Theodore42

2) I think the engine cooling programming used in DCS for warbirds is getting updated (still being worked on, is this correct?) 3) If this is in reference to the Meredith effect, it has been implemented by ED to their liking according to their data. To this day sources on the matter disagree on how much thrust is actually produced so if some hard data surfaces I'm all for updating. 5) .50 belts in reference to inaccurate tracers or belt quantity or being able to remove 2 guns for more ammo or something else? 10) do you mean temp ranges are unrealistic or are you referring to the engine cooling programming in DCS (that I think ED is still updating)? 11) there's downloadable textures but yeah, higher quality ones with the base game would be nice. Everyone knows the Mustang and ED may as well make it look as good as they can. I would think it a relatively inexpensive way to catch the eyes of potential new users to DCS.

speed? cuz if you're going 200 maybe it is like that but at 300 or 400 kts... I'm looking at a recording I did with the current flight model and after deflecting my stick it looks like I'm at 90 degrees after 20 frames at 60 fps. So it took 1/3 of a second to get to 90 degrees after full deflection. It shouldn't matter what the curve is because full deflection is full deflection. If there is too much travel in your joystick you can reduce the horizontal saturation in the axis settings. I used to turn saturation down to 80 for this very reason (my joystick has a lot of travel) but I got used to my new joystick and put it back.

Chapter 8 in The Forbidden Manual (u know what I'm talkin' 'bout) is all about Viper AAR procedures. There is a lot to study there if you want to simulate how Viper pilots do it.

My understanding is that the Airforce refuels from 28,000 and up. The F-16 refueling speed is 315kts. You can call up fuel pounds on the DED, in the Bingo page I think.

The topic is literally "How to out-rate Ace AI," not "how to win BFM." If you want to s&$& talk BFM then critique MY video I posted!! Pleeeeeze! I guess it's technically off topic depending on how you define "out-rate," I just assumed it was in reference to flying to gain energy on the target, not specifically to turn.

It didn't do that for me in the last patch but haven't tried this current patch. It's really easy to get into your head when refueling the Viper because there isn't a basket to give direct feedback to where your should be positioned. It might help your confidence to watch a replay from 3rd person to see that the boom operator's aiming for the refueling port is quite agile. If the guy saying "connect" is distracting you can always practice with the sound off

Do you trim much in the Hornet? Because the Viper is trimming itself as you are gaining weight and adjusting the throttle. Paying attention to how the fpm reacts to throttle inputs will go a long way in improving stability. Fly assuming that pushing the throttle up will accelerate you but also push you into a climb despite the attitude being the same. And when you throttle back to slow down you gotta know you're gonna sink down a little bit even though your attitude will remain constant. Throw in some pitch inputs in anticipation of this. Changing the Viper's attitude to maintain level flight is not a very intuitive thing when coming from other aircraft. You just have to learn how the Viper trims itself.

If this is a 1v1 BVR fight then I think I'd rather have the Viper. It can defend against an MRM more efficiently. And after defeating an MRM shot the F-16 is going to have an easier time getting back to an offensive position to take another shot. But if this is anything other than 1v1 then I would surly take the Hornet as it carries about twice as many AA missiles.

Come now, obviously flying against a scripted program day after day is going to be an easy benchmark. In PvP I don't know day from day who was good or if I just sucking one day. Online PvP is very inconsistent for the casual user. Jinking is a last ditch desperate move that blows all remaining energy and no, the AI doesn't jink currently. Programing an AI to jink would probably be perceived as antagonizing the player, lol. Forcing overshoots though? Sure, although probably not in the way you're thinking. And just try the ace AI. It does all the BFM things with you. It counters player maneuvers in a textbook fashion. It flies efficiently. And most importantly its consistency helps players quickly see where they are gaining and losing energy, even if it is only relative to an AI. btw don't leave me out. Feel free to critique my video, not just the video by the guy LITERALLY named "noobplayer!!!"

