Is this gonna be another Falcon 3

[Kosmo]

What kind of attitude is that?

 

It wasn't an attitude, I simply said he had no idea what he was talking about. He said that F4 had an unrealistic FM. False. Yes it does not feel like LOMAC. You don't feel the tertiary effects for example. Why? Cause that's how the real F-16 flies too. It's not unrealistic, as a matter of fact it's extremely close (99% identical actually) to the way the real F-16 flies and handles. Both in numbers and in feel.

 

I was also annoyed a bit by the phrase "nothing beats LockOn for fighter jet realism", which in that context I read as "the only thing that makes a sim relistic or unrealistic is it's FM".

 

I am just defending F4 here, not bashing or flaming LOMAC or it's users. I never got into LOMAC too much mainly because of it's lack of depth in systems and avionics modelling, which is my main concern, but I did fly it for about a month. Personally I found the FMs in LOMAC very good but a bit weird sometimes, the planes felt too twitchy and I couldn't get them to stay in trim for more than 5 seconds which was frustrating at least. I did play with my joystick settings a lot, but to no avail. But maybe that was just me. Or maybe I just had a really hard time adjusting to non FBW aircrafts after all this time flying the Viper. I have also (regrettably) not flown FC, where the Su-25T from what I understand should be miles ahead of the rest.

 

Kosmo, I hope you aren't planning on abandoning these forums after 3 posts! :( You and I have had lengthy and constructive discussions about this at simhq! This is a good online community, I hope you'll stick around.

 

Hey RT, nice to see one more familiar face here :)

 

I am VERY interested in DCS and consider myself a customer already, however I don't care much for LOMAC or some (very few admittedly) of it's community members and their mindsets. But I'll probably pop in every now and then.

 

Why do people always compare all flight sims to Falcon?!

 

As a fellow OF flyer, I would think you'd already know the answer to that question ;)

[GGTharos]

It wasn't an attitude, I simply said he had no idea what he was talking about. He said that F4 had an unrealistic FM. False.

 

Correct, actually. At least, insomuch as you'd want to call FC's SFM unrealistic.

 

Yes it does not feel like LOMAC. You don't feel the tertiary effects for example. Why? Cause that's how the real F-16 flies too.

This is also false. You have but to watch a few HUD tapes to realize that the real F-16 doesn't fly on rails - but a lot of it you have to carefully watch for and know what you're looking for. This is just a generality.

 

It's not unrealistic, as a matter of fact it's extremely close (99% identical actually) to the way the real F-16 flies and handles. Both in numbers and in feel.

In numbers at straight and level flight perhaps. Don't overestimate the F4 FM. It's good, but it's not that good - it and the FC SFM are sort of on par in terms of how dated they are and their capability. There are some external influences that affect the FM that aren't modeled in LO, for example, but that doesn't change the fact that the FMs are similar.

 

I was also annoyed a bit by the phrase "nothing beats LockOn for fighter jet realism", which in that context I read as "the only thing that makes a sim relistic or unrealistic is it's FM".

 

I am just defending F4 here, not bashing or flaming LOMAC or it's users. I never got into LOMAC too much mainly because of it's lack of depth in systems and avionics modelling, which is my main concern, but I did fly it for about a month. Personally I found the FMs in LOMAC very good but a bit weird sometimes, the planes felt too twitchy and I couldn't get them to stay in trim for more than 5 seconds which was frustrating at least.

Try flying a real plane, it'll drive you nuts ;) Anyway, that aside - you responded to a person who didn't really know what he was talking about from a big-picture standpoint ... your defense of F4 wasn't helpful in the defense of F4 in the manner your phrased it. :)

Eveyone who's flown both in a serious manner knows that F4 has deeper avionics, campaign, 'all around world', and better missile modeling.

 

So GG, if this is true, why are you still flying LO?

 

Actually, it 'feels' and 'looks' more realistic to me, personally. There's plenty of people who harp on 'eyecandy', but what they don't get when it comes to 'hard core' flying is that it's all visual. I have no need for complex avionics - I don't mind if they're there, but in the end, when I get into a fight, I think I have a total of maybe 5-6 different functions that I use that are potentially the same in F4 and LO.

