in progress So, no flight model update for the F-16 in the 2.7 patch?

[Sternzy]

I bought into the F-16 this latest sale(even though it didn't go on sale ).

 

I spent months waiting for the sale investigating what fighter would suit me the best. I browsed every respective fighter's forum area, reddit, youtube videos etc.. In the end I decided on the Viper for what it would be when done and didn't focus on what it is now at all.

 

Anyone who buys into the Viper right now should be aware of what they are getting into. No matter what website or platform you investigate you will come out with the information the Viper isn't done. You will understand that the general consensus is at least a year and likely years before it reaches a release candidate. You will also have been offered multiple examples of alternative fighters that are much closer to completion or complete that would better suit your needs if EA isn't your thing.

 

Now, if you didn't do any research and blindly jumped into an EA fighter? What else is their to say? That's like having a thing for MMOs, seeing a new MMO on sale in the steam store and just slapping that buy button without looking under the hood to see what stage of development it is in or how good the game is.

 

All that being said, I am definitely amateur. Previously I have limited experience in the su-25, Gazelle, ka-50, and A-10. I was quite pleased stepping into the F-16. I'm guessing I have 40 hours or so in it. This was enough to setup a completely custom key mapping, learn the startup procedure and nearly all of the available functions of aircraft. I only play PvP servers and I was relatively easily able mold my own personal strategy in the current iteration of the viper to be very competitive on one of the most popular PvP servers.

 

I suggest to stop trying to play the Viper for what it currently is not and start exploiting it's strengths in it's current form. It is a very competitive fighter in it's current form if you do this. More realistic stuff will come in stages and I reckon it will be fairly easy to adjust your playstyle to accommodate more realistic attributes of the air frame as they become available in stages.

 

Not really aiming this at anyone in particular, just describing my experience and how I deal with the Viper not being complete. Mostly posting this for potential new Viper owners. This is an incredibly complex aircraft in an incredibly complex game that will take time to complete.

[TAW_Blaze]

1 hour ago, Sternzy said:

I bought into the F-16 this latest sale(even though it didn't go on sale ).

 

I spent months waiting for the sale investigating what fighter would suit me the best. I browsed every respective fighter's forum area, reddit, youtube videos etc.. In the end I decided on the Viper for what it would be when done and didn't focus on what it is now at all.

 

Anyone who buys into the Viper right now should be aware of what they are getting into. No matter what website or platform you investigate you will come out with the information the Viper isn't done. You will understand that the general consensus is at least a year and likely years before it reaches a release candidate. You will also have been offered multiple examples of alternative fighters that are much closer to completion or complete that would better suit your needs if EA isn't your thing.

 

Now, if you didn't do any research and blindly jumped into an EA fighter? What else is their to say? That's like having a thing for MMOs, seeing a new MMO on sale in the steam store and just slapping that buy button without looking under the hood to see what stage of development it is in or how good the game is.

 

All that being said, I am definitely amateur. Previously I have limited experience in the su-25, Gazelle, ka-50, and A-10. I was quite pleased stepping into the F-16. I'm guessing I have 40 hours or so in it. This was enough to setup a completely custom key mapping, learn the startup procedure and nearly all of the available functions of aircraft. I only play PvP servers and I was relatively easily able mold my own personal strategy in the current iteration of the viper to be very competitive on one of the most popular PvP servers.

 

I suggest to stop trying to play the Viper for what it currently is not and start exploiting it's strengths in it's current form. It is a very competitive fighter in it's current form if you do this. More realistic stuff will come in stages and I reckon it will be fairly easy to adjust your playstyle to accommodate more realistic attributes of the air frame as they become available in stages.

 

Not really aiming this at anyone in particular, just describing my experience and how I deal with the Viper not being complete. Mostly posting this for potential new Viper owners. This is an incredibly complex aircraft in an incredibly complex game that will take time to complete.

 

Personally I did not do any research because I preordered it on day 1. Since I knew what it should be. All the people who preordered are in that same boat.