I narrated a 1v1 guns only I recorded vs the F-15 Ace AI: I'm still getting used to this new FM in this dogfight, my style has already changed in the few days since I recorded this. I found the most value was in accelerating while pulling Gs. Most of the time in this dogfight that's what I was spending my energy thinking about. And there is NO WAY I could have made that kill with the old Flight Model.

Ace AI is a good baseline to see when your flying is gaining or losing energy against said baseline. Or to judge Flight Model difference

I made a side-by-side comparison of an F-16 doing a Cuban 8 maneuver from an old patch to this patch. Big differences! Unfortunately you can't see my throttle inputs but the new FM required a lot less power. Going through the entire airshow routine I found all the marks much easier to hit. Often the manual would say things like "play the back pressure (pitch) in ensure 200kts at the apex." With the old FM there was no play, there was pretty much just a line you had to carefully follow to hit all your marks. The new FM feels like if you follow the maneuver descriptions then hitting the marks is an easy task. I noticed the AoA may be higher at lower speeds, as was suggested elsewhere. But it looks like this AoA increase doesn't affect how the Viper accelerates, so that's interesting. My only criticism might be that the High Alpha Pass (the lowest of low speed AoA states) doesn't have enough drag, but that's only a first impression. The most surprising thing added is the feeling of flying the Viper through the air. The increased rate of G-onset feels really great. More subtly, maneuvers like the triple aileron roll and knife edge pass feel more authentic. Even flying a 3/4 inverted pass feels so much more real now whereas before flying these maneuvers felt like manipulating an FLCS program in simulated air. These are some pretty minute expressions coming out of ED's Viper. Preliminary verdict: Nice job!

More like the Viper is the most polished version of a flip phone with the best UI you've ever seen and the Hornet is the Palm Pilot. The Palm Pilot was indisputably ahead of its time btw

I just wanted to address HOW to judge the new FM because the predominant way is to find a chart of sustained turn rates for the Viper and then compare them to the game. imo that isn't really reflecting the major changes being made (or the ones that have already been made). Also, the way you fly the Viper in a dogfight is going to benefit from these less table-friendly data-oriented changes we are noticing. So the players dogfighting in the Viper don't want the hard numbers chart people to drown out constructive criticisms just because the STR isn't a 1:1 match to data 100% of the time.

I agree, the "by the numbers" rates are close enough for me. The level of error isn't really comparable when compared to errors we might infer from this next update: Holding on to more speed when turning is going to be much more discernable than a few % changes in STR. We should probably as a community reconsider how to judge ED's Professional Flight Model.

Really sustaining the correct G isn't part of BFM?

What I see in the video is a Viper pilot take off, do some cool maneuvers, and as soon as he gets straight and level his aircraft has a constant left roll input. He then adjusts his yaw trim and the Viper settles straight and level. I think the knob just wasn't set exactly correctly. In what I read the only reason given to trim yaw is due to roll mistrim (roll trim is broken). Also since my post I read the two reasons given to use roll trim is for asymmetry and rudder mistrim. My source is the you-know-what manual. Also, totally BALLER catch on an F-16 pilot adjusting rudder trim. Massive congrats to whoever noticed that first! EDIT: Rudder trim is also used for asymmetric loadouts "if flight conditions change." I'll let ED figure out how to implement that.