 

It's all about the experience, right? (we're really agreeing here I guess, so this isn't really an argument against you, nor is the rest of my post)

 

 

I did play with my joystick settings a lot, but to no avail. But maybe that was just me. Or maybe I just had a really hard time adjusting to non FBW aircrafts after all this time flying the Viper. I have also (regrettably) not flown FC, where the Su-25T from what I understand should be miles ahead of the rest.

F-16 in ther eal world need to be trimmed as well - that you don't have to trim it in F4 (at least, I never had to that I recall) is unrealistic in and of itself. If you are having trouble with the SFM planes and trimming, the Su-25T would drive you nuts. You fly it just about like you'd fly a real aircraft: You don't trim in reaction to the plane doing something, you've already planned that trim ahead before you have even started that maneuver. The sequence of operations is already planned out in your mind. This goes for -everything-, including simple turns. People do it by 'instinct' and some are good at it, but it's all really a little procedure that you do over and over ... and at some point you just stop thinking about it.

 

I'm probably preaching to the choir though - you probably fly F4 the same way - I did, when I used to. It's just that the Su-25T requires a finer touch, more patience, etc etc.

 

Anyway, something like 95% people here (I made that up o n the spot, like 98% of all statistics :D ) know and understand the differences ... no need to defend F4, really. :) Many people have both.

[mvsgas]

He said that F4 had an unrealistic FM. False. Yes it does not feel like LOMAC. You don't feel the tertiary effects for example. Why? Cause that's how the real F-16 flies too. It's not unrealistic, as a matter of fact it's extremely close (99% identical actually) to the way the real F-16 flies and handles. Both in numbers and in feel.

 

I'm no expert, just a guy that like aircraft and plays flight sims, but the FM in Falcon 4.0 is pretty bad and I would not say is 99% accurate. There is no effect by weather and asymmetric load outs. The only time you need trim is when you get damage and many other bad FM characteristics. The flight model of the A-10,F-15 and other aircraft in LOMAC is not any better guys, you must admit it. I think we should concentrate in just having fun. Hell I would fly and unrealistic FM VF-19 if I could just because I think it would be fun as hell.

Kosmo you should try flying a SU-25T fully loaded with wing bags and max takeoff weight in MP server. Now that is a fun FM and really rewarding to accomplish anything. You guys that have never tried Falcon 4.0 with OF 4.5 installed, you should try it. It is a very immerse sim and it is very hard to manage all the avionics and fly, lots of fun. Specially managing a flight, while trying to deliver a couple of GBU while defending from some SAMs and some MIGs.

 

I hope the DCS series closes that gap and we can have very fun and challenging FM with awesome avionics and we can combine all this different flight sims communities. Then we would have some very interesting conversation about aircraft.

[RedTiger]

@Kosmo

 

I know you are not really interested in LOMAC, but you really should check out the Su-25T and also the vanilla Su-25 which also has the advanced FM. I can say that just recently I think flying the Su-25T "clicked" with me and I understand it now. It was all a bit of a revelation. I'm sure we're all familiar with the concept of cornering speeds, but I think the Frogfoot allowed me even more insight. One evening while flying it, I suddenly became aware of a speed range that made the whole plane "feel right". It stopped feeling like a fat crippled pig and started feeling like a combat-worthy aircraft. This was with a full combat load and fuel, mind you. I decided to give it a try with a clean plane and 50% fuel. I could get the same results, but the power band was different.

 

In hindsight, I think I discovered the plane's cornering speed. The really amazing thing is how different this felt than the cornering speeds in Falcon and the SFM in LOMAC. In those, sustained cornering speed seems more of a matter of glancing at the HUD and just keeping a speed in a rather sterile manner. You are rewarded with a jet than cranks its nose around faster. With the Su-25T it could better be described as a "sweet spot" :) Furthermore, I could just feel how much thrust and stick pressure I needed to keep it. I didn't have to really glance at the HUD that much. And true to sustained corner also being the fastest instantaneous corner, I could yank the plane in a very tight turn, almost on the verge of a stall, to shake a SAM. I have a funny feeling that the DCS Eagle, Hog, Falcon, Fulcrum, and Flanker are all going to feel the same way!

