First impressions of the Viper EA

[Gerrard]

I was a little unsure at first but decided to persevere over the weekend and boy am I glad I did..

 

It's really important to get your controller set up properly, and in particular the axis tuning to get the Viper performing the way you think it should. Once that's done there are enough functional systems to destroy both ground and air targets and this is only going to improve with new weapons to come.

 

Thanks ED. Now, all I need is a dynamic campaign and Korean peninsula map and I can die happy.. :)

[cptmrcalm]

"Oh Gerrard...."

 

*shakes head and taps your shoulder.*

 

*blinks slowly and nods in agreement*

 

"So do I bud...."

 

*sighs and then stares out to the horizon*

 

 

 

 

 

 

"...so do i"

 

 

 

Actually, now I've come back to my senses. Just curious Humming Bird. You found any data? whats the update on your impressions? (i get that you are not hating on the sim. Just trying to offer constructive criticism)

 

Just out of interest -I felt right at home with the jet. It all felt familiar.

I took it for a spin and did some twists and turns. "felt" like it "should".

 

at least - for me anyway.

Edited October 7, 2019 by cptmrcalm

[Napa]

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

 

This!

 

I'm not saying its unplayable but it needs work.

[Mr_sukebe]

Have to say that I'm really enjoying the F16.

Looks lovely (certainly in VR), seems to fly well.

Sure, it has a few "areas of opportunity", but that's all we can expect on such a complex machine that's just been released in early access. We know from the F18 that it will vastly improve.

 

Now, let me fire it that engine again...

[Fjordmonkey]

I love what the Viper promises. Spooling up the engine for the first time and taking her up for the first time for a simple freeflight-hop with the rest of the Arctic Tigers on releaseday was like a dream come true, and the promise of what's to come is tantalizing and something I've been waiting for during the last 15 or so years.

 

Is it finished? Absolutely not. To be honest, right now it's a nice bird to do freeflights in, but as it stands right now, the incomplete features means that it's hard to apply it correctly (Looking at you, damagemodel and IFF).

 

That being said, I'd daresay that I found it worth my $64 on the promise of what it can (and hopefully will) become further down the road. $64, while not an insignificant amount of money, is less than a semi-good meal while dining out. If I couldn't hoof that I probably should find other hobbys and re-evaluate what I did with my life in general, but that's besides the point. I bought the Viper at a discount knowing full well that it wasn't even close to being finished. I did so out of two reasons:

1: I'm a cheap bastard in general

2: I love the Viper and the promise of what's shown at EA made it worth it to me.

 

Looking forward to the next patches and hope we'll see some large strides in them in the coming weeks.

[ArcLite]

Yep, I’m glad they released it instead of waiting. There’s more than enough here already to start working with and enjoy. I’m having fun and I know the fixes and additions are coming.

[MAXsenna]

 

Thanks ED. Now, all I need is a dynamic campaign and Korean peninsula map and I can die happy.. :)

 

Just out of curiosity. What's the thing for people with the F-16 and Korea?

I get the Migs and the Sabres, but the Falcon?

 

In Falcon 3.0 I never flew in Korea and it's probably why I stopped flying 4.0 until BMS came along. Just puts me off the emersion.

To me the F-16 belongs in Cold War Europe, Middle-East and the 90's Balkans.

Like I said. I'm just curious, very so!

Maybe I'm trying to get enlightened!

 

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

Edited October 7, 2019 by MAXsenna

[=Thrust=]

First impressions, well the cockpit and external modelling is excellent, so that's good.

 

As for the flight model, well.... let me put it like this: Atm the F-16 is 100% outclassed by the F-14, F/A-18 & F-15 in a dogfight in DCS. It isn't even a competition at this point, the three other teen fighter completely trash it.

 

This is a far cry from what the EM charts tell us, so on that note the module has disappointed me so far. BUT this is early access open alpha, so a lot can and probably will change.

 

What does worry me though, and this is something I just now learned about, is what was said in this podcast from 19:00 min:

 

If it's true that the FM's of these birds are purposefully fudged in order to "keep the real pilots safe", well then for me it defeats the purpose of the sim as a whole, and right now I'm just hoping it really isn't the case.

 

The F16 seems to be heavier than the others fighters, but with training as the FM is very diferent i finally won against the whole fighters in DCS IA (exelent mod with 100/100 fuel for me and 75 for others, pfiuuu that was very hard :thumbup:.

 

 

Butttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt i havent seen i was only between 0 and 100 power no PC :doh: with new tool on stick,0 TO 100/100 and shortcut to post combustion :doh:

 

Re tested and now very conformtable :thumbup:

Surely flight model will be improved but for the moment good job

"Lets get te ball rolling dudes"

 

Thrust

Edited October 7, 2019 by =THRUST=

[Zad Fnark]

I'm actually loving the early access version of the 16. I'm able to learn the systems slowly as they come out. I've never dropped an LGB before in any other plane, so that was neat.