Hm, if you're only getting 1 wing tank working that sounds like a bug for sure. Maybe try repairing your DCS install? In 2017 I did a lot with the Mustang, including an endurance flight. As in 100% fuel, full on reversibility and everything. I climbed like a b*#&# up to 20,000, used down to 25 gal in the fuselage tank and switched the wing tanks on a schedule. To make sure I had used up all the fuel in them I ran them dry. The fuel schedule was right on track with the fuel chart. As for improvements, ED recently redid the cockpit and sound so I don't think those are on the table. I'm interested in the 150 octane. I think this is code for "higher max MP." Some questions on this matter: Does 150 octane actually change how the engine runs or does it just allow for a higher MP? IRL, would a mechanic be able to change our 1945 Mustang to 80MP or whatever if 150 octane became available? Or is the engine locked at its max MP coming off the assembly line? Also, fix the ram air

I assume in case something breaks or the aircraft gets shot up asymmetrically. But I don't remember ever having read something suggesting one or the other. I recall reading that pilots don't use the rudder trim in the F-16.... and that pilots don't use the roll trim to correct for wind... And I also remember reading that tactically bombs are dropped from airplanes in pairs because they're still airplanes and weight imbalances are bad no matter how you trim. On the one had I'm skeptical of information that is only coming from a Polish pilot and a modded video game form the '90s. But I doubt a real F-16 would fall out of the sky if you flipped on the autopilot in an asymmetrical state. So I'll at least assume the F-16 COULD trim for asymmetry if it was programmed to.

I've done some endurance flying the the Mustang. You have to configure your engine for distance rather than speed. So lower MP and RPMs. Also flying at the correct altitude is important. Here is a chart to use for 75gal wingtanks: You can see, for example, in Column I at "max continuous" (2700RPM at 46MP) at 20,000 ft with Hi Blower ON, the Mustang will run at 94 gallons per hour at 355mph TAS according to the chart. In Column V at 2150RPM and Full Throttle at 20,000 ft with the Hi Blower OFF the Mustang will use 58 Gallons per hour at 285mph TAS. So with this chart you can plan for any mission in the range of the Mustang and get to your IP with the amount of fuel you want at the time you want as fast as or as fuel efficient as you want.

Never heard of a company announce that they didn't do a thing on their "promised" (tentative) timetable, let alone announce it every week. ED said the FM change would be in late last year and it didn't happen. So someone posted a thread on their forums asking about it and NineLine ate **** and answered. That's an official comment from the ED Team that can be used by media and YouTubers. Can't really ask for much more communication than that. I read they delayed the EA release of the Apache which is a much bigger deal than a delay to a FM update. It might just be that they have some unforeseen interferences on their other projects due to the Apache needing to be pushed out to Early Access.

Removing weight from an airframe mostly just reduces how much lift the airframe needs to produce... when it comes to turning. But AoA lift is different than thrust-to-weight ratio lift. The F-16's thrust-to-weight ratio, what it's known for, is going to get crazy good with less gas in the tank. In addition to a lack of fuel lbs LITERALLY and DIRECTLY buffing what the F-16 is known for, you get added benefits: faster acceleration, a steeper climb at max climb speed, and reduced loss of speed in vertical maneuvers. An angles fighter will enjoy these buffs in the vertical as well, just nowhere near as much as the F-16. And even if the F-16 had 1 lbs of fuel in the tank with unlimited fuel on, I can't imagine her out-turning an angles fighter, even if it's full of gas. The airframes are too different. Any by vertical maneuvers, I mean climbing. Probably shouldn't try to out-dive a heavier aircraft.