 

Anyway, something like 95% people here (I made that up o n the spot, like 98% of all statistics :D ) know and understand the differences ... no need to defend F4, really. :) Many people have both.

 

I can vouch for this. While many here have strong feelings about what they like better and are not afraid to speak it, they're not ignorant and can understand the other point of view.

Edited August 4, 2008 by RedTiger

[Kosmo]

mvsgas we've had this discussion before over at GF. No the F-16 does not have to be trimmed under normal flight, it does not have to be trimmed for speed like other ac as the FLCS does it automatically. Trimming for a weight imbalance or battle damage is another thing altogether, and while I agree that it's one of the few things not modelled (the weight imbalance) in F4, for me it's a very very small price to pay, mainly cause in all my Falcon years, I have never had a major weight imbalance anyway (one that would have an effect in the ac's behaviour). Just like deep stalls that are incorrectly modelled like Acedy mantioned (complex manouvering). I have never stalled the F-16 except on purpose so I could care less.

 

GG.... I am not bragging, but I have wathced every video and HUD tape of the F-16 available on the net, and many that are not on the net, have read every technical article, manual, book and pilots' take on the F-16 I could find. The F-16 being my all time favourite fighter jet. And as much as you could tell by sitting in front of your computer and not feeling the plane actually moving through real air, yes as far as you are concerned it does fly on rails. Note I'm talking about the F-16 specifically, not FBW ac in general, becuase the others like the F-18 are not as advanced and actually behave a lot like to non FBW ac. The F-16 flies completely different.

 

BTW: now where did I say FC's SFM is unrealistic? :)

 

BTW2: Falcon is not the first and only sim I ever flew, I am perfectly comfortable with trimming in other sims.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Kosmo

[mvsgas]

mvsgas we've had this discussion before over at GF. No the F-16 does not have to be trimmed under normal flight, it does not have to be trimmed for speed like other ac as the FLCS does it automatically. Trimming for a weight imbalance or battle damage is another thing altogether, and while I agree that it's one of the few things not modelled (the weight imbalance) in F4, for me it's a very very small price to pay, mainly cause in all my Falcon years, I have never had a major weight imbalance anyway (one that would have an effect in the ac's behaviour). Just like deep stalls that are incorrectly modelled like Acedy mantioned (complex manouvering). I have never stalled the F-16 except on purpose so I could care less

Like I said in GF, I work the jet and I know it need to be trim in flight in normal flight. Next time you go to an air show, if you have the chance to look in a cockpit of an F-16, look at the trim panel. You would see that the trim settings are not center. I know if you where to drop a GBU-24 from one wing not the other, that it would affect the aircraft trim as well. But like I told you before, I can only tell you what I know from working the aircraft and my personal experience and you have to chose weather to believe or not.

[Vekkinho]

Hi Kosmo, nice to see U M8!

 

I know the answer to my Q pretty damn well but what's the point in comparing DCS to F-3. And it's a 3!!! So why Falcon 3 when there's OF4.5 with HFFM, fully clickable cockpit and improved realism in general systems and electronics! If we're already to compare it I think that DCS reminds more of a Falcon4 than Falcon3!

 

Plus there's other simulators that people didn't bother trying because of their complexity. Some of these lack "blow shit up" capability simply 'cause they're far from any arcadish setup of difficulty, invunerability, unlimited ammo and fuel.

 

Few years ago I worked with SOKO Z.I. We were developing MiG-21bis addon for FS2004 that was published by Lago Sim. We had consultants if form of technitians that work with this bird daily, pilots flying it etc. I'm not advertising this product but let me tell you we received praises for the work done. Although animated and clickable cockpit, reallistic performance but have in mind it's a still a PC application and plane is flown from your bedroom! You won't have a goosebumps nor You'll smell a kerosene when you firewall your throttle but all Croatian Airforce pilots that fly Fishbeds of this type were satisfied with the products and say it's a pretty damn close!

 

People look for realism but they get tired during training syllabus and go arcade.

 

But remember, realistic simulator is the one that kills you when you crash and such can't be found in local stores!

[Kosmo]

Vekkinho, yep I agree with that, it should be compared to F4 ;) and MSFS is a great platform for realism too.

