HWasp

I think, arguing about G limits is missing the point of the test completely. This is about trading energy for turn performance in a fixed speed range. More Gs only mean that the trade happens quicker, and at a higher AoA range, and that does not help. There is simply a minimum amount of G required to start the process at the given speed, that is it. I think this could be tested in a different way, that is a bit tricky, but holds all limitations: Spiral climb at 450 kts at 7,5 G sustained, check what is the rate of climb, while holding these values for the F-16, and crosscheck it with the others. This would give a Ps value for the F-16 at that point, because if speed is constant, then Ps = rate of climb, and that could be crosschecked with the charts.

Pulling the paddle does not make my test invalid, it is necessary in order to test the plane's performance in the speed range I have selected. If I would select a different speed range for the Hornet only, or reduce power, now that would make my test invalid. I selected the 450 to 300 range because that is closer to optimal range for the F-16 and most of the others Feel free to repeat the test between 380 kts and 250 kts, then you will not need the paddle switch. I might do the same,when I'll have time for it. I pointed out the difference with the Hornet, because it is too large in my opinion, and it suspicious to have one module that stands out so much, simple as that.

I strongly disagree, that comparing modules is not necessary, I think it would be very important to perform tests across a range of modules regularly, because that would provide an important crosscheck for possible errors, that might be not that easy to catch on their own. It has been said on this thread multiple times, that after the last review, they find the Viper FM to be very close to their data, which I think must be true, so looking at the Viper on it's own might lead to dead end, when trying to find out, why some expectations about it won't come true in DCS. Another reason is, that more dynamic things, like the turn rate while converting a given amount of speed into additional rate, I tried to compare across the modules, is not easy to test accurately against charts. Also there are other modules, where charts are simply not available to the public, and they are not provided in any form in the module docs.

Dude... Yes, I pulled the the paddle switch, you didn't have to watch the track to figure that out, since I wrote it clearly in my post. I also know, that it is not permitted IRL, and this test has nothing to do with any charts directly (did I quote any em charts for any aircraft mentioned? No.) These tests are simple comparisons between modules, trying to put them into scenarios, that somewhat resemble parts and aspects of fights that happen in DCS. I think, that while lots of static performance data are tested and are matching the charts, there might be things inbetween, that are not that straight forward to test and compare to charts, and might cause strange things. Like this Hornet behaviour in the second test. The test starts at 450 kts and finishes at 450 kts at the same altitude, meaning it is from an energy perspective neutral, so it is kind of a sustained turn performance. (You could start over and do the same sequence over and over again, without interruption) When the Hornet finishes the 3rd turn in that sequence an F-15 trying to fight it, would have lost 116 degrees already, so almost in a defensive position only after 3 turns. That should raise some eyebrows imo.

There are other oddities in DCS (for me at least), that may make the F-16 look rather weak, because other modules (may) overperform F-16 vs M2000 (unfortunately tracks for the Mirage are broken for me this version, so can't upload them this time) 3 turns in sequence: 1st 450 kts sustained, 2nd cash in speed 450 to 250 kts, 3rd sustained 250 kts M2000 : 54 seconds (there is almost no difference in sustained turn rates for the Mirage between 450 kts and 250 kts, which is very strange) F-16 : 56 seconds (F-16 if corner speed is kept for 2+1/2 turns and full aft stick for the last 180 deg: 55 seconds ) So for me the Mirage can produce an average turn rate of 20 degrees / second for the duration of 3 full circles, almost 1 minute, because it does not matter for it, if speed is 450 or 250 the rate is almost the same, so when the Mirage pilot decides to cash in speed from 450 to 250, there is almost no penalty for it. Don't want to start any wars between fans here, but even if the F-16 is perfectly simulated, these kind of issues might really affect the outcome of dogfights for it, so unfortunetaly this cannot be adressed in a vacuum, even though this is the F-16 thread.

Another thing I tried is to complete 3 full 360 degree turns in a row with the following parameters: 1st turn : sustained 450 kts 2nd turn: cash in speed from 450 kts to 300 kts 3rd turn: regain speed goin from 300 kts to 450 kts, finishing turn at 450 kts Times I achieved for the turn sequence: F-18 50 sec JF-17 55 sec F-15 56 sec F-16 57 sec MiG29 58 sec M2000 59 sec same fuel levels are used as before. My very subjective opinion on this, is that the F-18 is clearly overperforming in this test, and I would think, that the MiG-29 and the F-16 might be underperforming (relative to the other modules) F-183360_450_300_450.trk F-153360_450_300_450.trk F-163360_450_300_450.trk

