft's flight controls are very different to the simple sticks most people use. A stick extension + force feedback would solve this issue for many people instantly. Aircraft with hydraulic flight controls do have either artificial feel / force feedback or a system like MiG-21/19 where the control ratio is adjusted as speed changes. I think it is a valid problem, that the F-5 needs very careful hands at high speeds with the average joystick, but the correct approach to this is not letting people get away with their 15 g turns, but rather to adjust the flight controls a bit for the DCS F-5. There could be an option (in the control options menu), where you could select a help option, that would change the control ratio a bit as speed increases, making it more controllable for users with average equipement. (I mean just change it a bit not dumb it down completely, damage should still be very much possible if someone is too hamfisted) That being said, I don't find it too difficult at all to avoid ripping the wings off. I've been flying the F-5 in MP and I think it is not a huge issue at all. I think many people have developed some bad habits previously, finishing every single mission always with the G meter maxed out both directions...

So, just a quick test: Barrel roll at 8,6-8,9G with 2 aim-9s, and the same at 7,6-7,8 Gs with a full large centerline tank. Both cases I'm far beyond all the red lines and nothing happens. Why is this not enough? Was this maybe adjusted last patch? F-5wing1.trk F-5wing2.trk

I thought this was already clear... There is a weight figure with the same loadout at a different page of the same GAO document. You can see it highlighted if you check the link provided by Totmacher (page 62 btw) - The weight shown is 33325 lbs in the GAO document for 2xaim9 2xaim120 60% fuel - Clean Hornet with gun ammo is around 25500 lbs - 25550 lbs + 6500 lbs fuel (60%) + 1067 lbs (2xaim9+2xaim120) = 33117 lbs (I'm using DCS ME now to add things up, quickly but still only 200lbs dif.) - the weight of 4x Hornet pylon is 1240 lbs (in the manual) - 33117 + 1240 = 34357 lbs ----> Hornet with the pylons =/= 33325 lbs Hornet in GAO doc You can check this in DCS ME DCS Hornet with pylons + 2xaim9+2xaim120+6500lbs fuel = 34359 lbs DCS Hornet without pylons + 2xaim9+2xaim120+6500lbs fuel = 33120 lbs GAO doc ----------------------------------------------------> = 33325 lbs I guess it is clear, which one is closer. For me it's 7,3 G max at 33120 in DCS (with some 7,4 spikes)

The F-16 would be DI = 22 in that config. Wingtip Sidewinders are DI = 2 (the 2 together), the amraam + pylon is DI = 10, Obiously if the F-18 does not have the 4 large empty SUU 63 pylons, then the F-16 should not have the 4 large empty pylons as well!! The F-16 might be DI = 50 with the 4 large pylons attached, I did not check that, because it is irrelevant, since, the Hornet does not have it's 4 large pylons attached in the GAO doc config. Is this now understandable? The DI values for the F-16 are in the same manual, where the EM diagrams can be found.

Don't mean to be rude, but are you actually reading the posts here? There are NO PYLONS on the Hornet in the config mentioned in the GAO Document (where the STR = 19,2 is coming from) Check the link provided by Totmacher previously, that contains the the relevant parts of the document. Hornet weight in the GAO doc is 33325 lbs. If the pylons were attached, it would be approx 1200 lbs heavier! DI values come from the manual Wingtip mounted AIM-9s are DI = 0 (on the Hornet) . Wingtip mounted missiles have much better drag, since they help with induced drag (like a winglet) also the pylon is part of the normal config there. Fuselage mounted Aim-120 on the Hornet has a very low DI of 4. I think this is also quite understandable, why a missile sunk into the fuselage like that has much lower drag than on external pylons.

Because the 26k lbs chart for the F-16 is DI = 50. The Hornet config is DI = 8. F-16 with the same loadout would be DI = 22

Thank you very much! Ok, so in summary: - GAO doc config is : 60% fuel, 2xaim-9, 2xaim-120, no pylons, 33325 lbs, DI = 8 - In this config DCS Hornet STR is 20,2 > 19.2 GAO doc Hornet STR I think, since a track was already provided, this is enough evidence to check the Hornet FM and adjust it to match the value found in the GAO doc. Regarding the F-16, since the DI=50 chart is not a valid comparison (STR 18,5), and of course the 22000lbs DI=0 (STR 21,7) is also not valid, and the GW adjustment chart seems very very rough, no direct comparison can be made.

I had to do some research regarding this: On page 62 of the same Gao doc there is a thrust to weight comparison, where they use the same config: 2xAIM9+2xAIM120+60%fuel With this config they calculate with a weight of 33325 lbs empty weight (25500lbs) + 2x 196lbs (aim9s) + 2x 347lbs (aim120) + 6570 lbs (60%fuel) = 33156 lbs (with my limited data) SUU 63 pylon weight is 310 lbs If I would add 4x SUU 63, that would be + 1240 lbs So, if they would calculate with pylons attached, they would calculate with 34400 lbs + on page 62 They only calculate with 33325 lbs, so that means logically, that on page 30, where the STR of 19,2 dps is mentioned with the same config, they do not have the pylons attached as well. This means, that DI is not 50 , it is much less. On the Hornet for me this config gives, without the pylons, DI = 8 This means, that it is wrong to compare the 19,2 d/s value to the DI = 50 chart of the HAF F-16 manual! The same weapons load gives a DI of 22 for me in case of the F-16 Please test the DCS Hornet against the gao doc 19,2 STR without the pylons,at a weight of around 33300 lbs!

