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

[SCPanda]

On 4/17/2021 at 8:19 PM, River said:

 

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

 

It's not wonderful. Frame loss after 2.7 so no I cannot enjoy the game. A lot of people are experiencing the same performance issue as well. I am not the only one. 

 

2.5.6 was great. 2.7 really brings nothing new for me except those marshmallows in the air and performance loss (I fly the Viper only and not much updates for the Viper). AND I was fine with the old clouds, new clouds are fine but not vital for me. Maybe you like fly around in a fighter jet and enjoy the view. Good for you. 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by SCPanda

[Hulkbust44]

 
It does not have to be stated anywhere. DCS is advertised as one of the highest fidelity study sims, especially when it comes to flight modeling. One of the key features of this aircraft is being an excellent dogfighter, commonly considered as "the best" of it's era, especially compared to the other american teen fighters. Therefore a lot of users are interested in exploring it's fighting capabilities according what is known by various real life accounts and other sims.
 
From my point of view it's unacceptable to sell a product even in early access that fails to deliver on one of the most important defining characteristics of the airframe.

I agree. They should have completed the Hornet first before even getting their hands on a Viper manual. : )

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Hulkbust44]

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

It's not built for runways :)

A Viper would snap like a twig if it attempted a proper trap. Tomcat kneels down too, is she ugly?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[SCPanda]

3 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

It's not built for runways

A Viper would snap like a twig if it attempted a proper trap. Tomcat kneels down too, is she ugly?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

Yes. I think the Tomcat is ugly, especially inside the cockpit, huge bars in front of your face and cockpit layout is trash. People love that jet because of Top Gun. Variable wing is just not my thing. 

 

Any air force jet will snap if you land the way you land the Hornet. Maybe you naval aviation dudes just can't land a jet on a runway. I guess smashing your plane down like a brick is your style? No elegance in that... 

[Terzi]

If you own the JF-17 you can try this:

Set the jet to 300 knots and go idle. The flight computer will try to keep the FPM where it is while the speed bleeds off and pitch increases.

This is what I am missing most in the F-16 currently. If you try this in F-16 DCS, now the FPM will drop down with the speed, which is similar to Hornet behavior, instead of adjusting the pitch to maintain FPM stabilized.

IRL the FLCS works similar to JF-17 I described above, someone posted the F-16 FLCS schematics before.

[SCPanda]

On 4/25/2021 at 10:39 AM, Terzi said:

If you own the JF-17 you can try this:

Set the jet to 300 knots and go idle. The flight computer will try to keep the FPM where it is while the speed bleeds off and pitch increases.

This is what I am missing most in the F-16 currently. If you try this in F-16 DCS, now the FPM will drop down with the speed, which is similar to Hornet behavior, instead of adjusting the pitch to maintain FPM stabilized.

IRL the FLCS works similar to JF-17 I described above, someone posted the F-16 FLCS schematics before.

Thx for the info. Now you are making me want to buy the JF-17. Viper development from ED is very slow and painful. On the contrary, I heard Deka did a great job on that little jet. Also, does the JF-17 flies quite similar to the Viper? 

Edited April 26, 2021 by SCPanda

[Terzi]

46 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

Thx for the info. Now you are making me want to buy the JF-17. Viper development from ED is very slow and painful. On the contrary, I heard Deka did a great job on that little jet. Also, does the JF-17 flies quite similar to the Viper? 

 

Hard to say that it is similar or not. The FLCS behavior is similar and the control of the jet is very pleasant. You could try it in free period. The F-16 is more agile and fast. The JF is a fuel saver with lots of modern arsenal. No hmcs and no bubble canopy makes me love the F-16 still :)

[feipan]

The thunder flies like the viper should. Highly energy sustainable also at low speeds, has a high turn rate and is really enjoyable to fly! 

[LaFleur]

On 4/17/2021 at 1:25 AM, TheBigTatanka said:

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
 

I couldn't agree more.

People keep bringing up a quote from Mover, but forget that the Block 30 and the Block 50 perform much differently. Also, the F/A-18A and the F/A-18C Lot 20 are different planes with different engines... 

 

ED has done a good job, I believe, with the F-16s FM (although pylon damage and G stressing stores is not modeled yet), but there is still room for improvement. Let's be patient and enjoy the F-16 - that does 9G at 1.2m with external tanks, takes no stress damage, and its radar detects contacts from 80 miles away, while having the weakest radar IRL compared to almost all other modules - and stop complaining for some minor details that are in the works to be fixed.

Edited April 26, 2021 by LaFleur

[SCPanda]

7 minutes ago, LaFleur said:

I couldn't agree more.

People keep bringing up a quote from Mover, but forget that the Block 30 and the Block 50 perform much differently. Also, the F/A-18A and the F/A-18C Lot 20 are different planes with different engines... 

 

ED has done a good job, I believe, with the F-16s FM (although pylon damage and G stressing stores is not modeled yet), but there is still room for improvement. Let's be patient and enjoy the F-16 - that does 9G at 1.2m with external tanks, takes no stress damage, and it's radar detects contacts from 80 miles away, while having the weakest radar IRL compared to almost all other modules - and stop complaining for some minor details that are in the works to be fixed.

