First impressions of the Viper EA

[TexasThunder]

I like and knew it was EA so wanted to get a feel for it...Thanks ED

 

Got a mapping for the TM warthog? Not sure what to map or not...

[I_Gamer]

Mentioned this on reddit, but I'll post here as well, with a few additions.

 

I saw a post somewhere on the ED forums where Wags explained that this EA release is a much earlier version than we got when the Hornet was released to EA. So, essentially, the Viper in its current state is like an 8/mo baby, and the Hornet, when it released to EA, would be a 3/yo toddler. So, we all got the Viper sooner than we originally thought, and those of us that paid for it - get to be a part of the "public" development process just that much longer.

 

 

 

ED is in this weird spot - they can choose to wait, and develop it more (like the Hornet) - though some people will make the "WHEN IS THE VIPER COMING OUT, GIVE NOW!". Their other option is to release it early, like they did, but now are under the "THERE IS SO MUCH MISSING, WTF ED!?" It's a trap, either way, and it's unfortunate.

 

 

All that said; I'm pretty excited for the Viper and where ED takes it. The sound design is by far the best they've produced in a module, with room for improvements on some of the accuracies of course - and the overall feel of this module is fantastic so far. Yes, it's early, but we all knew that. Thanks to the entire ED team on your dedication to bringing this beautiful bird to life inside DCS, I can't wait to see this "grow up" into one of the best modules in the game.

[MobiSev]

...ED is in this weird spot - they can choose to wait, and develop it more (like the Hornet) - though some people will make the "WHEN IS THE VIPER COMING OUT, GIVE NOW!"...

 

I think it was more of them trying to beat the JF-17 out of the gate than not wanting to hear the forums complain. It was interesting to see ED's reaction, or perceived reaction, to the 17's academic videos. Soon after Deka started to release their videos, ED took all coders off the 18 and put them on the 16. To me at least, it looked like an "Oh crap, all hands on deck! Let's hurry and get this released" moment.

 

I really don't think that people would care if a little more work was put into it before it was released. However, they might've just bought the 17 if the 16 was released after it, since the two planes perform similar roles. But then again, maybe not or maybe they would have bought both. The 16 is an iconic jet after all.

Edited October 4, 2019 by MobiSev

[SgtPappy]

Thank you for actually taking the time to read the posts and understanding what it is all about. I'm baffled by how little people try to actually understand or even care read through the entirety of ones post before responding.

 

Agreed, I admit maybe people would like to hear a little more praise and thanks which is fine, but no one is obligated to completely ignore faults either.

 

Is early access not for testing? Is this not testing? It's one thing if someone said "This is horrible, I'm upset at the fact that it does not have feature X, Y or Z"

 

Contrast that to: "It's early access so I know there are some bugs. Here are some bugs: X, Y and Z"

 

The latter is quite obviously a tester. I don't believe there is any berating there. If you get emotional when you read something like that, it's okay, but it's on you - it's not the alpha/beta tester's fault if they didn't use any charged language.

 

ANYWAY - The F-16 looks and sounds lovely and I can't wait for someone to do some 80's dogfights - the way Boyd intended!

[GPatricks]

Killed 4 Migs in IA Intercept, got an Air medal... :megalol:

 

Actually 4 Su27s, though RWR said 29..

Edited October 4, 2019 by GaryR

[crazyave]

Happy to have the F-16 again! Woohoo!!

 

 

I felt it handled with a lot of character, meaning it has specific handling characteristics compared to the other planes in the sim. I'm used to the F-18, F-15, and F-5. I think the F-18 has made me a little aft-stick happy, and so probably why I felt a little out of sync with the F-16 at first with roll and high AoA. It was quirky to me for some reason. Just more character I guess.

 

 

In a podcast about the F-18, real pilots divulged the AoA for the F-16 as 25degrees, with a manual override switch to go further. Interesting. They confirmed it does not do as high of AoA as say the F-18 (35 degrees), because the single tail on the F-16 gets shadowed by the fuselage. All very interesting. Happy flying! Here is the podcast, hopefully linked to the info I quoted from it above....

[pimp]

...Actually 4 Su27s, though RWR said 29..

FYI, the 27's have always shown as 29's on the RWR.

[Dudikoff]

FYI, the 27's have always shown as 29's on the RWR.

 

Yeah, because the radar is the same tech, just enlarged so the only difference between them from the perspective of an RWR is signal strength, I guess.

[Cowboy10uk]

Loving it completely. After cutting my combat flying teeth on a certain other F16 sim way back in the 90s, seeing this cockpit again in a sim felt like coming home. You guys did a stunning job. Yes there’s still a lot of work to do and a lot of mfd menus and systems still missing. But she already feels like a winner.

