Theodore42

I meant to post that here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=283454 WTF happened did they just combine 2 threads that I'm replying to? Did a mod make a mistake trying to move 1 thread to a different forum? I seem off topic but I'm just trying to post in the right thread: Moved: Are there in-flight slow speed handling improvements planned?

Turn off NWS at 60kts. That's maybe 1.5 seconds after your afterburner lights up. NWS is for taxi; or if you're not pointed straight up the runway when you start the takeoff roll. You don't want to use it to guide a heavy, asymmetrical aircraft up the middle of a runway.

Guys they fixed this months ago. You can go 80 seconds at 8Gs without blacking out. I seem to recall from the F-16 pilot collaborating to write the F 4.0 manual said the goal for pilots was to sustain 8Gs for 90 seconds (The F-16 in that game maxed out at 8 Gs). I'm skeptical at the notion that a pilot is going to sustain much more than 9 Gs for multiple seconds and then be able to make split second decisions and sustain 8Gs in a dogfight. After a G warm up, 80 seconds at 8Gs: in reference to this: Every pilot's physical ability is going to vary from pilot to pilot and day to day. And there is no way to simulate decision making with all the blood drained out the simmer's brain, nor is there a way to simulate the amount of focus required to perform such athletic feats. For those of you who have trained athletically, don't you agree that there is more to training than just moving your muscles in a specific way? If you haven't trained athletically, I assure you there is a mental wall you have to break as well as physical, which takes effort and focus. And that cannot be simulated on our PCs. I therefore give ED a lot of leeway in simulating the G effects experienced by the pilot.

Squadron Name: N/A Teamspeak/Discord: Discord Contact person Discord ID: Theodore#1699 Aircraft Selection: F-16 Pilots: USA Theodore42

Ya, Probably what is happening is you're getting nervous and over-correcting, which everyone does. Even everyone that will reply to this post that insists they are perfect over-corrects all the time, including me. Try flying in formation with the tanker for a few minutes. See if you can fly straight and level by looking only at the tanker. This is a low pressure way to get "into the zone." Then, when you approach the tanker to refuel, you will over-correct, as everyone does. But bring yourself back to that feeling of formation flying with the tanker. When you start chasing the queues it is best to withdraw and reengage. It really is a mental thing more than a skill thing for most people. Good luck!

My e-bracket is all over the place because I'm dealing with 10 feet per second of turbulence. So set the turbulence level to 100 and give that a try and tell me how easily you fly the ball. :P I had the FLCS page up so you can see what the control surfaces are doing. IMO a newbie would be better off just worrying about 1 throttle axis. And I am special, thanks for noticing! :D EDIT from the FUTURE: @ toutenglisse YES! I'm so glad you went and did that! Was it fun? :)

Why does it matter that the X-52 is only 1 axis. The only thing I can think of... is that you guys are talking about........ trying to control each of the engines separately? Ya don't do that while landing. Only during start up and if something breaks. Some people will micro the throttle with asymmetric loadouts and stuff but that's really just being pedantic. Clarity is important because someone might get the impression that you need a two axis HOTAS to land in the Hornet, and as everyone can see from the video I posted, it is demonstrably false.

I'm still not EXACTLY understanding your issue. I have an X-52 pro also and don't have a problem landing. If you could post a replay of yourself landing maybe that would help diagnose what's going on? Here is me landing the hornet in max heat (less thrust available) and turbulance at "100" (100 * 0.10 ft/s): (at about 3:30) You'll have to look at the gauges to see what I'm doing with the throttle. But if I can fly the ball to the deck with thrust nerfed because of heat and my glideslope reckt by turbulence with an X-52.... I mean, you gotta be doing something not right.

Hi! I'm not exactly understanding your problem, but it kind of sounds like you're having an issue controling input? Are you using a HOTAS? If not, you're going to have a really had time using the throttle precisely in DCS :( If you do have a HOTAS you might want to try turning off the user curves to see how that feels. When I got the F-16 I messed with the curves a lot to try to make it "feel" right, but it never did. Then, on advice from forums, I turned off the curves, and it feels great now. Can't explain it :) But like I said, I'm not exactly understanding your problem. Perhaps the nature of my confusion will help you clarify?

Sounds like you're landing too fast, how many pounds of fuel do you have on that thing? If more than 3000lbs you're gonna take a really long time to come to a stop. When aerobraking be sure you pitch your nose up to 12.5 degrees above the horizon (15 degrees you scrape, so be careful!) Aerobraking creates a lot more induced drag at 12.5 than at 9 or 10. And the F-16 has little tiny wheels with little tiny brakes. That's why aerobraking was part of it's actual landing procedure when it went into production. And that's why it has an amazing thrust to weight ratio. WIP as always but imo the rollout distances seem pretty spot on.

The crosswind aspect of landings are still a massive wip. Nothing about the crosswind landing procedure is discernable in game. Neither are the pilot narratives about crosswind landings. You're supposed to land crabbed and aerobrake until 100kts or until roll control becomes an issue. The main issues warned about in the manual are weird yaw movement as the ARI (aileron-rudder interface) cuts out. As implemented now, there is no roll control during landing. I think (total guess) the reason is that the ARI cuts out when the MLG wheels spool up on touchdown and ED isn't sure how to model such a thing; or it might be time consuming and/or lower on their list of priorities for the programmers that do that kind of thing.