I am not sure how to reconcile that with the reality that the Hornet is the only fighter on the decks of US carriers. Granted today it's the E/F rather than the C, but they are still 7.5G aircraft so the principle is the same. The F-15C missions are 100% in the fighter role so they would have relatively a much higher rate of getting into dogfights. The F/A in F/A-18 is the compounded designation for both fighter and attack. That's why they're the only fighter on the decks of US carriers. Much more efficient that way Maybe if the enemy saw the Hornets as being tactically vulnerable and specifically ambushed them the Hornets would get into more dogfights than Eagles. On the matter of pulling Gs and over-stressing the aircraft in a non-training situation: The reason such limits exist is primarily for budget reasons. Materials aren't going to break when they're overstressed once or twice or even ten times. But imagine you're in charge of supplying the AF or Navy of their aircraft. When you buy the aircraft you know they are expected to operate a certain number of hours before being retired. You can even make a budget then and there for the entire life-span of the aircraft. Nice and predictable. The problem is that pilots are a bunch of young Hot Sh** badasses that are going to fly these aircraft to the limits every chance they get. So the limits are there so the $$ guys (you) know they're budgeted all the hours of the expected lifespan of the aircraft. Now imagine you're a mission commander escorting a JSTARS during a major ground operation and you get jumped. Entire ARMIES are about to lose major support if that JSTARS gets shot down. Obviously you're going to get into a no-holds-barred dogfight in that situation. Fly the wings off your airplane and pull your arms out of your own sockets if that's what it takes to defend the JSTARS during a tactically vulnerable time. Now imagine you're the general getting his ear chewed off by the $$ guy, "If you utilize these tactics we won't have enough fighters and we will lose the war." and in your other ear the combat commander is saying "if you make us hold back then entire ARMIES are going to die!" So what ends up happening is a mission commander of a 2-ship doing a BARCAP in a limited skirmish will be trained to engage in some standoffish BVR and go home rather than risking overstressing the airframe. But during a major offensive the mission commander will be trained to get into every knife fight and overstress his aircraft as much as necessary to win in that tactical situation. Long story short, if a Hornet pilot doesn't want to adhere to realistic G limits I don't consider that unrealistic. And it just doesn't help against the Viper much anyway. Let the Hornet have as many angles as he wants, I'll just undo them in my Viper with a roll while vertical. And the Viper dogfights so fast the ranges are pretty far, making a snapshot utilizing the paddle switch extremely unlikely. A close range high alpha shot is a reasonable tactic but hitting a tiny little Viper from long range is something like a 360 no scope headshot. That's why imo the Hornet's paddle switch is much more useful against a Flanker or Eagle. Ultimately I hope ED implements realistic G damage and pilot injury. (I have no idea how ED could implement pilot injury though. And realistic G damage has already proven to be really debatable.)

Paddle switch is totally valid to use when comparing the Hornet to the Viper in those kinds of tests. Obviously the Viper isn't just a Hornet FM that can pull 9Gs. They're completely different in what they're doing and how you should fly them. When I'm in the Viper and I see a Hornet disappearing under me while going over the top, I want nothing more than for him to pull his paddle switch. That's just winning the energy fight for me lol. Give me any specific instance of the paddle switch giving the Hornet an advantage over the Viper and I'll give you a specific instance of the Viper pilot flying wrong. The paddle switch is for gaining angles and the Viper is about gaining energy. If you see a Hornet ripping his nose around with his paddle switch, you know he's blowing through all his energy. It's a low wing-loaded vs high thrust-to-weight ratio fight. The amount of advantage gained isn't much more than the Flanker's Cobra maneuver. As for the matter of Gs, if you're simulating training then you should limit Hornet testing to 7.5Gs. But dogfighting isn't the Hornet's mission and in a real war it's hard to imagine the 1/1000 sorties where a Hornet actually gets into a dogfight adhering to the 7.5G limit. It's not like a pilot has never overstressed a wing during a war before.

This is some interesting testing you're doing, much more realistic than just STR stuff. You might just divide up the times of the tests to see which aircraft gains doing what. Also add a bunch of different speeds and also different ranges. Or maybe set up a STR then see how long you can sustain +1 G from there. Or +2 or +3Gs. I'll likely do some of these things myself but I don't know your method. Maybe also include unloaded acceleration rates? My hypothesis is that lower wing-loaded aircraft (F-15 and MiG) Are going to look better at slow speeds and the high thrust-to-weight ratio fighters are going to be better fast. But when it comes to turning it should generally be accepted that low wing loaded aircraft are always going to perform better than thrust-to-weight ratio fighters. And the F-15 is 100% more expensive than all the others so you can expect it to be consistently 1% better at everything. Pretty sure that's how it works.