I did some tests, trying to figure out where the F-16 currently stands regarding energy bleed (and gain) in turns vs some of the other modules, and I think it is quite interesting. I think, most of the tests done are rather static, like measuring sustained turn rates at different speeds. I think it is very much possible to have a module match charts like that, and still feel off against other modules (because either of them is somehow under or overperforming slightly) So, what I tried to do is to measure and compare turn times while speed is bleeding off within a given range. I think this type of performance is very important regarding the "dogfight experience", becuase this shows how efficiently a plane can cash in speed for more rate. I chose flying with a fuel state where fuel = 0,2 x empty weight of the aircraft , T 20 celsius So the first test was trying to achieve max rate while bleeding off speed rather steadily from 400 kts to 250 kts at 1000 feet while doing a full 360 degrees turn. Times for a full 360: F-18 - 14,75 sec (fuel 5000lbs) JF-17- 14,75 sec (2900lbs) Su-27 15,75 sec (7500lbs) M2000 16 sec (3300lbs) F-15 16 sec (6000lbs) MiG29 16,5 sec (4800lbs) F-16 17,25sec (4000lbs) Now, of course this speed range is not the best for the F-16, but wanted to do it somewhere, that makes sense for all the modules without breaking the limitations too much (still had to over G the F-18 Redoing this for 450kts to 250 kts to favor the F-15 and F-16 it looks like this F-18 - 14,75 sec - (starting from 450 with severe paddle switch pulling and 9,5 Gs, full aft stick the whole 360 turn, it will never go down to 250, ended up around 360 ish by the end) M2000 - 15 sec F-15 15 sec MiG29 15,75 sec F-16 16,25 sec These results are by no mean 100% accurate of course, but I think they are good enough for this comparison I included some of the tracks, just to show, how it was done. F-18_400_250.trk f-16_450_250.trk F-18_450_350.trk mig-29_400_250.trk

I respect your opinion, and it might be suitable in the scenarios you and other people you mention might enjoy, but in more dynamic scenarios, against human opponents, it is very different. You mentioned good SA, but you cannot build good SA if you can't control your radar elevation efficiently and jester is not scanning on it's own. Scanning with the radar is essential. Sure, the real answer is having a human rio, but we are talking about jester, so that is kind of off topic imo.

I'll admit, I have never tried voice commads, but I think, that if one cant manage radar elevation quickly and efficiently, (a press of a button quickly I mean), that is a huge disadvantage compared to the other single seat modules, and extremely annoying after some time.

Ok, so in what way is that less realistic, than the current system, where you need to micromanage everything through a pop-up menu?

I agree 100%, that jester needs improvements in this regard, but I don’t think, that more different menu options are enough. Basic radar commands must all be bindable imo, otherwise it just takes way too long to manage. If I’m flying a single seater in DCS like the F-15 or F-18, I consider around 3 - 5 seconds as an acceptable time between receiving information about a new target somewhere, and pointing my radar at it and getting a lock… I think right now not even an expert pianist could do things quick enough through to jester menu to even come close to the single seater jets. The other issue with this is, that I would need to scan with my radar, even when there is DL support (anyone who flies MP knows that people who rely on DL only usually don’t live long) All in all I think, that there needs to be bindable commands to move the radar in both axis. The proposed new menu settings could help a lot for example, if there would be a way to toggle between them quickly without opening the menu (elevation UP/DOWN 1 notch command bindable for example)

What are you talking about? Either you or someone else wrote in this thread earlier, that the MiG-29 does not have any limitations simulated. That is not true, simple as that. The F-15 is the only one with this problem. ( I won't read this whole mess again to find it...) MiG-29 and Su-27 limits may or may not be correct, BUT they are there and they pose a risk to anybody using the stick limiter override to get extra Gs. So even if the 29 were unrealisticly strong, still there is a good chance, that if you override the limiter at high speeds in a fight where you are concentrating on other things, you'll break it. That is a good thing even if the numbers were inaccurate, and the whole thing is simplified. So what the hell are we arguing about? My point is, that I want the F-15 to have similiar simplified structural limitations, comparable to the other FC3 modules. (for speed and G as well)

As I mentioned above, I think it should be a chance based thing between certain values (dice roll), and fixed damage above. 1,5 x limit G is the general rule, so I think if there is no accurate info otherwise, then take that into account. For the F-15, if they'd use values, that are close to what I have mentioned, then it would look like this when the actual aircraft limit is 9G - between 11G and 13,5G you would get a dice roll for some damage, so if unlucky then you'd end up with some asymmetry (aircraft won't fly straight anymore, but you can rtb ) - between 13,5G and 14,5G, you'd get a 100% chance for some damage (the previous condition), and a dice roll for the wings falling off - 14,5 G+ game over If there are more accurate numbers from somewhere else, use that. (I mean from a structural test, and not some odd lucky flight incident ) This would be better than nothing. Same thing for speed. 800kts indicated is already a crazy value, forces are extreme, and they grow exponentially.

BTW it was mentioned here, that the MiG-29 has also no limitations, which is simply not true: You'll loose your vertical stabilizers at those speeds, then the aircraft falls apart at 16G So yes, the F-15 is the only UFO amongst the FC3 planes, that needs to be fixed, all the others have some limitations simulated at some level.