 

I'm just sad that for the past 2 years I have to fly this aircraft with it's hands tied. It definitely performs well in some areas, but dogfighting is not one of them. You can adapt and work-around, but that always has it's limitations and also you cannot avoid every problem always. 

[TobiasA]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Sternzy:

I bought into the F-16 this latest sale(even though it didn't go on sale ).

 

I spent months waiting for the sale investigating what fighter would suit me the best. I browsed every respective fighter's forum area, reddit, youtube videos etc.. In the end I decided on the Viper for what it would be when done and didn't focus on what it is now at all.

 

Anyone who buys into the Viper right now should be aware of what they are getting into. No matter what website or platform you investigate you will come out with the information the Viper isn't done. You will understand that the general consensus is at least a year and likely years before it reaches a release candidate. You will also have been offered multiple examples of alternative fighters that are much closer to completion or complete that would better suit your needs if EA isn't your thing.

 

Now, if you didn't do any research and blindly jumped into an EA fighter? What else is their to say? That's like having a thing for MMOs, seeing a new MMO on sale in the steam store and just slapping that buy button without looking under the hood to see what stage of development it is in or how good the game is.

 

All that being said, I am definitely amateur. Previously I have limited experience in the su-25, Gazelle, ka-50, and A-10. I was quite pleased stepping into the F-16. I'm guessing I have 40 hours or so in it. This was enough to setup a completely custom key mapping, learn the startup procedure and nearly all of the available functions of aircraft. I only play PvP servers and I was relatively easily able mold my own personal strategy in the current iteration of the viper to be very competitive on one of the most popular PvP servers.

 

I suggest to stop trying to play the Viper for what it currently is not and start exploiting it's strengths in it's current form. It is a very competitive fighter in it's current form if you do this. More realistic stuff will come in stages and I reckon it will be fairly easy to adjust your playstyle to accommodate more realistic attributes of the air frame as they become available in stages.

 

Not really aiming this at anyone in particular, just describing my experience and how I deal with the Viper not being complete. Mostly posting this for potential new Viper owners. This is an incredibly complex aircraft in an incredibly complex game that will take time to complete.

 

While I agree with that, for me, there are no alternatives for the viper. None of them is an F-16. I came for that specific plane. At the current point it is at least somewhat usable, although it is far behind from what I expected considering how long it has been in early access.
But it is what it is.

It is my favorite plane and will probably ever be. The Hornet is more complete, but it ain't no viper. Yeah, it has boat ops and it surely is a nice plane, but... I don't want another EA module right now after the viper. Viggen is an outstanding module, but then again it is an attack aircraft, a sort of plane I can't do very well except fixed targets and anti ship, and this is where the viggen excels. The A-10 is also a nice module for sure, but then interdiction isn't really my thing in fixed wings. AA is, SEAD is, Strike maybe. That is where the viper is right at home.

So my personal list is:

- F-16

- Viggen (still gotta learn that tho, but it is incredible to fly that thing)

- Huey

- Ka-50

- Other stuff

 

There is simply nothing that would replace the viper at this point, and did I mention that the hornet's pre-prototype YF-17 literally lost to that of the F-16? There is no such thing as another viper. The Tomcat will fit me, but I want to learn my planes first (especially the Viggen) before.
The hornet might, but it is more likely I'll buy the Apache in pre-sale as getting the hornet as it is now... I mean I like the hornet but it's no viper, and I'll probably get it in a few years but for now I don't feel like it because it ain't so fast, it doesn't have a bubble canopy, you land on boats and my head can probably fit only the viper or the hornet. I'm not that type of guy that knows 4 planes halfway, I want to  know them. Even if my german squad flies hornet all the way along.

[NineLine]

10 hours ago, 104th_Blaze said:

 

Viper FM is not even in an approximate ballpark of accuracy since 2 years. You basically cannot employ it to the designed operational BFM criteria, you're pretty much guaranteed to lose in any dogfight against a dissimilar opponent. Your ace up the sleeve should be best in the league turn rate and energy capability. Instead the aircraft is basically the worst in both of these when compared to 15/18 or flanker family.

 

So what exactly is early access then? Can you release a 3d model of an F-22 with nav modes and the flight model of a biplane and call it a day for the next 3 years?

