Syndrome

This sounds like good advice. Any suggestions on a good source material to learn about these terms and further how to become proficient in their application?

The no-tracer rounds are default for several mission loadouts that start in the air. This would be more feasible if we had radar gun locks.

Too early imo. The flight model is still a WIP. Don't expect to out turn anyone in a fight. Don't expect to be able to use all 9g of airframe. And don't expect to stay conscious in the regimes where you can get 9g for more than 0.5 seconds (as opposed to at least 15s IRL). Don't expect radar gun locks (WW2 style spray n pray only). If you can handle all of this, then you'll be happy with the current early access F-16. The systems that exist are easy enough for even a novice to pick up and fly, and it's pretty easy to get the systems ready for a dogfight, so AA isn't too bad and BVR works fairly well. If you're looking for something more agile and feature complete, you might be happier with a Hornet or Thunder.

Yeah that was my exact logic, time will tell if it was a good purchase though. I still have plenty of other fun to fly jets so I'm not stressed about whether the flight model ever matures into something competitive. But if I'm honest, I am disappointed so far.

As accurate as possible for A/A or A/G? because when even 1 jet is modified for security reasons, you can only have 1 or the other, but not both. For A/A the only way to maintain the sim is by conserving relative FM performance. For A/G relative FM is less important and performance relative to EM charts and static ground features is paramount.

Yeah, I think there are 2 mutually inconsistent counter narratives here that are holding the F-16 back: 1) the assertion that this is a realistic 1:1 sim, clearly this isn't so because every aircraft has some FM departure from reality. In the case of the Hornet it was de-tuned intentionally to avoid safety issues that allow people to use DCS to train against too accurate jet models. 2) the assertion that comparing planes doesn't matter because all that matters is EM charts. Well we already know that the FM are intentionally off in some cases, which means that the only thing left is relative performance. So... if we can't safely have 1:1 flight models, and we also are forbidden from comparing jets, then the degree of de-tuning becomes for all outward users:arbitrary, and yes we are left playing a game where up-tuning or down-tuning certain aspects is a decision, not physics. And if one plane is more accurate than others, then even the accuracy is arbitrary and only significant relative to static ground features. Meaningless in any A/A. And I kinda doubt people are thrilled to pay $80 for an attack-centric Viper, or even for BVR. I'm guessing that people got the Viper because they assumed it would be fun to fly as a renowned agile dogfighter. Same as the BF109/Spitfire. And this is where the Viper lets people down atm.

If it can't track the F-14 then it's definitely not a radar cross section issue. I was doing the JF-17 BVR mission that spawns random bandit types at around 65nm and noticed that some jets seemed harder to detect, wasn't sure if it was a radar cross section issue or just the narrow scan bug or both. Maybe there is something irregular about the types of jets. As for the AAA it's possible that REDFOR sees the F-14 and doesn't know for sure if it's BLUFOR?

You're starting the clock rather late in the evergy bleeding turn, so of course you get a longer time. The video states the "9g turn starts at t = 0:34."However we can only tell the turn by the angles of orientation and the F-16 is pointed at the camera at t=0:35 and again between 0:47 and 0:49 which I rounded to 12 seconds at first glance, probably between 13-14. I have tested this exhaustively in game since the day the F-16 was released. There is no starting and ending speed to pull a 9g turn that finishes a full 360 degrees in under 20 seconds, let alone 14 seconds. Speed bleed or no. Clearly the jet in the video is losing both kinetic and gravitational potential energy, and still manages to burn through a 360 degree turn in under 15 seconds. That's an average of ~26 deg/s, with an unknown much higher max instantaneous turn rate. In the game it's impossible to get higher than 23.5 deg/s instantaneous in a speed bleeding turn with a maximum average turn rate of about 18 deg/s in any energy bleeding turn, due to the extreme slow down from drag (or perhaps lack of thrust?). The fastest 360 turn I've been able to achieve is 20 seconds at any starting speed or altitude. I'm sure better pilots could shave a second off that. But 6 seconds? Color me skeptical. I can certainly provide track files to show this if you'd like. And likewise, if you can show me a track files demonstrating anything remotely close to a 14 second turn at any parameters, I'll gladly acknowledge user error on my part and learn to do the same.