 

mvsgas, I don't doubt what you say, I'm not saying you're making it up or anything. I just happen to have heard many times from different Viper drivers that you don't have to trim for speed. As I said weight imbalances are a totally different subject, and there is also the possibility of trimming for airframe fatigue in old planes, that's why you probably see the trim needles not centered.

 

To put my opinion/point more clearly. I have been able to reproduce real world F-16 flight and attack profiles in F4 to the number, including bank and dive angles, G's, speeds, altitudes, fuel rates etc, everything, and also reproduce what is seen in HUD tapes entirely, including the way the aircraft moves and feels.

[GGTharos]

mvsgas we've had this discussion before over at GF. No the F-16 does not have to be trimmed under normal flight

 

It sure does need trimming. At least, so say them viper pilots - but the devil's probably in the details.

 

GG.... I am not bragging, but I have wathced every video and HUD tape of the F-16 available on the net, and many that are not on the net, have read every technical article, manual, book and pilots' take on the F-16 I could find.

 

While I've probably seen a bit less material than you, I can pretty much guarantee that you must've missed the 'important stuff'. There is a lack of dynamic effects in the F4 FM which does make the thing feel like it's flying on rails. The FLCS will do a lot of wonderful things for you, but not quite as black and white as you see in F4 itself. The difference is minute. You'll notice some interesting behaviors even in LO's SFM aircraft which F4 lacks; I'm not claiming it needs the exact same behaviors, but 'something' along those lines is missing.

I think there's at least one video where an F-16 flies through a jet-wash and you can clearly see the nose move around and the FLCS is pretty much helpless to stop it; obviously, this motion is exaggerated in that vid, but the point is; the same happens in 'normal' flight when you're yanking the thing around hard, and you're not being smooth in your input/plane chages.

 

The F-16 being my all time favourite fighter jet. And as much as you could tell by sitting in front of your computer and not feeling the plane actually moving through real air, yes as far as you are concerned it does fly on rails. Note I'm talking about the F-16 specifically, not FBW ac in general, becuase the others like the F-18 are not as advanced and actually behave a lot like to non FBW ac. The F-16 flies completely different.

 

Not sure where you got the idea that the F-18's FBW isn't as advanced ... if anything, it actually commands a wider flight envelope than the F-16, at least in AoA, where things get quite dicey. I suspect the F-18's aerodynamic behaviour is in fact more complex, but this is speculation on my part.

 

BTW: now where did I say FC's SFM is unrealistic? :)

 

Dunno. I'll say it though: SFM is dead, long live AFM ;)

 

BTW2: Falcon is not the first and only sim I ever flew, I am perfectly comfortable with trimming in other sims.

 

Interesting. I wonder what makes it hard for people in FC. It's probably because jets can change speed very quickly, which throws the trim out almost right away.

[Vekkinho]

We should ask Pilotasso's bro his opinion on FM!

[GGTharos]

To put my opinion/point more clearly. I have been able to reproduce real world F-16 flight and attack profiles in F4 to the number, including bank and dive angles, G's, speeds, altitudes, fuel rates etc, everything, and also reproduce what is seen in HUD tapes entirely, including the way the aircraft moves and feels.

 

 

I'll guarantee that you haven't ... then again it's hard to fly through someone's jetwash in a sim that doesn't support it ;)

 

Realize that reproducing numbers isn't good enough; IIRC, I think you play OF - I don't - but I recall, perhaps incorrectly - that in AF you have to land at some atrocious AoA/speed or something of the sort. High AoA handling in F4 is just about as porked as any FM of that era - that pretty much includes most sims - JF15, 18, LOMAC, F4 ... but now we're getting new offerings on the table that will address those issues, so yay us!

[SUBS17]

Just for your information, one of the authors of the current F-16 flight model (HFFM), Mav-jp, has said multiple times that, while the model is way better than the original one, their work is still quite far from being realistic when it comes to complex maneuvering. Do a search at Frugals for the corresponding posts.

 

From what I understand the HFFMs bring Falcon as close as it can be to realistic but thats by numbers etc The big difference between the F4 FM and lockons SU25T is the SU25T has more detailed FM which is not surprising since its a newer sim. I think both HFFMs and LPs FM are both quite good and make Falcon 4 much better to fly.