 

Edit: tl; dr my problem is not that the Viper FM is not 100% accurate. But rather that in relative terms to other DCS modules it is so bad in BFM performance that it pretty much cannot compete at all with the other contemporary fighters. Meanwhile the module itself is sold on the premise that it is one of the best dogfighters of it's era.

 

I'm sorry but suggesting the FM is "not in an approximate ballpark of accuracy since 2 years" is just a false statement. Sustained turn rates are quite accurate as can be seen in the FM report we provided earlier, instantaneous turn rate is still be adjusted, but mostly accurate, again all in tuning, but lets also not make statements that its so far out of whack such as this, please and thank you.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/dcc/DCS FM principles plus MiG-29 P-47 F-16.pdf

[TAW_Blaze]

5 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I'm sorry but suggesting the FM is "not in an approximate ballpark of accuracy since 2 years" is just a false statement. Sustained turn rates are quite accurate as can be seen in the FM report we provided earlier, instantaneous turn rate is still be adjusted, but mostly accurate, again all in tuning, but lets also not make statements that its so far out of whack such as this, please and thank you.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/dcc/DCS

 

As I said either the Viper FM is off or there is something wrong with the others, or both. It simply cannot be that you couldn't match any real life descriptions of basic dogfighting scenarios if everything was accurate. I'm obviously not the expert to judge exactly what is wrong, but overall it is very far from correct when you're outrated by a Hornet at high subsonic airspeeds.

[NineLine]

4 minutes ago, 104th_Blaze said:

 

As I said either the Viper FM is off or there is something wrong with the others, or both. It simply cannot be that you couldn't match any real life descriptions of basic dogfighting scenarios if everything was accurate. I'm obviously not the expert to judge exactly what is wrong, but overall it is very far from correct when you're outrated by a Hornet at high subsonic airspeeds.

You will need to prove that with facts, data and tracks then, making these vague statements doesnt help anyone. Thanks.

[Xavven]

1 minute ago, NineLine said:

I'm sorry but suggesting the FM is "not in an approximate ballpark of accuracy since 2 years" is just a false statement. Sustained turn rates are quite accurate as can be seen in the FM report we provided earlier, instantaneous turn rate is still be adjusted, but mostly accurate, again all in tuning, but lets also not make statements that its so far out of whack such as this, please and thank you.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/dcc/DCS

 

Gotta agree. My own tests in DCS against whatever EM charts I can get my hands on as a plain old civilian confirm ED has the F-16 at least in the right ballpark. Sure, there's some suspicion it bleeds energy a tad too much in certain turn profiles, but it's close in my personal opinion.

 

For people who like guns-only dogfight PVP servers and fly against the F-18 a lot, the inaccuracies in the F-16 flight model  probably stick out more. Even 1 deg./sec. of rate, or 100 feet of turn circle radius can make or break a fight in DACT.

 

I also think some people are upset at the pace of the F-16's development. They're paying customers after all, and complaining is to be expected. Personally, I find life more fun when I don't get bent out of shape over things that don't matter all that much, like video games. If the flight model is ruining your day, could I suggest playing with the new toys we got with 2.7, like the new HARM modes?

[TAW_Blaze]

8 minutes ago, NineLine said:

You will need to prove that with facts, data and tracks then, making these vague statements doesnt help anyone. Thanks.

 

Which can't happen. I can test against the F-16 manuals I have and the result is basically the same as the guy explained above. Spot checking points of PS = X curve will typically tell that the turn rate is within 1 deg/s ballpark. 

 

Unfortunately I cannot test the Hornet since I don't have data on that. But according to numerous accounts of real pilots, even ones including that posted in this forum the Viper FM is off in multiple regards. The fact that the Hornet seems to be performing better than it should and some other cherries on top like everyone and their mother abusing the G limit override, or that by real life standards the DCS pilot would not make the cut to be certified on an F-16 since it basically can't handle 15 seconds of 9 G without completely losing vision or flat out GLOCing.