 

Personally I’m very impressed and surprised just how quick I remembered how to use this aircraft.

 

One very very happy customer here.

[A2597]

So much to learn, but managed an unassisted cold start, takeoff, accurate ccip bombs and rockets run, then a decent ILS landing.

 

Still can't get TACAN to turn on, but overall had a blast!

(Flying the f16, 30 minutes at a time...)

[Baco]

For what it is, its brilliant.

 

Bare in mind that the Viper was the fastest ED releas of its history. From announced to EA it was less than a year.

 

So yeah it needs a lot of work, but at least you can fly around and learn its idiosyncrasies.

 

Its an early alpha. You don´t like it, wait till its more complete.

You got it 20% off, if you want to wait 6 more months till its more complete be my guest.

 

Some wanted to have it "hands on" as soon as posible. there is no negative side here. You want i more complete, It will be. just wait an fly other planes...

[MobiSev]

For what it is, its brilliant.

 

Bare in mind that the Viper was the fastest ED releas of its history. From announced to EA it was less than a year.

 

So yeah it needs a lot of work, but at least you can fly around and learn its idiosyncrasies.

 

Its an early alpha. You don´t like it, wait till its more complete.

You got it 20% off, if you want to wait 6 more months till its more complete be my guest.

 

Some wanted to have it "hands on" as soon as posible. there is no negative side here. You want i more complete, It will be. just wait an fly other planes...

 

i'd say just make it single player only until it at least has a damage model...

[Dodo]

Initially, certainly more impressed than anticipated/expected. Detail level is, again, ED standard, and especially immersive with the sound design and cockpit atmosphere. Definitely impressed with the flight model itself, and do not understand the discourse made about the lacking performance of it, as it seems equally matched in terms of dogfight capability; it just seems very fly-by-wire, as intended, compared to other F-1x equivalents - seemingly the source of some frustration about maneuverability in the simulator. Systems, sure, are indeed missing, but this was very expected in comparison to the F/A-18C release. Furthermore, there are some elementary features missing - damage modeling, external lighting, store management, etc. - but it seemed generally impressive overall as an EA module, like the F/A-18C. If anything, the F-16CM is just as capable in conventional combat scenarios than other airframes available, albeit without the unique/developed systems i.e. HTS, etc.

 

 

Overall, it's suitable for an EA module and it's eager for some systems work, but a decent start! Worth the preorder price.

[pimp]

Initially, certainly more impressed than anticipated/expected. Detail level is, again, ED standard, and especially immersive with the sound design and cockpit atmosphere. Definitely impressed with the flight model itself, and do not understand the discourse made about the lacking performance of it, as it seems equally matched in terms of dogfight capability; it just seems very fly-by-wire, as intended, compared to other F-1x equivalents - seemingly the source of some frustration about maneuverability in the simulator. Systems, sure, are indeed missing, but this was very expected in comparison to the F/A-18C release. Furthermore, there are some elementary features missing - damage modeling, external lighting, store management, etc. - but it seemed generally impressive overall as an EA module, like the F/A-18C. If anything, the F-16CM is just as capable in conventional combat scenarios than other airframes available, albeit without the unique/developed systems i.e. HTS, etc.

 

 

Overall, it's suitable for an EA module and it's eager for some systems work, but a decent start! Worth the preorder price.

Ditto Dodo :) I can echo what you said. To me, the Viper is good and is going to get even better with time.

[RentedAndDented]

I think part of the problem here is that you're misrepresenting, in my opinion, what was being said about sensitive data, or at least you are making interpretations that go way beyond what was said in the FPP. You seem to be saying that ED is fudging things when they don't need to and I really don't think that is the case. Wags is more professional than that, he's doing it where he thinks it necessary, and he is qualified to make that determination.

 

The information might be accessible but on the other hand, there might well be a few legal and reputational issues with their SME partners that they might want to take care of, should they actually implement that sensitive data.

 

I am not saying you are wrong about your data interpretation, but there are many other people here saying that the jet is very close to their data. Something may well be amiss here with what data is being used.

 

Personally I actually agree with you, on a layman level. It does feel like a faster accelerating Hornet with no AoA capability, because it can't sustain a turn like I expected it to - Hornet seems better (being a layman my expectation could be completely wrong).

 

 

Like I said, I understand that it's EA and I expect changes to happen, and I'm definitely not complaining, I am simply reporting discrepancies.

 

I feel people really need to understand that just because you're highlightning errors it's not the same as complaining.

 

That said it's been identified that the F-16 fuel burn is much lower than it should be, so this could atleast be part of the reason that the other fighters are having such an easy time against it, i.e. that they are getting lighter much faster than it.