 

 

I just need to start to develop the air-to-air skills. I've always been partial to mud-moving.

 

 

The CBU-97s were amazing. I wiped out a bunch of armor on one pass. On the replay, all the charges were exploding in the air over the tanks. I'm assuming explosively formed projectiles.

[BIGNEWY]

I'm actually loving the early access version of the 16. I'm able to learn the systems slowly as they come out. I've never dropped an LGB before in any other plane, so that was neat.

 

 

I just need to start to develop the air-to-air skills. I've always been partial to mud-moving.

 

 

The CBU-97s were amazing. I wiped out a bunch of armor on one pass. On the replay, all the charges were exploding in the air over the tanks. I'm assuming explosively formed projectiles.

 

Good to see you are enjoying it, thanks for the feedback :)

[kengou]

My first impressions are that this is a good start, and fun to fly and land, but seemingly faced a rushed release. I think it was a mistake by ED to release it with so many known bugs, and especially without a damage model or radar gunsight. The RWR sounds, radar elevation axis, fuel flow, air refueling, external lights, and many more bugs, should have been working right out of the gate because they're core parts of the plane. I hope ED takes to heart the mixed first impressions to this release, especially from prominent youtubers, and works quickly to squash bugs and implement vital core features of the plane to get it to the state the Hornet launched in.

[CarbonFox]

It's fun to fly. That's about the extent of my enjoyment with it so far. I still think that this module was released alittle too early with what's currently modeled and available (system-wise) when compared with what was modeled in the Hornet at the start of its EA.

[Donut]

It is very fun and I am thankful and excited to finally have the F-16 in DCS. However, it is in very rough shape right now, even for early access. ED seems to have dropped their standards a bit as far as quality. Hopefully the first patch or two will quickly address all of this and we will see the F-16 brought up to the high standards of quality that other modules have shown at their early access release.

[Gerrard]

Just out of curiosity. What's the thing for people with the F-16 and Korea?

I get the Migs and the Sabres, but the Falcon?

 

In Falcon 3.0 I never flew in Korea and it's probably why I stopped flying 4.0 until BMS came along. Just puts me off the emersion.

To me the F-16 belongs in Cold War Europe, Middle-East and the 90's Balkans.

Like I said. I'm just curious, very so!

Maybe I'm trying to get enlightened!

 

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

 

Hi, well South Korea does have a lot of F-16s and it's a politically interesting part of the world being so close to China and Japan. Would be a great arena for carrier ops for the Hornets and Tomcats with good terrain for mud movers..

 

But yeah, I wouldn't mind a Balkans map either. :)

[Gerrard]

"Oh Gerrard...."

 

*shakes head and taps your shoulder.*

 

*blinks slowly and nods in agreement*

 

"So do I bud...."

 

*sighs and then stares out to the horizon*

 

 

 

 

 

 

"...so do i"

 

 

 

Actually, now I've come back to my senses. Just curious Humming Bird. You found any data? whats the update on your impressions? (i get that you are not hating on the sim. Just trying to offer constructive criticism)

 

Just out of interest -I felt right at home with the jet. It all felt familiar.

I took it for a spin and did some twists and turns. "felt" like it "should".

 

at least - for me anyway.

 

Hi, I'm no expert and I can appreciate people feeling it's underdone - but hey, Ed hold it back and they get 'When's it coming, when's it coming!' Release it early and it's 'Too raw and missing features'.. the old adage you just can't please everyone comes to mind .

 

For me, 30 minutes setting up the axis curves and it feels like I believe an F-16 should. It's great to look at inside and out, and blasting around the Caucus map is a hoot. In a year's time this module will be kick-ass.

[MAXsenna]

Hi, well South Korea does have a lot of F-16s and it's a politically interesting part of the world being so close to China and Japan. Would be a great arena for carrier ops for the Hornets and Tomcats with good terrain for mud movers..

 

 

 

But yeah, I wouldn't mind a Balkans map either. :)

 

Hehe! You're probably right for carrier ops at least.

I'm just really longing for some cold war Europe and Middle-East stuff.

We had it in the 80s and somewhat in 90s.

Sure am looking forward to the Syria map!

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[MAXsenna]

Hi, I'm no expert and I can appreciate people feeling it's underdone - but hey, Ed hold it back and they get 'When's it coming, when's it coming!' Release it early and it's 'Too raw and missing features'.. the old adage you just can't please everyone comes to mind .

 

 

 

For me, 30 minutes setting up the axis curves and it feels like I believe an F-16 should. It's great to look at inside and out, and blasting around the Caucus map is a hoot. In a year's time this module will be kick-ass.

Totally agree with you!

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[delevero]

All in all i find the f16 block 50 easy to use and fly, and i am already really good flying with it.