 

Simulating one aircraft accurately is a difficult thing for sure. However that ultimately means little if it's thrown into an inaccurate environment in other regards. The fact is you get outrated by basically every other aircraft in DCS.

[NineLine]

Both FMs are currently being worked on, as we have stated, but for you to make the statement that they are not in the ballpark is just simply wrong. 

 

Again, if you see an issue, you need to report with source info, tracks, etc. Making these harsh statements only seems to be the intent of hurting our, or the DCS: F-16Cs reputation. 

 

I ask that you stop, and make proper bug reports, or wait till FM work is 100% done.

 

Thanks.

[TobiasA]

vor einer Stunde schrieb 104th_Blaze:

 

Which can't happen. I can test against the F-16 manuals I have and the result is basically the same as the guy explained above. Spot checking points of PS = X curve will typically tell that the turn rate is within 1 deg/s ballpark. 

 

Unfortunately I cannot test the Hornet since I don't have data on that. But according to numerous accounts of real pilots, even ones including that posted in this forum the Viper FM is off in multiple regards. The fact that the Hornet seems to be performing better than it should and some other cherries on top like everyone and their mother abusing the G limit override, or that by real life standards the DCS pilot would not make the cut to be certified on an F-16 since it basically can't handle 15 seconds of 9 G without completely losing vision or flat out GLOCing.

 

Simulating one aircraft accurately is a difficult thing for sure. However that ultimately means little if it's thrown into an inaccurate environment in other regards. The fact is you get outrated by basically every other aircraft in DCS.

Again, you guys will not see either a real "nerf" as some people want on this or that PvP server because this is a simulation and you will also not see a really harsh increase in sustained turn rates. 

Because real life data does not indicate such a thing. The FM is not that far off as many of you think it is. It will never outrate everything else, because it is on par with the hornet as well as the Fulcrum in most areas. It will remain well capable of Mach 1.2 at sea level and above Mach 1.8 at altitude, climb to angels 50 and stuff because it can. Clean, but it can.

 

Dear ED Team, one question remains for me... Did you adjust something with the stores on the Viper, like fuel tank weight or something? It actually feels like something has changed on landing so it feels like I can hold up the nose longer on aerobraking. 

[DGC338]

@NineLine

Would it be possible to get some idea of just what is being worked on FM wise with the F-16 and F/A-18. 
The FM is such a big area and it would be interesting to get some idea of the focus areas that the FM people are working on. Much like the list of priorities for features What are the Priority areas within the entirety of the FM. E.g Landing configuration behaviour is a very different from Specific excess power and energy bleed rate with stores.

If people understand what is being looked at then it may reduce some of the questions and it may also help with community expectations. Because when you say you are working on an FM update (for whatever aircraft) that will set different expectations for different people so some more specific information may adjust those expectations.

Also is there a FM validation document for F/A-18?

 

[TheBigTatanka]

Two things:

1. The viper performs very close to published Em data in official (unclassed but not public) sources. It also performs the way those sources say it should in relation to it's flight control logic -- things like how trim affects G, how it responds to stick input at certain AOAs, and the G or AOA it seeks -- that's all spot on, and can be tested with HARTS maneuvers.

It's rather impressive that ED has that all right.

Some guys have talked about onset of G and pitch authority -- i can't speak to that as I've never seen documents about that, nor have I flown a viper.

2. The only EM material I've seen for the hornet relates to the Swiss export version, and it is official use only. Can't comment on how closely the DCS hornet flies to that, because I don't fly the DCS hornet. However, we need to keep in mind that the C model that ED is representing has the big engines, and anecdotally (from guys who have flown against it), it can rate very well depending on its load out. This isn't the original C model that a lot of the books, articles, stories, and impressions of the hornet are rooted in. A friend of mine flying the F-16 today against Hornets in BFM often finds himself at the end of the fight in a stack/tree fight. This means a mature fight developed and it wasn't a quick rate plan to a kill.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[oldtimesake]

4 hours ago, NineLine said:

I'm sorry but suggesting the FM is "not in an approximate ballpark of accuracy since 2 years" is just a false statement. Sustained turn rates are quite accurate as can be seen in the FM report we provided earlier, instantaneous turn rate is still be adjusted, but mostly accurate, again all in tuning, but lets also not make statements that its so far out of whack such as this, please and thank you.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/dcc/DCS FM principles plus MiG-29 P-47 F-16.pdf

You are wrong again.

the main problem for F-16 flight model is not its peak sustained turn rate, is its lower sustained turn rate below mach 0.5 and higher energy bleed rate when the turn rate exceeds sustained turn rate. This is induced by much higher AOA required to pull only a small amount of G.