[GGTharos]

They're head and shoulders better than the original FM; but just like SFM in LO, you can only make the existing FM more accurate ... you can't eliminate strange out-of-parameters flight characteristics like high-AoA maneuvers etc for example. Mind you, the feeling you get out of the HFFMs is completely different too, despite all that.

 

From what I understand the HFFMs bring Falcon as close as it can be to realistic but thats by numbers etc The big difference between the F4 FM and lockons SU25T is the SU25T has more detailed FM which is not surprising since its a newer sim. I think both HFFMs and LPs FM are both quite good and make Falcon 4 much better to fly.

[mvsgas]

I'll guarantee that you haven't ... then again it's hard to fly through someone's jetwash in a sim that doesn't support it ;)

 

Realize that reproducing numbers isn't good enough; IIRC, I think you play OF - I don't - but I recall, perhaps incorrectly - that in AF you have to land at some atrocious AoA/speed or something of the sort. High AoA handling in F4 is just about as porked as any FM of that era - that pretty much includes most sims - JF15, 18, LOMAC, F4 ... but now we're getting new offerings on the table that will address those issues, so yay us!

GG, I'm not sure but if I remember my ride (sorry, it was 8 year ago I think so I have forgotten some of the detail) the landing speed of a F-16 is pretty high (depending on weight and other factors) and the AOA for landing is like 11 to 13 degrees IIRC. I know in the simulator, when I tried to land, I end up stalling 20 high over the runway (I flare to early and came in to slow)and destroyed the landing gear. Anyway , landing speed and AOA is close to the real thing but like you said before is the little details that are different.

[multiviper]

the org poster said he meant Falcon 4, and that he made a mistake he did not mean F3

[multiviper]

Haha, Ok just noticed my mistake, Hey its early and I have a Hang over ok :D

 

 

 

see he was hungover.....

[SUBS17]

mvsgas we've had this discussion before over at GF. No the F-16 does not have to be trimmed under normal flight, it does not have to be trimmed for speed like other ac as the FLCS does it automatically.

 

I would have to say that your sources at GF are not F-16 pilots then IRL the F-16 requires slight trim inputs. If you check the FO forums Haole stated some interesting comments about the F-16s trim.

http://www.fighterops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4267&highlight=trim

 

Contrary to popular belief trim IS required in the F-16 more often that many may think. Granted the flight control system DOES help minimize trimming. I find myself trimming the most just after take off (since I have everything in the NEUTRAL trim position during takeoff) and on landing and during Refueling. The Gains during refueling is the same as take off and landing gains by the way.

 

Does that answer your question?

[mvsgas]

oh oh Multi, I forget they allow you in this forums also, man I have no where to hide

[GGTharos]

Here's the little details I'm talking about ... watch the yaw motion especially, subtle as it is:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uyAG-RMS2U

 

Also note the landing speed. While I might recall incorrectly, I believe in AF it's very uncomfortable to land at reasonable AoA so people end up landing fast (200kts?).

Both the AoA and speed are far less in this vid. IIRC, landing speed for the F-16 is something on the order of 130kts+4kts/1000lbs fuel or payload, but don't quote me on this, I barely remember it.

 

In LOFC, the F-15C at least has some strange AoA handling issues at 'proper AoA' as well when landing. In fact it is easier to land a heavy plane in LOFC just because you attain the right AoA at higher speed and you don't have to manhandle the throttle as much - as far as my landing technique goes anyway.

Edited August 4, 2008 by GGTharos

[mvsgas]

You ca see in the video he landed at about 150 knots indicated and I think this is standard with a fuel weight less that 4000lbs but I'm no pilot. This is also the case in Falcon 4.0 but this of course, changes depending on weight ( With wing tank and bomb still on the aircraft I believe it can be as high as 170knots indicated).

At any rate before EB1 or Groove get mad at me :D. You guys think it will be comparable to Falcon 4.0 in some way or will it be better? I think DCS will be better in some way but we will have to see

[RedTiger]

We should ask Pilotasso's bro his opinion on FM!

