Theodore42

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.

Everything the pilots tell ED is going to be buffered by security when necessary and nobody is going to inform ED that a thing is being concealed. That said, the performance characteristics are pretty public (airshows) and the shape of the airframe can be easily replicated and simulated (as ED does). Far more likely we are missing out on the exact performance characteristics of things like the Hornet's paddle switch, of which the general abilities are probably known but the exact abilities (FLCS logic) may not be easily inferred and therefore classified as to prevent any kind of specific training against it. But I would speculate ED can GENERALLY simulate an equivalent capability, just not represent its particular quirks. I would speculate. As far as the F-16 FM, if you're just trying to win a rate fight the F-16 isn't going to be any better now than before because nothing about the F-16's FM changed the STR. Many other areas of the F-16 are improved: low G sustained turns and Hi-G sustained turns. And there was a stealth update in 2.7 that MASSIVLY improved pitch control at low speeds that really improved over the top (Immelmann) performance. None of these buffs are utilized with an STR strategy. Doing BFM vs a Hornet requires gaining energy on him while the Hornet is going to try to use geometry and low speed/hi-G turns to get angles on your tail. All of the places the F-16 was buffed lend to this strategy. Win in the vertical and mitigate the Hornet's low speed angle gains. STR has nothing to do with it. I get the feeling some people think the G-onset is going to make the Viper more like the Hornet. IT'S NOT. The AoA is still going to be limited for the Viper and the Hornet is still going to be able to whip his nose around on you and there is still going to be nothing you can do about it. The Viper WILL be able to fly more like the VIPER with this change. Every time you snap from low Gs to high Gs, all snap turns, all jinking... these are the things that will be buffed. It will be glorious. I agree with the sentiment that even a few degrees a second off isn't going to impact a win. Pretty much every maneuver I win or lose results in more than 15 degrees of Angle.

I've read Viper pilots often loosen their straps and sit up in their reclined seats. Sometimes they get aches and pains in their upper back and shoulders from sitting up in that way so often. This is from memory and I can't find a source for it. Maybe it was from a pilot, maybe a youTube comment, don't remember.

Cool, Mower I remember you from F4Community (if you went by mower then too). Yeah, I had an epiphany while clicking in the Viper's MFD to set the Fuze for a bomb and realized it was just one button with every possible option in 3 clicks, while the Hornet had 2 buttons (to individually set the front and back fuze). I can totally imagine a newbie thinking "ok, so if I turn off the front fuze and back fuze.... is that a thing or just dumb? And if they're both on what does that do?" lol UI is so difficult even in a modern context but they nailed it back in the day. One of the many reasons the F-16 is a work of art.

I am now more convinced that the sustained turn rate is where ED wants it and it won't be getting any major updates. It feels like they changed everything EXCEPT the STR. I've been through all the airshow maneuvers and the airframe is modeled completely differently now. Previously there were numerous maneuvers where I couldn't sustain the Gs the manual said I should expect to sustain. I thought I just needed to improve my timing or technique or something. Now they are right on the money. In fact, I need to pull too many Gs if I'm not fast enough on the stick. Speeds over the top were also improved during the maneuvers. It did feel a little different, the knots weren't bleeding off quite as fast as I thought they did before, but I'm still somewhat assuming that since the airframe is so much more efficient during the high G parts of the maneuver that there is just more energy during the slow parts. But every time I'm going through an apex around 200-250kts I feel like the speed used to be ticking down a little bit faster. When the manual says I should have Gs to play with in the vertical I do, whereas before the stick was pretty dead during those parts. I also feel like they did something to pitch inputs during side-load. For example, the knife edge pass felt much more squirrely. It feels more like you're doing something weird to the airframe whereas before it just felt like flying sideways with full rudder deflection. I didn't notice the 3/4 inverted pass felt any different, but that maneuver is basically 100% feel anyway so I'm not sure I would notice a difference unless I tried the new FM right next to the old. (You kinda gotta just memorize how to thwack the stick and kick the rudder to get it there, probably why the maneuver was removed from the demo.) Since this has been so interesting to me I may make a compare and contrast video between this updated FM and a demo I did from the old one.

Hey that's the "Hi-G Turn" maneuver. Maneuver Description: Beyond the 500’ show line and just prior to show center select full AB and accelerate to 400 knots. At show center, turn away from the crowd using 75 to 85 degrees of bank (<75 degrees inside the 1,500’ show line). Begin the turn with a smooth G onset-rate to approximately 7.5 Gs. G-loading and airspeed bleed-off rate vary with density altitude. Maintain a minimum of 250 knots. The first 180 degrees of turn should be accomplished with a 1¾-degree nose-up attitude and the last 180 degrees should be accomplished with a 1¾-degree nose-down attitude to make the turn appear level to the crowd. Vary the bank angle and pitch to arrive at level flight at the completion of 360 degrees of turn and to ensure the maneuver is finished above the entry altitude. Ensure surface winds are taken into consideration in order to center this maneuver on show center and to avoid overshooting the show line. As you approach show center, smoothly but briskly roll out. Perform a repositioning maneuver to prepare for the next maneuver. As you can see there is a lot of variation in the speed and Gs and turn rate during that maneuver. I've done the whole F-16 airshow routine. I didn't think to compare the new FM so I'll do that today and let you know if I find anything interesting.