 

One more thing: I think you have a wrong idea about instantaneous turn rate. 

Even you can get the instantaneous turn rate correct in the future, the energy bleed rate is still incorrect. As tested in this thread:

At 22000lbs, 191.4m/s and 7.7G pull the tested ps loss is greater than 391feet/sec, while on the manual it is less than 200feet/sec

At 22000lbs, Mach 0.42 you are supposed to sustain 19.5deg/sec but the tested number is only 18.5deg/sec

Edited April 16, 2021 by oldtimesake

[TobiasA]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb oldtimesake:

You are wrong again.

the main problem for F-16 flight model is not its peak sustained turn rate, is its lower sustained turn rate below mach 0.5 and higher energy bleed rate when the turn rate exceeds sustained turn rate. This is induced by much higher AOA required to pull only a small amount of G.

 

One more thing: I think you have a wrong idea about instantaneous turn rate. 

Even you can get the instantaneous turn rate correct in the future, the energy bleed rate is still incorrect. As tested in this thread:

At 22000lbs, 191.4m/s and 7.7G pull the tested ps loss is greater than 391feet/sec, while on the manual it is less than 200feet/sec

At 22000lbs, Mach 0.42 you are supposed to sustain 19.5deg/sec but the tested number is only 18.5deg/sec

 

But is it "out of the approximate ballpark"? It is not. It is a bit off in some regions, but it is not out of the ballpark. While I am also not that happy with some of that low speed behaviour because it is sometimes a bit bitchy when landing or getting into a turn fight, it is not that far off as "out of the approximate ballpark" suggests.

How did you actually reach a DI of 50? It seems impossible to hit without carrying stores exceed either the drag index or the CAT III / G limitations... Basically you can't match it with A-A weapons only. 4 AIM-120B would have a DI of 4 each makes 16 in total, the outer store does not count as a DI according to the HAF manual. Outer pylon launcher is one each, makes a DI of 18 and 4 launchers with a DI of 6 each under the wing add another 24 making it a total of 42. You'd then have to carry one fuel pylon to add 8 to this to match 50, but this would be asymmetric. And a fuel tank would bring you close, but not allow 9G iirc. I might be wrong tho, but it would make more sense to actually compare the performance with a DI of 0 so you don't have to calculate stores which might be off in their drag because stores drag depends on the airframe and even the mounting point and I doubt this is already modelled fully.
I might be wrong tho, that drag index question is just a question.

[River]

On 4/15/2021 at 7:25 AM, SCPanda said:

The flight model update was the thing I was most excited for, I didn't really care about the new clouds since it's just eye candy for me. According to the patch notes, it seems it didn't make in the 2.7 patch. Jet also felt the same and loses energy too fast which is the same as in 2.5. 

 

Also, when are they gonna finish that ugly looking "navy wasp"? Such a struggle waiting for ED to get the F-18 out of EA so they can finally put some effort on the F-16. 

 

As you do not care for that "eye candy" I simply can't take you serious mate. You are for sure the only person in our solar system that complains about FM and can't enjoy what a wonderful game we have since 2.7

Edited April 17, 2021 by River

[TAW_Blaze]

3 hours ago, TobiasA said:

But is it "out of the approximate ballpark"? It is not. It is a bit off in some regions, but it is not out of the ballpark. While I am also not that happy with some of that low speed behaviour because it is sometimes a bit bitchy when landing or getting into a turn fight, it is not that far off as "out of the approximate ballpark" suggests.