Why would the Americans build an air frame capable of 9g turns but only at speeds too high for any quick turns or useful BFM? Then continue to keep it in service for 3 decades trying to figure out ways to get double digit g tolerance from their F-16 pilots, and then selling said plane to 18 other countries, who then spent huge sums of money upgrading the F-16 jets after they received far cheaper JF-17s which are vastly superior according to DCS? On top of this we have RL viper pilots saying the jet feels sluggish, and multiple YouTube videos showing performance that is higher than the best performance we see in DCS by over 60%. What is more likely, that all of these other sources are wrong for several decades, fooling 18 countries into buying and upgrading an uncompetitive jet at every opportunity? Or... is it just a little bit more likely that the FM is off?

Wow, that's an F-16 pulling ~12 second 360 degree turn. Whereas the shortest 360 turn time we can get in DCS with clean wings on bingo fuel is closer to 20 seconds. Not even close. :/

Yup this is my biggest concern with the current implementation of the Viper. It has more wing area, a bigger TWR, and a stronger air frame that was built for 9g turns, and yet is being vastly out performed by a budget rate version that is weaker on all of these stats that are critical to turn rate, namely the JF-17. They should be at least roughly on par if not with slightly better speed sustain and acceleration on the Viper, and slightly better BVR capability on the JF-17. And on top of this the F-16 input lags making controlled and precise maneuvers feel like molasses compared to either the Hornet or the JF-17, so it's nothing to do with mass. Low alt building dodging slaloms is effortless and responsive in the JF-17 or Hornet, but very delayed with no ability to last second adjustments in the Viper. I have zero time in a real Viper cockpit, but it just feels wrong by comparison. Weighing only slightly more than a JF-17 and having more thrust and lift authority, it should perform at least somewhere BETWEEN a JF-17 and a Hornet in terms of responsiveness to sudden vector changes.

GLOC tolerance in the F-16 is a combination of: seat recline PBG (positive pressure breathing, which is currently a nonfunctioning switch on the oxygen control panel that moves at least) g suits muscle straining and breathing exercises All of which add up to let 94% of F-16 pilots to be able to tolerate >9g forces for a minimum of 15s.

I know this beautiful jet was just released, but nothing makes a cockpit feel quite like "home" like having arms and legs. :pilotfly:

Yeah it's not just the Hornet though. The Viper was designed to be a rate fighter (very similar to the JF-17) pulling over 21 deg/s sustained at typical combat speeds. Currently it can only average ~18 deg/s if you are extremely careful, and it's current instantaneous turn rate (with high energy bleed) can't even reach 20 deg/s. This is significantly below average for a DCS dog fighter and well below the JF-17 which can easily turn at 25 deg/s despite having a significantly lower TWR and a weaker air frame designed for lower g tolerance. So yeah, F-16 is way under performing in terms of sustained turn rate, instantaneous turn rate, weak/laggy heading control, acceleration, and rather critically speed maintenance in controlled sustained turns. One likely major factor is the overbearing and slowed down FLCS which is currently binding the Stabilators at reduced rotation rates and weakened torque, especially at the extremes of the range of stabilator motion. The FLCS interference makes it hard to tell if weak thrust is also an issue because it may be inducing increased drag as well.

Sorry if this is an unrelated topic but they both have "thunder" in the name so :D It's a great documentary. Beginning to end. Highly recommend it. @t=18:45 But yeah, the Deka music works much in the same way imo.

Yeah it's a nice change up from the usual adrenaline pumping standard music provided with most modules that the game's combat already provides with it's immersion. It's like that quiet moment that P-47 pilots were required to take before each deadly mission. Gets me in the right frame of mind to focus.