Sustained Turn Rate may not have changed discernably but accelerating in a turn seems to be easier and turning faster than the STR seems improved as well. This gives a lot more play in the turn and more options in a fight. For example, it really used to be that you had to unload to exploit the acceleration advantage of the F-16. But with the updated FM you can be pulling good Gs, but less than the STR, and get much more speed. So you have to sacrifice far fewer angles when unloading to accelerate. The STR for the F-16 is well documented in many places. ED surly has in mind what they want the STR to be. When making an FM I assume that one of the first things done is to get the STR where you want it. Then tweak everything from there. The STR of ED's Viper hasn't changed almost at all since the first few months of EA. That plus the fact that they report they're still working on "instantaneous turn rates and accelerated rates" but nothing about "Sustained Turn Rates" makes me think that the current STR of the Viper is basically where ED wants it, for better or worse.

The FM is crazy better now. In general it feels like speed is less affected by pitch inputs (until you get up to 7.5 or 8Gs). The 350 -400 kt range feels a lot more viable now. Before I felt like going under 400 wasn't ever correct unless you were doing something specific (sacrificing energy for position). The induced drag from about 4 - 6 Gs has had quite a reduction. Unloaded acceleration remains unaffected from what I can tell but I feel like loaded acceleration has received a big buff when using "God's G." Whereas before I had to delicately fly through the bottom of my vertical loops to maintain an ok speed; now I feel like I have to pull 8 or 9 Gs just to not blast past corner speed. I've not noticed any improvement in the low-speed, low-G range. All in all I'd say the FM update makes the F-16 better at what the F-16 is known for. Improvements in the 350-400 knot range help with dealing hostile instantaneous turns, especially when they're on your tail. Players that spend a lot of time pulling 4-6Gs in a dogfight are going to be raking in the benefits from this update. Given that the bottoms of rolls can be sustained at much higher Gs means that the rolling scissors is going to be more viable more often for the Viper pilot. This pleases me. And they're still working on "instantaneous turn rates and accelerated rates." If these rates are also going to be buffed in the future, the F-16 is going to be the best dogfighter ever

ED has been saying that the current problem with the FM is that the AoA is too high for the Gs being pulled, which means that there is more drag while pulling Gs, something the F-16's thrust-to-weight ratio style requires a lot of. What ED didn't say was that they were increasing the turn rate. Interesting, because when pulling equal Gs but less drag, how can that NOT increase turn rate? It could be that the FM is accurate near corner speeds but is being buffed above or below corner speed. This wouldn't show up on some guy's rate-turn-fight experiment but would be apparent to people actually dogfighting the F-16 as intended. Less so under corner speed but very much so above corner speed if that's the case. Or, it could mean that there is too much AoA only in a specific G range. Maybe when you're pulling Gs in a sustained rate turn the FM is correct but when you get above or below then there is too much AoA. If so, the new FM will let you sustain these Gs with less drag. Now THAT would be the biggest buff the F-16 could possibly get. People flying the F-16 correctly would feel like the GOD OF DOGFIGHTING while people doing turn-rate-tests will discern nothing. The OP asked how to keep speed up during dogfights, and the answer is mainly to sustain Gs for long periods of time rather than to be baited into yanking on the stick and pulling 10Gs to get your nose on a guy. In the video I posted and the other, the amount of time spent between 3 and 7Gs is ridiculous. If anywhere in that range is getting buffed with less induced drag, then F-16 dogfighters are going to become VERY happy. The rate-turn-testers will remain dubious. Oh, you know what? ED might only be buffing the F-16 FM above 10,000ft. Then I would be the only one to notice (LOL!) I say this in jest, but there are a lot of interesting FM interactions at altitudes above 10,000 feet. Anyway, I could be totally wrong, but when ED is saying something as oddly specific as "too much AoA for the Gs" (paraphrasing) then it makes me think they're trying to figure out how to break it to people that the standardized tests players do on the F-16 won't be affected but the dogfighting players will notice. Anyway, the answer to the OPs question might be much more apparent after the patch. Oh, and they're updating the Viper's ability to onset Gs faster as well. I think this is what most players are going to notice, and I bet it's gonna feel real good.