How did you actually reach a DI of 50? It seems impossible to hit without carrying stores exceed either the drag index or the CAT III / G limitations... Basically you can't match it with A-A weapons only. 4 AIM-120B would have a DI of 4 each makes 16 in total, the outer store does not count as a DI according to the HAF manual. Outer pylon launcher is one each, makes a DI of 18 and 4 launchers with a DI of 6 each under the wing add another 24 making it a total of 42. You'd then have to carry one fuel pylon to add 8 to this to match 50, but this would be asymmetric. And a fuel tank would bring you close, but not allow 9G iirc. I might be wrong tho, but it would make more sense to actually compare the performance with a DI of 0 so you don't have to calculate stores which might be off in their drag because stores drag depends on the airframe and even the mounting point and I doubt this is already modelled fully.
I might be wrong tho, that drag index question is just a question.

 

Pretty sure DI of 50 is wingtip 2x AIM-9M, 4x empty LAU-129 launchers and the normal fuel tank pylons on inner stations and the centerline pylon mounted, but no other load outside the 2x 9M. I was checking this yesterday in the HAF CJ supplement and clean plane with 2x wingtip 9Ms is a DI of 4, LAU-129 is a DI of 6 each below the wing, the inner fuel pylons are 8 each, and the belly pylon is 7. Alltogether results in a DI of 51.

 

The problem with comparing vs. the 0 DI chart is that you have to literally fly with 0 fuel (as far as I saw there is no DI = 0 chart with any gross weight above 22000), which only leaves the option to turn on infinite fuel. Which has been previously known to have buggy impact on flight model. Also, pylons removed is not a valid reference for dogfighting performance since you never fly like that. This is why I was checking on the DI = 50 charts with 26000 lb. Sadly the region above M0.8 cannot be verified (especially at sea level) without removing G effect because the DCS pilot GLOCs way to soon.

Edited April 17, 2021 by 104th_Blaze

[TAW_Blaze]

15 hours ago, TobiasA said:

Again, you guys will not see either a real "nerf" as some people want on this or that PvP server because this is a simulation and you will also not see a really harsh increase in sustained turn rates. 

Because real life data does not indicate such a thing. The FM is not that far off as many of you think it is. It will never outrate everything else, because it is on par with the hornet as well as the Fulcrum in most areas. It will remain well capable of Mach 1.2 at sea level and above Mach 1.8 at altitude, climb to angels 50 and stuff because it can. Clean, but it can.

 

Dear ED Team, one question remains for me... Did you adjust something with the stores on the Viper, like fuel tank weight or something? It actually feels like something has changed on landing so it feels like I can hold up the nose longer on aerobraking. 

 

I'm not interested in buffing or nerfing for the sake of balance or whatnot. Maybe my phrasing was ambiguous, I meant that some things are wrong in general. The FMs definitely have some issues, but also there are other things at play.. including poor G modeling, and people abusing mechanics like the G override on the Hornet which would not be allowed in a real jet. 

 

I got carried away yesterday and I realize that this is not leading to anything useful. From my point of view it's extremely hard to pinpoint what is wrong since I only have data on the Viper and even that data does not cover all aspects.. and I'm just suffering through the end result that the Viper is simply not very competitive in a dogfight, which is very frustrating since according to all accounts it should be.

 

Anyways.. I'm off to enjoy the wonderful new lighting and weather in 2.7. ED outdid themselves with that, it is looking far better than I expected.

[Steel Jaw]

First...World...Problems.

 

It never fails to astound me how some people who buy into EA have the GALL to complain like on this thread.

 

I am an avid Hornet fan and EA has been a long journey, but not once have I whined like a spoiled biatch about dev times.

 

DONT BUY INTO EA.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Mower

[TobiasA]

vor 1 Minute schrieb 104th_Blaze:

 

I'm not interested in buffing or nerfing for the sake of balance or whatnot. Maybe my phrasing was ambiguous, I meant that some things are wrong in general. The FMs definitely have some issues, but also there are other things at play.. including poor G modeling, and people abusing mechanics like the G override on the Hornet which would not be allowed in a real jet. 