Yes, who do we have to thank for this masterpiece? Take a bow. :clap_2: :notworthy: Even the theme music is amazing.

Ahh, so that's what the MPO switch is for. Thanks!

Isn't this already in the game? One random shot within 10m of the engine results in the engine crapping out. Thought that's why we were getting the air cooled P47?

deleted by user

Thank you for checking this out. Much appreciated. I updated the video with stopwatch timers to show the quantitative difference in rotation speed. Measured in 60ths of a second. Eg 0:22 = 0.37 seconds, and 0:38 = 0.63 seconds. If you slow down the playback through Youtube settings, you'll see that the real F-16 maintains the same speed of rotation throughout the range of motion, whereas the DCS F-16 stabs slow down as if fighting a spring that provides more resistance at the top of the motion creating the illusion of a "pause" but the last couple of degrees of motion takes a huge fraction of the time and is still moving a few pixels per fraction of a second right up until the 0:38 marker. If it was higher resolution, you'd see it moving past that up to 0:40, but the youtube version is downsampled so I just showed the timer marking showing motion that should be easily visible to all.

Yes but there is no option to manually go past the detent when the detent is set to always on under the specials tab. So its either always off or always on. There is button to toggle between always off and always on, but this it's clunky because you have no way of knowing which mode you're in without looking down at the throttle.

There is no pause between switching. The switch in input was nearly instantaneous because the curves were set to "binary" either 100 or 0 with a single point of neutral deadzone in the center of the stick @ 50. The delay you are noticing is the built in lag caused by the game slowing the stabilators down to half their real life speed so that when it reverses direction it looks like a "pause". This is an optical illusion caused by the slower movement of the stabilators. Try it yourself by the setting the curves to a binary step wise function and going through the full motion, there is no pause. It's impossible to recreate the real life snapping at the end of the movement range because the stabilators are moving twice as slow.

Was watching how fast the newest DCS plane can move its stabs and it made me wonder what it is about the F-16 that feels a bit sluggish sometimes, and it turns out the Viper's stabs are moving about twice as slow as they do IRL. Going from level to full stick back takes 0.6 seconds and nearly 2 seconds make a full sweep stabilator sweep cycle. Whereas the real Viper takes 0.3 seconds for a full stick back deflection and about 1.3 seconds to make a full stabilator sweep. You'll notice that the real stabilators are moving so fast that they snap crisply at the end of the range, where the game ones slow to a stop and then return as if pivoting in molasses. I am guessing this might be what some people are referring to when they say that the flight model of the F-16 takes too long to reach 9g in a turn and feels delayed and somewhat disconnected from inputs. For clarity, this has nothing to do with input lag or curves. I had my curves set to a step-wise binary deflection so there was zero input delay. Eg all y values above 50 counted as 100 on the "curve" and all values below 50 counted as zero. EDIT: Updated the video with stopwatch timers to show the quantitative difference. Measured in 60ths of a second. Eg 0:22 = 0.37 seconds, and 0:38 = 0.63 seconds. If you slow down the playback through Youtube settings, you'll see that the real F-16 maintains the same speed of rotation throughout the range of motion, whereas the DCS F-16 stabs slow down as if fighting a spring that provides more resistance at the top of the motion creating the illusion of a "pause" but the last couple of degrees of motion takes a huge fraction of the time and is still moving a few pixels per fraction of a second right up until the 0:38 marker. If it was higher resolution, you'd see it moving past that up to 0:40, but the youtube version is downsampled so I just showed the timer marking showing motion that was easily visible to all. I am also including images of the binary stepwise curves used so you can the slow down at the end isn't from input lag on the joystick.

Brilliant! I had no issue with flying the Gazelle even with no curves, and halving the saturation of both axes seemed like a severe solution, but the Gazelle is still very agile even so, and "feels" more realistic now. Somehow this feels different about the center than even 30 point curves at the same center slope as a 50% saturation flat line. More steady maybe? Idk. But it WORKS. Thank you sir!