Block 30 and 50 do not perform much differently. Block 50 is heavier but its engine also has more thrust. Aerodynamically, the two Blocks are the same. 

 

F-16's FM has some issues that prevent the jet to perform as it does in real life. The biggest problem is the lift curve causing the jet pulling way too much AOA at certain speed, therefore losing too much energy during turns. I guess you don't do any BFM flying the Viper in DCS. If you do, you wouldn't be calling the current problems with the FM some minor issues. 

[LaFleur]

13 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

Block 30 and 50 do not perform much differently. Block 50 is heavier but its engine also has more thrust. Aerodynamically, the two Blocks are the same. 

 

F-16's FM has some issues that prevent the jet to perform as it does in real life. The biggest problem is the lift curve causing the jet pulling way too much AOA at certain speed, therefore losing too much energy during turns. I guess you don't do any BFM flying the Viper in DCS. If you do, you wouldn't be calling the current problems with the FM some minor issues. 

Indeed the F-16 feels draggier in BFM but that's not a major issue. I don't really do BFM since there is rarely a merge, and also merges should be avoided if possible. So yeah, it doesn't bother me that much. I believe there are more serious issues that need to be addressed first. But that's just my opinion.

Edited April 26, 2021 by LaFleur

[Torri]

IMHO the FM should be the 1. priority on any module, it is the most basic aspect of flight.
It affects more than BFM, although that is where it is most apparent.

Not trying to detract from the hard work the other engineers do of course!

Edited April 26, 2021 by Torri98

[TobiasA]

I'd be happy to see ANY progress on the plane itself. 

[chaos]

On 4/19/2021 at 3:07 AM, SCPanda said:

 

2.5.6 was great. 2.7 really brings nothing new for me except those marshmallows in the air and performance loss (I fly the Viper only 

 

 

You're really trying hard, aren't you?

 

Seriously, 2.7 has been one of the most significant updates in the history of DCS. The clouds have been overlooked since forever. Still not there with regards to it and AI but that is being worked on. 

 

Hardly "Eye Candy" as you put it... 

Edited April 27, 2021 by chaos

[71st_Mastiff]

3 hours ago, chaos said:

 

 

You're really trying hard, aren't you?

 

Seriously, 2.7 has been one of the most significant updates in the history of DCS. The clouds have been overlooked since forever. Still not there with regards to it and AI but that is being worked on. 

 

Hardly "Eye Candy" as you put it... 

 

11 years for the clouds. 15 years for the F16. 

 

So a little longer in the oven isn't going to hurt it.

 

4.0 Fighting Falcon came out in 1998, the dude who sat on this should of never waited, because now he's screwed; with the advent of DCS World Viper.

 

The last Official release was 2005, "Falcon 4.0: Allied Force (F4AF) is an F-16 based combat flight simulator released by Lead Pursuit in 2005".

 

"Falcon 4.0 is a combat flight simulation video game developed by MicroProse and published by Hasbro Interactive in 1998".

 

I'm sure Steam, may have given him some money. But what ever that lawyers name is he screwed himself.

 

"i.e. other publishers involved with Falcon. Microprose, Accolade, Spectrum Holobyte, Atari".

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by 71st_Mastiff

[Machalot]

On 4/26/2021 at 3:32 AM, SCPanda said:

Block 30 and 50 do not perform much differently. Block 50 is heavier but its engine also has more thrust. Aerodynamically, the two Blocks are the same. 

You seem to be aware of the relatively large effect AoA has on drag. That also means weight has a large effect on aerodynamic performance in spite of increased thrust. It's not just thrust-to-weight ratio that needs to be the same, because more lift and more AoA is required to pull the same g's turn rate, increasing induced drag in all flight regimes, including straight and level. 

 

Aerodynamically they may have the same OML (outer mold line) but the 50 spends all its time at higher AoA than the 30.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Machalot

[karasawa]

On 4/26/2021 at 6:20 AM, LaFleur said:

I couldn't agree more.

People keep bringing up a quote from Mover, but forget that the Block 30 and the Block 50 perform much differently. Also, the F/A-18A and the F/A-18C Lot 20 are different planes with different engines... 

 

ED has done a good job, I believe, with the F-16s FM (although pylon damage and G stressing stores is not modeled yet), but there is still room for improvement. Let's be patient and enjoy the F-16 - that does 9G at 1.2m with external tanks, takes no stress damage, and its radar detects contacts from 80 miles away, while having the weakest radar IRL compared to almost all other modules - and stop complaining for some minor details that are in the works to be fixed.

 

Wrong.

Based on the test in this thread:

Below Mach 0.5 the DCS F-16 sustains 1deg/sec lower than the manual. Above Mach 0.5 the sustained rate of turn is close to published data, but the energy bleed rate is much higher than flight manual.

 

[Sarge55]

That could have been worded a bit better.

[Machalot]

1 hour ago, Sarge55 said:

That could have been worded a bit better.

Which comment are you referring to? 

[Sarge55]

Wrong