The green one is less stiff I believe. Ya that's true... If you think about it, the most realistic thing to do would be to put the stiffest spring on there that you can and just decrease the saturation really low. So that 10% of joystick deflection = 100% deflection. The F-16 prototype had no stick movement, it was just sensitive to how much pressure the pilot applied. But this weirded out the test pilots too much apparently, so they added a very small amount of movement.

Have you tried no curves? I think most people here do that. The only thing I change is the roll saturation- I change it such that full deflection of the F-16 comes at 90% of my X-52's deflection (the roll response is a little mild for me). But I can sustain 8.0Gs in a turn at varying speeds for 80 seconds with an inferior joystick and no curves.

Oh I didn't understand you were talking about ground refueling. There isn't a way to control how full the tanks are- they seem to just have the trait of being full of fuel. Is it possible to remove the tanks and then put them back?

I've refilled the viper from 0lbs to 14100lbs.... Is that the most recent stable version?

F-5 is to the F-16 what the F-16 is to the F-15. Have you tried a max throttle climbing turn at 160kts? @4:11 here: Can't believe you guys have more trouble with the F-5 than the MiG-29S.

Seems fine to me tbh. ED is trying to simulate sunlight, sunlight reflecting off clouds, sunlight passing through polarized glass, and the green light being reflected onto your hud... all with your computer monitor. I love BMS more than the average guy, but they are just putting green letters on your monitor. As was the style at the time (due to DX7).

You should try running through the actual checklist in the NATOPS that's what all the super nerds around here are doing :)

Nozzle position, speed brake deployment, acceleration at altitude (with stores), and G tolerance have all been updated recently. In fact I'm pretty sure you can pull 8Gs forever in the F-16 now without blacking out.

Looks like you're doing everything right. -50 carb temp is ok at high altitudes as long as there isn't any moisture freezing up in your venturi tube, which I've only suspected of happening in DCS at VERY cold temps and while flying in clouds. That's the only time you should use hot air in DCS, and even then I'm not sure about how its modeled. As far as filtered air, I don't think there are circumstances modeled in DCS that requires anything but RAM air. Sounds like your problem is legitimately weird. Are you sure it's happening every time? At the exact same altitude? Could you be bumping a switch, like LOW BLOWER, perhapse? Could you have bumped your throttle or RPMs? Since you're describing something that seems to be at a ceiling there has to be something about that altitude. Try changing the mission to a different ambient pressure and different temperatures. See how that affects things. I feel like I've done everything stupid there is to do in a Mustang at every altitude, so let me know what you figure out. But players will get up to 40k ft doing what you're describing, so there shouldn't be a problem.

True. A rl example might be Special Weapons Command providing an aircraft to Special Projects for weird stuff. I bet they would strap a donkey and cart onto an F-16 with duct tape and a jump rope if they had to. It would be cool to be able to select in the loadout editor which regulations you want to follow.

Ya, those guys are going 900kts and ya, you're going to get yaw like that in the real thing for sure. It will usually happen at 800kts in RL and DCS (if you have at least a little turbulance on in DCS).

Hmm, so I don't have to watch a 14 min track file, does it look something like this? If so, you're going too fast. Max allowed speed for the F16 is 800 kts. The F-16 also has some beta worbble if you do: High G turn -> unload -> roll 180 -> High G turn as fast as possible. Helpful?

The 5 min value is to cool down the aftercooler. It PROBABLY isn't modeled in DCS at all, or if so, isn't accurate. The RL aircraft doesn't report (or even measure) the aftercooler temp, which might be why ED doesn't model it. Like Graf said, manifold and oil temps aren't going to inform you as to the timing of WEP. When I use it I leave it on and bounce between the low and high blower. That is a really good altitude to boom and zoom and I've never had an engine blow up doing that. Although I'm never using more than 60MP for more than a minute at a time, and I'm cooling it off with very high speeds and a MP of less than 50. I don't think it was designed to go from FT 3000 RPM, to WEP 3000 RPM for 5 mins, and then back down to FT 3000RPM. But maybe it was, I don't know. I've always been in the habit of flying at max continuous and have never had a problem with WEP using how I want (which is probably "sparingly" by most people's standards). And for all we know the damage after 5 mins could be to engine longevity rather than an actual failure. ED said they're updating the engine heating and cooling dynamics so I'm going to wait until that drops before taking criticism too seriously. As far as convergence, maybe I'm the only one, but wouldn't it be cool to be able to set up the Mustang with 4 MGs and extra ammo? What was that? "No."??? Are six guns REALLY better than four? REALLY? Ya, they are. But if they're gonna mess with convergence it would be a cool feature IMO. Just not one that everyone else would be into.

Not a big deal, I just opened up my comment with a casual statement so people don't take me too seriously. But it is a statement that doesn't pertain to me under any circumstances so I understand why it triggered you. I opened with it because I've been known to shoot my mouth off :huh: Also, thanks for the proper wall of text reply :D