I uploaded a pretty good 2 circle fight with an F-14 ace ai. (I call it nose-to-tail though) I feel like I narrate pretty well how I'm keeping my speed and positioning up. I really want to make youtube videos to help people with thinking about their dogfighting, let me know if it is clear or confusing or what I could talk about to make it more clear: Notice how much time I spend above 15,000ft and how I'm getting above 30,000 commonly. Angle fighters like blowing their speed for angles and that is harder to do in thin atmosphere. Also the F-16 sustains speed well, so an aircraft that has to unload to accelerate after every turn will get really inefficient against an F-16 that can do everything it wants to do without losing speed. As you can see I put some rails and missiles on. This is my way of calling everyone complaining about the FM a pussycat. Also, this is an AI, yes a human player would have been more herky-jerky, but that would just result in him losing MORE energy and becoming an easier kill. A thrust-to-weight ratio fighter will often be stuck making snap-shot kills when the enemy isn't in a 50yo airplane (F-14). But as you said, "Timing is everything," Get yourself in a snapshot position when the enemy is in a low energy state (like near an apex) and it will be like shooting fish in a barrel. But something like an F-14 you can just dominate with a beautiful tracking kill shot. As long as you don't miss! (something I've been known to do)

The F-14 is a "low wing-loaded fighter" which means the airframe produces a lot of lift at low speeds. So when the F-14 gets slow his radius gets really small and his pitch authority is still great. Even if the F-16 can keep up with the F-14 under these conditions, the F-16 is losing because the airframe is not designed to efficiently turn at slow speeds. In other words, the F-14 isn't going to wait around 360 degrees while you sustain a perfect 1 degree per second turn advantage over him. He will sacrifice all his speed to whip his nose around and point at you. That's call an "instantaneous turn." The F-16 is a "thrust-to-weight ratio fighter" which means the airframe is efficient at maintaining high speeds, sustaining turns, and climbing. When you are going fast in the vertical and the F-14 follows, even though the F-14 can go fast, the F-16 is winning. It is the nature of the airframe. Concerning the Flight Model update, the only way anyone is going to notice a higher turn rate in the F-16 is if you get your buddy to jump in the F-14 and you both fly perfect sustained circles around each other. And even then, you probably won't be able to tell unless you're flying perfectly for a long time and then go review tacview. The way the F-16 is flown is going to conceal any advantage a turn rate improvement gets you and that advantage is going to be ridiculously small anyway. The FM update F-16 pilots should be looking forward to is the update between the relationship between Gs and Angle of Attack. The F-16 likes going fast and sustaining Gs. So if the FM is updated such that you can sustain the same number of Gs while at a lower AoA (lower induced drag) then that is going to make a big difference when dogfighting. Basically you will be able to retain energy better 100% of the time and this will massively reward F-16 pilots flying the energy fight. It won't help you in a flat scissors tho.

This F-16 is 30 years newer than the F-14. I don't think some FM tweaks are going to let an F-16 fly a Hollywood dogfight verses an F-14. The F-14 is an angles fighter so he gets an advantage over the F-16 by pulling "instantaneous turns." The F-16 is an energy fighter and the advantage is in speed, acceleration, and the vertical. This means you want lag pursuit, lag rolls, and vertical scissors. Rolling scissors and Yo-yos are ok as long as you're fast but flat scissors are right out. The F-16 pilot will feel like the F-14 is always pointing his guns at him and the F-14 pilot will feel like the F-16 is always going up and over his canopy. Victory for the F-16 is maneuvering to get yourself behind and pointed at the F-14 at the point in time when his energy is lowest (at the top of an apex). If you let the F-14 have too much energy here, even if you are behind him and have more energy, the angles fighter will still be able to get away. Be patient, trap the F-14 in a bad energy state, anticipate his apex when he gets nose high, maneuver behind him, win. Dogfighting in the F-16 is all about efficient flying and timing.

It looks like your system should be fine; 8GB vram is plenty, especially if you're using low settings. Other things should be lagging your system besides just dogfighting if it is a performance issue. And dogfighting has relatively mild performance requirements. Flying low over Dubai with no aircraft in the server should be a greater performance hog. Have you tried making your own mission with a bunch of aircraft in it? Does it only happen online? Maybe it's a multiplayer bug with your system. Or maybe you only get into dogfights in places where a lot is happening on the server. Oh there used to be a flare/chaff bug where the game lags while despawning countermeasures or something, is that still a thing? By 0 fps you mean what exactly? With my older video card my screen would freeze for a second as the textures loaded in but then would go back to the normal frame rate. Upgrading to 6GB vram fixed that right up for me, and you have 8GB. Or does 0fps just mean you're getting a slide show when other aircraft get near? Maybe it is server lag? Maybe your power supply is too small and the video card is having to throttle itself? But that would affect any game that is a performance hog. imo your system should give you a good fps at good settings...

