RentedAndDented

Logic isn't your strong suit much is it? The owner of ED is a warbird pilot who has a pretty good clue of how these things handle. Even then, it's an imperfect simulation as it must be, and you're laser focusing on one area you think is wrong. As has been said, they're all different airframes. You are simplifying the aerodynamics of it to a completely pointless degree. Maybe.....just maybe....the pilots in the videos you post are more skilled than you?

Just to be clear, I am not saying a Spitfire will do that. I am saying that relative to another Spitfire, if you are behind it in a dogfight and it is asking for more lift from it's wing by pulling G, your relative effect might be perceived to be as strong as the relative effect of a heavy on a much much lighter F/A-18.

If you do have a look at the visualisation video you'll see that's it's not as simple as you think. An increase in AOA causes an increase in the size of the vortex which it shows. The link is in the post just above yours. I also think this is actually reflected in your post where you compare a Hornet behind a KC-135 and a Spitfire in a dogfight. There are a few factors here: 1. A spitfire in a dogfight is turning so the wing is generating more lift, and a stronger wake vortex as a result. 2. A KC-135 level will generate a vortex much bigger than a Hornet will, that's why it would be referred to as a Heavy and Hornet would be warned when under ATC. This might cause the effect to feel 'similar' given the size relation of a Spitfire vs. Spitfire and Hornet vs. KC-135. A case in example is the A380 Super Heavy that passed over a bizjet of a similar size to a Hornet, and rolled the aircraft over several times, bent it, trashed the interior and caused it to lose several thousand feet of altitude recovering. It might be a little over-modelled (I am not a pilot so I have no personal experience to speak of), but I don't think it is by all that much.

I am pretty confident in saying no. It will be a refinement and bugfix of the existing F-5E, I think they were pretty clear on that.

There is a supplement out there for the -400 I found some time back. The -402 I have never seen. I am going off memory of years ago mind you, fully admitted. But that's what I recall.

Hmm I would have to double check but I could swear my cruise AOA is closer to 4 than 3 when I follow the FPAS page? Am I missing something there? And - the sustained turn rate matches the GAO document so I don't know what else they can do. I also saw the -400 turn charts and I don't think it is too far off from where a -402 engined Hornet might end up (about where the GAO doc is) but I wouldn't genuinely know either.

It will tax the pagefile but it will do so as little as possible. The idea is that the most used memory pages stay in memory. It's a very similar concept to how protected mode on CPUs work - process states are pushed to the stack when another process wants to execute, and retrieved when the process has to be run again. This is how windows could multitask even with only a single core CPU present. Bits of the O/S, other running programs etc will all be offloaded to pagefile when something like DCS is running as well as bits of DCS itself. It's just that DCS can exceed the point where the cost of paging justifies a RAM upgrade to 32GB prevent it because processes start waiting for disk I/O for memory pages. The pagefile is always being used and it's a normal function of any modern O/S in some form or another. Just because 32GB looks full and say you have an overall 40GB commit, it doesn't necessarily mean you need an upgrade, it's windows doing its job and keeping the needed bits of memory in memory.

Hi guys, I am guessing this won't work so well with SP campaigns? They're a prime candidate for this due to the heavy scripting IMO. Cheers

Am I missing something? G tolerance is modelled and you will black out.

Well fair enough, thanks for providing the numbers. I don't *think* that should be right.

Another thing to be wary of I think is that the simpilot can go around dogfighting the jets completely clean. This basically never happens IRL and you'd at least have pylons. Add those massive chunky wing pylons on the F/A-18 and I think it loses a lot more than the F-16 does. I haven't tested it yet, but that's my feeling of the situation anyhow. I was watching something, maybe FPP where they did some fully slick trials pitting the F/A-18 and F-16 against each other. Apparently in that state, I think the quote was that fully slick the Hornet is 'an impressive aircraft' and 'acquitted itself very well', and this was before the EPE Hornets were a thing. Additionally, the use of a hard deck will keep the F/A-18 from being at very low altitude where it seems to be tuned to perform best (carrier suitability I guess) and the F-16 will gain that advantage in actual service, generally speaking. We might be minmaxing it too much perhaps?