[Solty]

I'm very positively surprised about the FM. It feels like nothing I ever flown before but it seems to be really flybywire. The plane is so easy to start and take into the air its unreal. I think my Mom could fly it. Even the landing seems really easy, obviously that can be contacted to the lack of DM but it's a first impression. Plane can be easily called the easiest to fly in DCS by a large margin.

 

Weapon employment and other combat systems though...

 

I'm having troubles with Radar and submodes of Dogfight mode in the Falcon. I can throw ammram and aim 9x at planes, just not understanding why it works this way. I don't get the elipse in boar mode and I don't get tone.

 

RWR also doesn't work and I always have to put the auxiliary RWR on to see anything.

 

Radar doesn't detect anything and I can't lock. So can't do BVR.

 

Anyone has similar problems?

[b0bl00i]

Adding to what's been said before. It's a good foundation to continue (hard and speedy) work on, but it's extremely barebone which is asking quite a lot considering the ea asking price.

 

I'm having doubts about the flight model, at halv tanks full and no external stores I cannot maintain 9g sustained turns.. At what speeds should this be possible? Also, what is the recommended minimum speed in wvr scenarios?

[MAXsenna]

So much to learn, but managed an unassisted cold start, takeoff, accurate ccip bombs and rockets run, then a decent ILS landing.

 

Still can't get TACAN to turn on, but overall had a blast!

(Flying the f16, 30 minutes at a time...)

I take it you have found out elsewhere to turn on TACAN?

Just checking!

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[WynnTTr]

Adding to what's been said before. It's a good foundation to continue (hard and speedy) work on, but it's extremely barebone which is asking quite a lot considering the ea asking price.

 

I'm having doubts about the flight model, at halv tanks full and no external stores I cannot maintain 9g sustained turns.. At what speeds should this be possible? Also, what is the recommended minimum speed in wvr scenarios?

 

Pre-order EA price was cheaper than EA/retail. Either pay to fly it now as is or pay later to fly with more systems implemented. Either way you and I will be flying the exact same jet only difference is if you pre-ordered you got it for cheaper.

[Fisu_MAD]

One word.. Amazing

[karasawa]

Hello, I'm not so sure about that. We have a lot of excellent FM charts/data on the Viper and they all match very, very well. We've also have had multiple F-16 pilots fly our Viper and they felt it be quite accurate. If there is a specific area of the FM that you can point to with evidence of it being off, that would certainly be useful. Such generalizations are not very helpful I'm afraid.

 

Thanks

 

Just google "F/A-18E/F will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement" written by GAO

Check Page 30

 

F/A-18C-402engine, 2 amraams, 2 aim9s, 60% internal fuel, no tanks, sustains 12.3dps at 15000ft. F/A-18C in DCS performs 6% better than this.

 

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251091&page=19

a little test, compared the results to the numbers in the HAF supplement manual, it seems that the engine of the viper is somewhat underperforming

 

1- Clean aircraft, 24000 lb weight, 20k feet, 15°C at sea lvl

 

mil accel 200-400 kias = 59 sec (should be 56)

AB accel 200-400 kias = 25 sec (should be 22)

 

 

2- Drag index 100, 34000 lb, same conditions

 

 

mil = 4 min still at 395 kias (should pass 400 after 115 sec)

AB = 42 sec (should be 36 sec)

 

 

3- DI 250, 38000 lb

 

 

mil = unable to pass 365 kias after 7 min (should be at 400 after 234 sec)

AB = 55 sec (should be 46 sec)

 

------------ Verification from flight manuals ------------

 

From flight manual F-16C-block50 sustains higher turn rate than F-14B, however in DCS F-16 is constantly out-turned by F-14B in 2-circle fights:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251091&page=21

Edited October 7, 2019 by karasawa
1.16

[dawgie79]

You know, I think it's a fantastic fighter, and also already a great module which will only get far better.

 

The only thing I miss is the carrier, I really like the F/A-18C and operate from (and to) the carrier, especially when the Supercarrier module will be released. So, too bad the Viper isn't carrier capable.

 

But in the end both are great! Like them both alot and in fact, to tell the truth, I can't choose. :joystick:

 

First world problems. :P

[Zeagle]

I'm loving the F-16. But it's parked until the next update.

[A2597]

I take it you have found out elsewhere to turn on TACAN?

Just checking!

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

 

Haven't had a chance to fly again, but still no idea how to turn it on.

I have radios on, tacan volume up, but it just saiys tacan off, even after cycling modes on the hsi

[ArcLite]

Make sure the MIDS LVT knob by the avionics switches is turned on.