First of all, are you sure it isn't lag? Have you done this offline? Your target is going 700kts and the bullets are taking 2 seconds to get to him. A loaded roll, or even a mere twitch from the target, is going to cause the pippers to recalculate all over the place. The lines extending from the + are to indicate how much energy the target has. When those lines are really long the target is going to be able to dodge your bullets (as long as his reaction time is less than the 2 seconds it takes for your bullets to get to him). Also, look at how far apart the 1G and 9G indicators are. Your target can be anywhere along that line starting from AFTER you pull the trigger. And then if the target uses some roll input too, well, your bullets aren't even gonna be in the same plane. Use your thrust to weight ratio fighter to run him out of energy first, then there will be nothing the target can do that can make your pipper recalculate like that, lag or no lag.

In the HAF, if you can get it, page 6-10 describes it, 6-11 describes how to get out of it, and 6-12 describes how to configure your engine so you don't stall the engine.

HUD symbiology lesson maybe? Or check out some guns kills you youtube and imitate that. If its a snapshot you might have to lead more than the EEGS anticipates. If you're tracking for a kill but aren't landing bullets remember that the cross in the funnel isn't where you're supposed to aim.

That's a deep stall. Awesome that it has been implemented. MPO, rock the stick with the oscillations, power to full, should get you out of it.

The RWR is passive and only detects what radar system is being used so that is all it can report to the pilot. The radar can detect qualities about its target which sometimes allows it to id targets, though I don't think that's implemented in the F-16.

The USAF and Air National Guard probably don't run 3 just because it destroys fuel efficiency. F-16 is very light weight and each additional ordinance put on a pylon is going to affect the range more than 2 engine aircraft (the more ordinance you put on an F-16 causes fuel / ordinance to get ratioed more than other aircraft). And all the extra bits to attach 3 instead of 1 are going to affect range more also. If the F-16 can do it and the mission calls for it then it is surly an ability that would be utilized irl when possible. Air National Guard are defensive and strategically placed such that if the "Visigoths" were to come over the hill they could scramble and groundpound them with a "one man air force." I'm always on board with having different rulesets selectable in the loadout screen to allow multiplayer servers to easily enforce more standard loadouts (and to inform newbie sim nerds what is standard as opposed to what is possible) IMO this is a valid concern-- I'm sure ED wants people playing the most realistic military flight sim to know that F-16s CAN fly with 3 MAVs a pylon but typically don't. It gives their players street cred

Fly in close formation with the tanker for several minutes without trying to connect to anything to get a feel for how your stick inputs affect your spatial orientation relative to the tanker. It's calculous for the brain, as hard as (or as easy as) catching a ball thrown to you (same level of math). The difference is you haven't been connecting to a tanker since you were a kid. Also when trying to connect you should be flying to the tanker (airplane) and not the drogue.

There are lots of videos on YouTube of Hornet pilots training. I just imitate what they do. For the most part they seem to fly like an airliner, although really fast. Also, they probably fly with autopilot on as often as they can to reduce workload.

@Spurts you seem familiar with this kind of thing and I've always wondered, How does using your wheel brakes during aerobraking affect the aircraft? My intuition suggests that the rotational inertia from applying the wheel brakes would be the end of any aerobraking, and I can't really imagine having the CG up a little closer to the nose would have MORE of an impact... But I've read multiple sources stating this is part of the short field landing procedure. Do you know anything about this? In DCS (the last time a tried this), applying wheel brakes during aerobraking didn't affect aircraft pitch. Is there something going on physics-wise that would make this the case? Would it be more accurately modeled if you had to increase elevator deflection when using wheel brakes during aerobraking? Or maybe the FLCS does that for you? Although I haven't read anything that suggests that, and original sources usually drop some acronyms when the FLCS is doing something behind the pilots back.

Hi! So if you're still a little confused about what to do you should watch a few Youtubers doing IR dogfights. That way you can post specific questions about the video here and you'll get a lot more replies. As it is your question is too broad and most players that can respond wouldn't be satisfied unless they wrote a 5 page replay to your post, which is a bit much!

LOL, ya, I stopped trying a few months ago. btw, the AI won't bother with a low yoyo as long as it will beat you. Which would be almost any aircraft against the F-16. With enough lead pursuit even a MiG-15 can stay with an F-16 in a turn. Everything the F-16 does better is in the vertical. And the FM seems to have had a stealth update where the F-16 has more pitch authority at low speeds. Since the F-16's advantage is in the vertical, suddenly the F-16 becomes more maneuverable and forgiving when getting slow near an apex, which adds a massive advantage in the 2.7 patch.

Thanks so much for posting this! I've been trying to figure out how to intuitively use zoom and had no idea you could bind it to an axis.