The gao says the Hornet loadout is 2xAim-9 + 2xAim-120 no tanks The Hornet manual says: 2x wingtip Aim-9s DI = 0, Fuselage loaded aim-120 DI = 4 That is DI = 8 for the Hornet in this config. (no pylons, but they were not mentioned) F-16 : 2x wingtip aim-9 DI = 2 2x lau129 + aim 120 DI = 20 So that is DI=22 for the F-16 in the same config for me. What am I missing? (no empty pylons)

Can you point me towards the source of information, that confirms this? It has the same rate as the F-15C in my test. (I honestly don't care which one is better, but there is just so much questionable info thrown around on these forums, especially since publishing data and charts is forbidden... no offense)

Wrong. There. 7.5G line is marked, clearly outrates the Viper flying at best rate speed (9G/460).

It would create a range of uncertainty, that people should avoid, without having to nail it down to a single exact value, which could be debated forever. Also different examples of the same type may break at different points, becasue of an endless number of reasons (different age, flight hours, condititions, usage, etc etc etc), so I don't think, that it would be unrealistic. I meant it so random, that there would be a dice roll every time someone gets into the range, where it could happen, so being able to pull 12Gs on one turn would not mean, that the next turn it will not fall apart at 11. My suggestion would be to allow a reasonable overshoot of let's say 1,2x to 1,3x the normal limit, after that there could be a range for random damage (causing some slight asymmetry), and after that a range for structural failure. Same could be done for overspeed.

There are 2 different things here: 1. The ultimate G limit of 10. (with no roll input) 2. The behaviour in case of a roll input. Roll input does increase the AoA and the G with the same elevator position, also it does increase the load on the wing, where the aileron deflects down. This does seem a bit harsh, maybe it could be tuned down a little bit. For this they'll need some tracks, as they requested in the bug report thread. As for the ultimate limit, nobody really knows, when an aircraft will deform and break exactly. That is the reason for the well known 1,5x to be there, because that is the only way to make sure, that the aircraft will survive the normal, published G limits 99,99999% of the time. It is not meant as some hidden reserve. I'd personally prefer a random ultimate G limit, changing between 1,4x to 1,7x (just 2 random numbers in the middle somewhere...) + a dice roll for some damage, otherwise it is an endless debate, that nobody really knows the answer for.

Just to be clear, the wings now break just above 10 Gs currently for a 2x Aim-9 config. So, you need to sneeze at them pretty damn hard I think. Possibly this needs some more fine tuning maybe, as 7,3x1,5 is 10,95G, but it is still much more realistic this way, than everyone pulling their 15G turns at every merge, because they can. (PS 10G seems to be the exact limit for me in this config)

F-5 Starfighter

I don't think that weight difference would be large enough to change the results significantly, but it might be a good idea to do a test, that accounts for that as well.

F-16C vs MiG-29A vs F/A-18C

For the F-18 vs F-16 discussion, since there was a lot of empty talking and misinformation in some previous threads: 1. As you can see on the chart above, the DCS F-18 outrates the HAF F-16 (and the DCS F-16 as it is very close) in the normal envelope Best rate F-18 7,5 G / 370 > Best rate F-16 9 G at 460 2. The F-18 can have a disadvantage in the rate fight only if the 7,5 G limit is respected in a horizontal turn over 390 kts (if viper at 9G/460) 3. If the F-18 pilot decides not to respect normal G limits, then, F-18 destroys everyone in the rate fight, including the F-16. Some additional things I found interesting: In 5 G level turn both the F-18 and the F-16 accelrate from 320 to 400 in 7 seconds, and from 320 to 450 the F-16 has only about 0.5 second advantage So average PS (Kts/s) 320-400 at 5 G F-16 - +11,4 kts/s F-18 - +11,4 kts/s F-16recovery_320_450_DCS.zip F-18_320_450-DCS.zip

F-16 vs F-18 turn rates

Some tacviews. M2000_SL185_170_470_.zip F-15SL_170_250_325.zip F_18_SL281_230_430.zip F-16_SL_220_250_470.zip

First of all, sorry for the horrible looks of the E-M chart I tried to create, I know it looks bad, but the data is reasonably accurate enough for the sake of a simple comparison. Sea Level, T = 20 C Clean aircrafts, no pylons Fuel = 10% of aircraft empty weight (that is in line with HAF F-16 manual's 22000 lbs config ) F-16C line is created from datapoints extracted from the F-16 HAF manual's appendix All other data is from DCS via Tacview Accuracy is not great, but it is only meant for basic aircraft comparison, and to figure out if any anomalies are present.

Thanks, any data might help.

Thank you for the detailed reply! Some further explanation, why I did things the way I did: -As you have said, sadly there are no detailed performance charts available for many modules (Jf-17, M2000, F-18 afaik), so trying to do a detailed comparison like that, against real data, is already impossible unfortunately. What remains is crosscheck for possible gross errors. - The main goal of the test was to try to step away from the Ps=0 tests, from which there were plenty already, and I'm convinced, that if there are problems, it is most probably not in that area, because it easily and frequently tested. -If you look at the second test, it wasn't a random pull on the stick to trade the speed at any rate, but the goal was to achieve the target speed, when possible, exactly upon the completion of the 360 deg turn. (turns were measured between heading north to north). -The method you propose is certainly good, but as I also mentioned previously, it is very tricky to perform. Advanced tests like that would better be performed by the developers during an fm review, because they probably have better tools (more data from the game) to do things like that. -Again, just to confirm, simplified tests, like this are not meant to give accurate results, these are meant only to discover possible large anomalies, and trigger a review by the devs, who actually have the data and the tools for real accuracy. I think one anomaly is already found.