 

Pilotasso's brother has already commented on Falcon 4's FM before, his brother's answers in bold:

 

The old excuse that I have already seen a million times. You dont get the sensation to fly Automan's holographic non intertial plane in real planes, just because there is no maths behind the F4's flightmodel to do it. All it does is adjust speed according to drag and lift charts. F4 FM is just as falible as LOMACs. My brother flies block 15 F-16 and takes the back seat of MLU' s as well and he says F4 models are COMPLETELY screwed over in what regards flight sensation.

I asked if the speeds were wrong and he said:

 

"Its not the crsuise speed that wrong, its the whole AOA and low speed handling, its way off, I can controll much easier and in F4 it becomes like a dead weight at landing"

-When I ask him about abou this his typical answers are:

 

"F4 engine power modeling is closer to that of a T-38C than that of an F-16. A few days ago my instructor on my wing told me I was cleared to use AB ( to get me the feel for it for the first time), wich I did, I was at normal cruise about 300-400 knts speed at 1700 feet and I felt tremendous acceleration as the AB stages kicked in, as I started a turn it still kept on accelerating, then I pushed more, past 8G's and the thing still kept on accelerating, it took just moments untill I saw mach 0.97 on the HUD and just had to throttle it back before I broke the speed limits (sound barrier pi$$es alot of people down there)"

 

-What about flight charestics in regards to handling compared to F4 and LOMAC?

 

"lets revise what FBW is about: its there to prevent you from exceeding the aircrafts limits and do quick adjustements to prevent that from hapening, too quick for us to notice it, apart from not having to trim the aircraft all that much like in others, there is not much difference in flight sensation to other aircraft aside from pure turn and speed perfomance of course. Our simulators we have at home, F4 is off (but then so is our remaining training simulator at the base, the other one we had before was better) LOMAC is better but the plane it simulates is different (he flies only f-15 in LOMAC)"

 

-What about BFM and high altitude perfomance?

"I have routinely flown above 30000 feet and went over 45000 once, I had no trouble climbing that high without the use of afterburner and keep level flight in military power. Thats because we refrain from using AB except for take off runs so we keep the most fuel for the mission, not for hot dogging. I just cant do that in LOMAC"

 

From this thread here:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=22448&highlight=falcon+flight+model+brother&page=2

 

You can see that he makes some remarks about the SFM in LOMAC too. Neither Falcon's or LOMAC's are perfect. As far as landing goes, its like extremes. In LOMAC I can land a SFM plane waaaaaaaay faster than I should and slam it down on the runway with no damage. In F4AF I have to pretty much get my AoA perfect and my flight path marker lined up right and maintain it...and even then I find it difficult. The AFM for the Frogs is different. Hard to land at first, but once you get the hang of it, you can do it visually or on instruments every time. You just have to respect it.

Edited August 4, 2008 by RedTiger

[Yellonet]

Certainly not on rail:

[SUBS17]

Here's the little details I'm talking about ... watch the yaw motion especially, subtle as it is:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uyAG-RMS2U

 

Also note the landing speed. While I might recall incorrectly, I believe in AF it's very uncomfortable to land at reasonable AoA so people end up landing fast (200kts?).

Both the AoA and speed are far less in this vid. IIRC, landing speed for the F-16 is something on the order of 130kts+4kts/1000lbs fuel or payload, but don't quote me on this, I barely remember it.

 

 

You would only have problems with AoA in AF if you are trying to land fully loaded. Thats the only time you would wind up with a high approach speed also the FM for AF changed after a patch so high AoA aproaches will cause damage to the tail. Another good sim to compare is FSX accelerations hornet there are some nice features in that for carrier ops particularly the approaches. I can imagine DCS or FOs F-16 would be similar to that vid.:thumbup:

[GGTharos]

Don't get me started - the ka-50 is already a yaw-monster :D

 

The thing to remember here is, even as things aproach the dynamics of real flight with each FM technology iteration, it will always feel a bit more 'on rails' than a real aircraft. The inertia's there though, I've no doubt you'll see it happen.

[Vekkinho]

Here's the little details I'm talking about ... watch the yaw motion especially, subtle as it is:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uyAG-RMS2U

 

 

Have in mind that F4, just like LOFC has a constant wind speed across the map. Reason for such "jerky" FPM in that video and lots of others might be a "gust" or a changable wind speed and direction. Another thing not moddeled at all is thermal wind i.e. wind difference between two levels or temperature gradients.