 

I got carried away yesterday and I realize that this is not leading to anything useful. From my point of view it's extremely hard to pinpoint what is wrong since I only have data on the Viper and even that data does not cover all aspects.. and I'm just suffering through the end result that the Viper is simply not very competitive in a dogfight, which is very frustrating since according to all accounts it should be.

 

Anyways.. I'm off to enjoy the wonderful new lighting and weather in 2.7. ED outdid themselves with that, it is looking far better than I expected.

No, it's all cool I was just wondering about how you got a DI of 50. I didn't think of the empty pylon on 5.

[Xavven]

10 minutes ago, 104th_Blaze said:

 

Pretty sure DI of 50 is wingtip 2x AIM-9M, 4x empty LAU-129 launchers and the normal fuel tank pylons on inner stations and the centerline pylon mounted, but no other load outside the 2x 9M. I was checking this yesterday in the HAF CJ supplement and clean plane with 2x wingtip 9Ms is a DI of 4, LAU-129 is a DI of 6 each below the wing, the inner fuel pylons are 8 each, and the belly pylon is 7. Alltogether results in a DI of 51.

 

The problem with comparing vs. the 0 DI chart is that you have to literally fly with 0 fuel (as far as I saw there is no DI = 0 chart with any gross weight above 22000), which only leaves the option to turn on infinite fuel. Which has been previously known to have buggy impact on flight model. Also, pylons removed is not a valid reference for dogfighting performance since you never fly like that. This is why I was checking on the DI = 50 charts with 26000 lb. Sadly the region above M0.8 cannot be verified (especially at sea level) without removing G effect because the DCS pilot GLOCs way to soon.

 

 

I think it's valid to check the DI = 50 charts as long as the configuration is matched. A lot of people run their own tests but don't set conditions to standard day, don't match fuel and weight, and don't match DI and altitude. We're also not robots and it's kinda hard to fly a turn at a specified G, speed, AND altitude long enough, so there are inevitably errors. And then there's the issue/question of using Tacview's or ctrl-Y turn rates, or if you have to convert that to horizontal turn component only by calculating it yourself as oldtimesake does (seems plausible but I had never heard that before) or whether you should fly a circle and time it yourself to get turn rate.

 

There are just a lot of factors that contribute to error. So being 1 deg./sec. off... well we don't know if it's exactly that much off, and it's certainly not out of the ballpark. I think ED's doing its best with the resources it has. Customers are just pissy sometimes, myself included sometimes, just not today.

[ruddy122]

For me personally FPM is PhD level stuff

Users know the F-16C inside and out and want the model improved that’s great

For new guys like me I’m happy that I can takeoff and land the viper without flipping over and I could use AMRAAMs and CBU-97s

Though lot to go

The Module is great


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steel Jaw]

Having landed the Viper a thousand times in BMS, it does take a lite touch and proper flaring lest you break the jet/gear.  Thats one advantage of the Hornet, its very forgiving and you can land it hard...flare to land = squat to pee.

[TobiasA]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Mower:

Having landed the Viper a thousand times in BMS, it does take a lite touch and proper flaring lest you break the jet/gear.  Thats one advantage of the Hornet, its very forgiving and you can land it hard...flare to land = squat to pee.

As a Viggen guy... Why land on a boat if you can use any road? And can you guys drive backwards? 

Joke aside, the Viper requires gentle handling when getting her down or up. It is just so we don't spill our coffee on our way to the café in our 5 star restaurant, you know? 

[Harlikwin]

IDK I think the biggest issues are that stores drag and limitations dont seem to currently be modeled. That and the fact you can easily exceed VnE with no ill effects. 

 

This ends with rather absurd situations like a fully loaded viper hitting vne or beyond on the deck which the load charts say nah. It can do it clean, but not with 50/100/150 drag loads. 

[SCPanda]

On 4/17/2021 at 9:47 PM, Mower said:

Having landed the Viper a thousand times in BMS, it does take a lite touch and proper flaring lest you break the jet/gear.  Thats one advantage of the Hornet, its very forgiving and you can land it hard...flare to land = squat to pee.

Hornet just kneels down on the runway. That's ugly.