Like you say this has been argued to death, including in the recently closed thread. But, I have a question. Apparently, the HAF F-16s are heavier than a USAF block 50 due to the provisions for the CFTs. The USAF aircraft should need a higher fuel fraction to meet the same weight and performance on the chart. Could that mean you've effectively given the other aircraft a boost by keeping their fuel fraction low to match the HAF figures? Could that be an issue at play here? Not at a PC right now so I can't check.

Dunno if that is a bug or if it is more that the pilots will just be rostered to fly and the jets will be just what is available to fly. You'd hardly have Flip not fly because his personal fighter is down. I think that is intended.

Thanks for the reply. I have seen that appearing everywhere now, here's hoping for the fix. Cheers.

The refuel bug I have seen outside of the campaign, it's a DCS bug. You can order the wingman to rejoin after you think he's had enough. Edit: Except of course in R1 he might not be your actual wingman....

That last mission is very challenging. It is very hard and I have died many times. Lasing a target just makes you a sitting duck. It's not easy, and then F-5s start arriving on scene. The LGBs are for story purposes as Iran had a GPS jammer technology in the book. Better off lofting a dumb bomb off a radar target point if the target is that defended and GPS weapons won't do it.

Same issues here. Also, the F/A-18s that are at the tanker as you switch to tanker frequency sometimes also crash - they're at high alpha and not using burner and the AI is dopey and never just drops the nose. So they fly into the ground at 110kts. Dunno why they seem to be super gimped for power in this mission. Smoke's takeoff is almost like a cold cat shot.

I think that there may be a factor that may be influencing the OP's test, in that I think the engine actually cannot get supplied with enough air at higher altitudes to use full fuel flow. It seems to lower the fuel flow and close the nozzles slightly. I think the test done at SL might yield different results, and this ties in with the criticism of the Hornet that it has trouble gaining speed at higher altitudes, and the Mach 1.8 limit due to intake design. I think the inlet design is sacrificing power for operational simplicity, more-so than the F-16 inlet does. I think this is reflected in how fast the two airframes go up high. At the same time, I am not saying it isn't a problem in DCS, I just don't know.

Smaller wings tend to generate more wake turbulence. The winglets on planes apparently work to reduce that by effectively increasing wingspan without actually increasing it, and is why Boeing is considering foldable wingtips. The reason the smoke isn't apparently affected is because the wake turbulence is directly behind the wingtips, and when it is very close to the aircraft it's quite narrow. The vortex expands and slows over time, which is why approaching the tanker in DCS you might feel some effect if you approach from behind, but on or nearer to the basket it's very small or nonexistent. In any event, DCS is not giving us real wake turbulence, it's giving us as good an approximation as they can fit into a tight CPU budget and for that limitation I think it's very good.

I don't know that it is that simple. The GAO document also gives a sustaiined turn rate that the DCS F/A-18 also closely matches (2 AIM-9, 2*AIM-120, 60% fuel). It's had an adjustment some time ago with pylons, they now add a lot of drag and this would be the condition in which it is actually fought. In this case I think the F-16 will be winning but I haven't checked.

OK I see what you mean. I didn't catch on because I simply assumed it was lateral movement only as your drift can be expressed laterally. It seemed intuitive to me, but fair enough.

That's just a caged vs. uncaged hud. Normally in a crosswind the hud is uncaged and the ladder will stay centred on the VV which moved. If you hit cage/uncage you'll see the HUD and VV center with the 'ghost' VV indicating sideward velocity. It will also automatically cage when the VV actually moves far enough that it goes off the side of the HUD. It cages so you can still actually see the ladder and VV. This shouldn't be an issue on landing on the CV as normally the CV would be moving into the wind and you wouldn't be doing a crosswind landing.

If 72,000ft/m is anywhere near accurate it will be 'initial' climb rate. The Hornet has a listed initial climb rate of 50,000ft per minute that has been reported since before the EPE motors were even a thing. It's not anything that could be sustained and I don't think it is a useful metric. The F-16 in DCS is a rocketship, IMO.

I am sure they slowed down the cat shots cos 200 is too high. 160 should be fine if your takeoff trim is set properly for your weight.

I feel like it is smoother too, and the float when the flaps go down has been lessened. My first thought on flying it was that they've done something subtle. But I could be imagining it too.