So, the usual safety margin for strutural loads in aviation is 1.5x Without any specific research, I think a general over G damage system could work like this: G value between 1,2 x limit G and 1,5 x limit G ----> dice roll for structural damage resulting in some asymmetry (like a gun hit to the wing, aircraft is still flyable, you can limp home with it) G value between 1,5x limit G and lets say 1,6x -----> 100% damage, dice roll to loose a wing G value over that ---> 100% structural failure Surviving an over G incident is not a F-15 specific thing, I know about MiG-29 surviving the same (airframe was bent, it did not fly again (I think that was also around 12 Gs)) I think we should agree, that having absolutely no limitation is a bad thing, and it should be fixed.

I have just made a nice little track to demonstrate how stupid it can look, when an aircraft has absolutely no limitations simulated: 1. I broke the limit of 800 kts indicated by close to 30%, diving at 1030 kts indicated (and reaching M2.6 in the process) 2. At that point, way over Vne I displaced all controls to max deflection, resulting in a max G over 23(!!) I mean, look at it. It looks really stupid doesn't it? Why ruin a nice simulation allowing unserious things like this to happen? F-1520G.trk

There are servers, that run a 1980s weapon restriction setup, and still have the JF-17 on. Before jumping to conclusion, maybe check again if the blue side is also restricted to Aim-7s only? The best setup for the MiG-29 is a 80ies scenario, Aim-7 vs R-27.

Wrong, Su-27 and MiG-29 are not all about the low costs at all. Why would you think that? These 2 planes are complex, expensive machines to soviet standards. These 2 are a clear step away from quantity over quality theory. Especially if you check the MiG-29M, that would have been the real deal. Maintenance intervals are not set in stone. It is a lot more about taking responsibility, and the safety of human lives and expensive equipment. In a large scale conlict they won't be stopping a 29 just because it has just run out of hours... It is obviously not a positive thing, but this is something that really would take effect on the long term in peace time. In the 80ies the soviets rather stopped eating and went bankrupt, than to spend less on their military.

Yes, service life was certainly lower, also less time between maint./overhauls I doubt that it would have a serious impact in a 80ies ussr scenario.

Agree, they are close. That first comparison was a bit unfair towards the F-15.

Sorry, if I missed something, but where did you link anything proving your point, that would need to be disproved somehow? You just said, you heard/read somewhere about engine reliability, and you state it as a fact, that it was such an issue, that it would have impacted sortie rate seriously (of the ussr), a fact that now needs to be disproved. Please... https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/MG29 I see there 2 crashes (1978 and 1980) that are engine related, then it's only 15 accidents until the end of 1989, most of which is not said to be engine related (some might be incomplete of course, the page itself says it is incomplete info.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F-15_losses here I see 60+ F-15 accidents between '78 and the end of '89. So the 29 is obviously not perfect, but I don't see a terrible record here either. (quickly before someone jumps at me for the very different number of planes in service at the given timeframe: 1988-89 - both types are already in service in comparable numbers - F-15 7 losses <--->- MiG29 6 losses) So it is not a jumo-004

I meant that about the MiG-23 regarding maintenance, running costs, low service life (as you said). I think later 23 models, ML and after are quite capable, they don't deserve the bad reputation due to the crappy MS version. That being said, I think that the variable geometry design really did not help, as it has become very heavy due to it. If you've ever seen a MiG-23 standing next to a 29, the MiG-23 looks small in comparison, yet their weights are very close. I mean, I know, why they thought it was important, but still, such a complex design for something meant to be mass produced in such scales, as a main workhorse after the MiG-21... Less is sometimes better.

I also think that the 29 is in a strange place regarding the high-low mix. One of the serious issues with the MiG-29 is, that the engines have low service lives and the time between overhauls is also quite low. That really makes the running costs high, having 2 engines. The MiG-23 is also relatively problematic, and costly to run (MiG-21s outlived them in many ex-pact coutries), so while it is true, that more 23MLDs (if upgraded a bit) could take the early 29s role in many cases, that is still not really optimal. My very subjective opinion is, that the soviets got carried away a bit after the MiG-21, and failed to develop a real successor to that fighter, a real simple, no-nonsense, single engine fighter, that is a good platform for future upgrades (has side intakes, so it can carry a proper radar, no swing wing or any other fancy stuff, small, but large enough to carry 2xR-23 sized weapons) imo MiG-29M to 29A is like the F-16C to the 16A. The 29M would be THE MiG-29 if history went a different direction.

Su-27 has never been shot down in air to air afaik. It is only 6:0 though. None of these planes have ever met in a symmetric conflict, where numbers, training, SA, support would be at the same level. Drawing final conclusions from asymmetric conflicts, where the result were already pre-determined makes no sense. It makes absolutely no sense, but here you go : You see? The invulnerable 1999:0 F-15 can be hit by an old russian missile fired way oustide of any design limits. What does this prove? Nothing. Only thing is, that this should be kept in mind, when arguing about that radar detection range and stuff like that.

Hey, everybody knows, that the key to successfully defend objectives is to have your SAMs at a fixed place, so that the enemy can locate their position exactly very easy. Don't ever try to hide them, don't deploy any decoys, just stay there, turn on the radar and take it. Just like in DCS.