Nomad

That's because they don't fight in RL as we do in the sim, and in the sim the paddle switch is very much necessary. If you fight any competent F-14, 15 or mirage without it, they will dumpster you. Not modeled in DCS, so irrelevant atm. Also from my understanding, using the override on a Hornet is not likely to cause such effects immediately, which is all you would care about in a DCS dogfight, so even if it was modeled in, it would still be a common practice to pull on that paddle 24/7.

Not another one of these pls. Show some real proof (charts etc) instead of the usual "I saw that this plane beats that plane on discovery channel!!" kind of nonsense. And btw, even then it won't tell the whole story because rl Hornet pilots don't use paddle switch for combat, but we do in the sim.

Except that it doesn't, so why don't you look again?

Event: 1v1 Squadron Name: Lonewolf Teamspeak/Discord: you can find me on Splash One or DCS World official discords. Contact person Discord ID: THD#3335 Aircraft Selection: F/A-18C Pilots: Sweden - THD

You need to sustain a bit over 8g for that turn which is quite a bit more than the 7.5 the hornet gives you. In fact I just tried this, and at anything faster than 380 it just keeps accelerating.

Btw, if you aren't already doing so, I would highly recommend to use the mission from here to measure turn rates, especially the sustained rate one, as it has a script which tells you if you are maintaining the flight parameters well enough for the turn to be counted as "sustained". You need to use the paddle for that, and the testing done by Pamenchan is without, which is correct if you want to compare the performance of the dcs planes to the rl charts/popular opinion.

You can get a very good idea of most of those things by just paying attention to certain details in the video.

THD Lonewolf Sweden 135ms F/A-18, F-16 Blue

The first bullet point (aspect angle definition) is in fact correct, just uses slightly different wording, while the diagram is wrong, the blue and green angle arcs should be around the target instead of own aircraft.

I assume the little numbers below the contacts are their altitudes, yes? This is a big plus over the Hornet because it gives a much better total global picture compared to only having that info on a single contact.

Oh but this was not aimed at you, but more in general, at an arbitrary forum poster who would find themselves unhappy about the performance of some aircraft and wants to let the public and developers know. If one wants to produce useful data, it is always best to stick to the most reliable measurement methods. That said, you contribution is welcome, although I kinda wanted to wait and let Hummingbird work it out on his own. ;)

The real lesson here is that it is always better to measure things as directly as possible if one can. You want to argue about turn rates? Measure the turn rate. Yes, they might be using the g load in rl, but it is most likely because it is much easier to just record data from an accelerometer than to determine an aircraft's exact position and velocity vector 10 times per second. But since DCS is a computer program, and we have full control over what happens and what information we receive, there is no reason to not do things in the most convenient way possible. TL;DR: use the goddamn rate mission.

Incorrect, what it shows is the vertical component of the force that acts on the sensor in aircraft's coordinate system. In simple terms it show how hard the seat is pushing up on the pilot's butt (but not his sides or back). When you are in a vertical climb, he is resting on his back instead while his butt takes zero pressure, hence you get 0G. Be in a climb that is anything else than 90 and you will see numbers on the G-meter. Same applies for bank. Hey, you can do a simple problem: find out what turn rate your plane is doing in a straight and level flight. First answer that using common sense, and then use the formula and see what you get.

There is another thing as well. For any non-90 degree bank angle your G readout will have a vertical component due to gravity, which will result in a higher readout than you'd get from just the turn acceleration. This will make it seem like the turn rate is higher, so you want to correct for that too.

Sigh... I guess I'll give up on trying to have you figure it out and just explain. Look, when you have a digital readout of a variable that's normally continuous from, say, DCS infobar it will be rounded, in case of our infobar the Mach number is rounder to the nearest hundreth, and the load factor to the nearest tenth. This means that a reading of M 0.65 for example is in fact anything between 0.6450... and 0.65499.... Same applies for the G number. Now if you plug in the min and max possible values in the formula you can see the interval in which the end result (your turn rate) can vary. ϵ_1 = 4.6499999 * 9.81 / (0.645 * 340) = 11.9 deg/s ϵ_2 = 4.55 * 9.81 / (0.6549999 *340) = 11.5 deg/s As you can see, the final result can vary by about 0.4 deg/s. You can write it as 11.7 ± 0.2 deg/s, or ≈ 12 deg/s, rounding to two significant figures as your Mach and G numbers. And this is just the measurement uncertainty, and doesn't include user error, such as failing to stay in desired flight parameters, and will likely lead to even bigger errors in the end result. This is something you can't ensure properly, which is why you were told to use the turn rate check mission, which not only provides you with assistance to maintain a good turn, but also calculates the turn rate directly from the change of your direction. If you want to have the G load logged, it is easy to modify the script, it's sitting inside the mission file. That said, there's still going to be some errors since the limits you have to stay in have some leeway (otherwise it would be way to difficult to do it) so ideally you should do a bunch of experiments around the same speed/g load, record the results, calculate averages, confidence intervals etc. Some work, but if one cares as much as you do, then why not? ;) P.S. There are better ways to do the above math, this is just more instructive. You can read more about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_arithmetic