Air refueling and the few weapons avaliable work pretty good and im very happy we have a simple TGP then at least we can find the enemy on the ground and use our bombs for something.

I think priority of development have to be the IFF and datalink system and would be nice to be able to change the code of the LGB bombs before takeoff so its not only the mission maker who can do it.

( example change tgp laser code, and it automatic change the bombs, and once you are airborn the code is locked.. OR a subpage in the bomb where you can do it.. its a game after all we dont have a crew standing by to setup bombs before takeoff so dont have to be 100% correct ) ;-)

 

Air refueling work really well the boom operator is a pro.

The light on the kc135 tanker might be a little better if the lights on the belly of the tanker either were a bit wider/larger, or a tiny bit further back so we better can read them..

I can see them, but its a little hard. Especially the distance indicator forward/back on right side is the most difficult so see.

 

 

 

But i am Not that impressed by VR.

- its impossible to read or use the instruments pretty much 90 degree left or right from my seated possition and backwards even though i zoom in its hard to read the text near the small buttons on left side all the way back that is used when you turn on the battery and run different test during startup.

I cant read the instruments at all even though i try really hard and sit in aquad possitions with mouse over. The cockpit also seem very dark and even in daylight i have to turn on the cockpit light.

But lucky once the plane is started i dont have to look in that direction again. And technical speaking i can skip the tests and dont bother breaking my neck trying to leach the tiny buttons. :)

currently i hold in the numpad 0 and 1-9 to look from other angles when i have to press the buttons this work sometimes okay. Its in no way ideal or easy but its a solution.

I have to lower the seat a tiny bit by the way for best view in the heads up display. ;-)

 

( pimax 5k+ and yes it setup correctly and i have no issues in example the f18 where i can read all text except the most tiny text on the mfd's without zooming or leaning forward to read it. ).

 

- it need to be VR optimized the f16 it run at lower fps than the f18

( i will try and disable shadows and so on ).

And ofcourse i know its in early access so lets see how it goes ;-)

 

But all in all happy to see the viper :-)

[Phil C6]

HB, We have partnerships we must honor, and if those partnerships require certain systems or FMs be tweaked, then that is what we do, I doubt anyone short of an actual F/A-18 pilot would notice, and in their case, they probably get it. Thanks.

 

Hi, I'm not sure to understand (my English) do you mean your partnership make you could fake the FM (by ex decrease Aoa or increase?) , if yes, what is the definition of "Professional Flight Model"?

 

Best regards

Edited October 10, 2019 by Phil C6

[Jester986]

Ok, so this isn't a pitchfork post but my impressions so far are pretty meh...

 

I was going to wait awhile to pick this one up and hear from the squad about it but I said what the hell and grabbed it day one. It's nice to have some advanced system out the gate like the Tpod but the general polish of the more basic systems is pretty disappointing. The biggest issue for me is the lack of a damage model. That alone pretty much relegates this to flying patterns and cross countries and not doing any combat. Magz and Jabbers first impression videos sum up my feelings perfectly.

 

I'm not mad or cursing ED, just disappointed. At a minimum I think we should have been made aware basic elements would be missing. When it's said "were releasing it with a Tpod!" we assume more basic elements like lights, damage model, and textures are already done. This probably isn't the best way to go in the future.

 

Anyway I'm sure these issues will be corrected quickly and it will be a great plane soon.

Edited October 10, 2019 by Jester986

[NineLine]

Hi, I'm not sure to understand (my English) do you mean your partnership make you could fake the FM (by ex decrease Aoa or increase?) , if yes, what is the definition of "Professional Flight Model"?

 

Best regards

 

It is still a PFM, using everything that a PFM would use, with the adjustments made.

[Vatikus]

It is still a PFM, using everything that a PFM would use, with the adjustments made.

Ok that is fine as long as relative performance between the planes is preserved. If it is not, then it is pointless to have these modules at first place.

(and we have seen that f18 vs f16 currently are not in such sync)

[NineLine]

Ok that is fine as long as relative performance between the planes is preserved. If it is not, then it is pointless to have these modules at first place.

(and we have seen that f18 vs f16 currently are not in such sync)

 

That is not how ED PFMs work, we do not adjust FMs to relative performance between planes, each plane is handled individually and made to be as accurate as possible. Thanks.

[Prancingkiller]

That is not how ED PFMs work, we do not adjust FMs to relative performance between planes, each plane is handled individually and made to be as accurate as possible. Thanks.

if each plane's FM is close enough to real then the relative performances between 2 planes should be relatively close to real aswell i guess

[NineLine]

if each plane's FM is close enough to real then the relative performances between 2 planes should be relatively close to real aswell i guess

 

Should work like that, but I want to make sure we all know that we don't tune FMs for gameplay or balancing... just feel like it should be said ;)