Unstable and lagged flight dynamics

[Alexrey]

Hey guys, I've been playing Falcon 4: Red Viper for a past few months and decided that I'd try Lock-On again, but when I got in a fighter and tried to fly it everything felt so weird compared to Falcon 4!

 

The directional inputs were lagged and slow, and the fighters felt pretty unstable in the sky. So my question is: which sim has more realistic flight dynamics? LOFC or F4?

[OldCrow]

I havent tried falcon 4, but for lockon I recomend changing the curves for the pitch and roll in the input option, cause the default ones might seeme alittle weird. What you set your curves to depends on the joystick you are using and your personal prefrances

[Acedy]

I don't want to compare the both but if you want to know something about the limitations of Falcon's FM I recommend that you search for posts by Mav-JP over at Frugals, he is one of the makers of the HFFMs and he has commented on them on a lot of occasions.

[Frazer]

On the roll Falcon is very sensitive (real I would say)

 

On the pull, Lockon is much much more direct.

It doesn't seem like that, but when you fly formations in Falcon you will notice that it takes around 1 second! before you can notice the effect of your elevation inputs.

 

About the weird feel you have with LockOn the answer is simple. The F16 of falcon has fly by wire and the planes in lockon haven't. I would say, get used to it, most aircraft in the world fly like that. :P

 

So, Falcon is very realistic if you are in free flight and together with the realistic instruments a very good sim. But if it comes down to formation flight, Falcon is far from realistic.

 

One of the reasons LockOn is thé sim for aerobatic pilots.

Edited October 31, 2008 by Frazer

[RedTiger]

Hey guys, I've been playing Falcon 4: Red Viper for a past few months and decided that I'd try Lock-On again, but when I got in a fighter and tried to fly it everything felt so weird compared to Falcon 4!

 

The directional inputs were lagged and slow, and the fighters felt pretty unstable in the sky. So my question is: which sim has more realistic flight dynamics? LOFC or F4?

 

 

I cannot speak for anything other than F4AF and Red Viper here, but neither have realistic flight models. They differ in unrealisms. Falcon's is based on the F-16s doghouse chart, but it doesn't handle the extremes of the flight regimen very well. LOMAC's SFM planes (Fulcrum, Flankers, Eagle, Hog) "feel" better to some, but they have their own problems. They also don't handle the extremes very well. Falcon has particular problems once you get below 300 knots, in that the plane becomes a crippled whale and is unrealistically unresponsive to control inputs. Get down below 200 knots and compare what you experience to the HUD footage from the real thing.

 

Both have scripted stalls and both sims do not do fighter jet justice in terms of thrust to weight ratios.

 

Now, on the good side, Falcon does an excellent job of showing you the roll authority the F-16 gives you vs. the Russian fighters. There's a noticible ramp-up and ramp-down in the Flanker and Fulcrum with a tendency to have to correct unless you are very practiced in flying them.

Edited November 1, 2008 by RedTiger

[IvanK]

The Dog house plot has nothing to do with Flight Control responses or stabilty or pilot "feel" its a a straight out performance plot :)

[RedTiger]

The Dog house plot has nothing to do with Flight Control responses or stabilty or pilot "feel" its a a straight out performance plot :)

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that it did.

 

This is like the third time something like this has happened. Maybe I need to elaborate more! :huh:

 

Falcon's is based on the F-16s doghouse chart, but it doesn't handle the extremes of the flight regimen very well.

 

Should read as:

 

Falcon's has a good element of realism since it is based on the F-16s doghouse chart, but it doesn't handle the extremes of the flight regimen very well.

 

I was meaning to contrast what is good about it vs. what could be improved. :)

 

EDIT: again, this is from flying F4AF and a bit of Red Viper. Don't know nothin about OF or Free Falcon X.0 or whatever number they're up to.

Edited November 1, 2008 by RedTiger

[IvanK]

Agree :)

[A.S]

On the roll Falcon is very sensitive (real I would say)

 

On the pull, Lockon is much much more direct.

It doesn't seem like that, but when you fly formations in Falcon you will notice that it takes around 1 second! before you can notice the effect of your elevation inputs.

 

About the weird feel you have with LockOn the answer is simple. The F16 of falcon has fly by wire and the planes in lockon haven't. I would say, get used to it, most aircraft in the world fly like that. :P

 

So, Falcon is very realistic if you are in free flight and together with the realistic instruments a very good sim. But if it comes down to formation flight, Falcon is far from realistic.

 

One of the reasons LockOn is thé sim for aerobatic pilots.

 

well,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRZOILgESW0 :music_whistling:

[Vekkinho]

FM of Falcon 4 is not perfect and playing a Falcon4 gives U impression of a jet on rails. Some may say it's because Flickus compensates all the bumps during flight caused by turbulence, asymetric payload etc. and that there's no need for trimming but IRL things ain't that smooth. Roll and especially Pitch trim is often used IRL for flying in a F-16 but I never used it (never had to) in F4. Just look at the HUD tape from F4 and compare it to a RL HUD tapes. You'll notice a lot of difference.

 

I still believe that even SFMs in LOFC feel and fly more realistically than HFFM!

[A.S]

Thats excatly the problem ..that "FEELS"

 

....... it appears....shakes....feels.......vibrates.....effects ...the impression...

but go along and compare flight performance datas for differenet conditions.......then you will see more light.

 

Lockon adds few lil tricks like head and nose bouncing...that is also a reason why it "feels"

 

furthermore in lockon everyone can adjust his flightcurves how he likes..that is also beyond any realism..... just by doing that i can achieve totally different flight controls.

 

I know Faclon "feels" very stiff...like rails...but i have had alot nice moments where is does not feel stiff at all.

 

I hear often also ..you cant fly knife edges...well rudders are very useless above 340kts and fuel is mostly 100%...thats might be a reason.

 

Falcon requires time to get behind the things....

 

It "FEELS" is just the first IMPRESSION. (2D screen gameplay gents)

 

(of course both sims could do here and there things better)

Edited November 1, 2008 by A.S

[RvETito]

When it comes to flight models the best one for fixed wing aircraft is the ED's model of Su-25(T) and is reason N1 why I enjoy flying that plane so much. However, there's already one that beats it, Ka-50's FM in BS :D It's generation ahead of anything that has been created for PC flight sims. If you don't like choppers you'll at least figure what you can expect of DCS series in the future... What I dislike the most in Falcon that's the sleepy behavior in pitch. That's waaay off of FBW's principles of operation. Other than that it's ok, roll rate is like of an aerobatics plane which makes sence.

[RedTiger]

well,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRZOILgESW0 :music_whistling:

 

While that is certainly a vast improvement, it still just has this...sterile look to it. I've never even flown a plane before, let alone and F-16, but it still just looks like I'm on the world's smoothest riding steel rollercoaster. Other times, the way it looks is something that I could only describe as "floaty". Maybe thats the way it really is? I'm not saying anything from LOMAC's SFM planes is any better since they are lacking in other areas. The closest we can come to comparison would be a clean Su-25 with a light fuel load.

 

The stalls and low speed handling in the first video are a lot better though, for sure.

 

This youtube video has the HUD footage that I always like to keep in mind:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BVHxfk2uOI&feature=related

 

MiG-29 guns kills at less than 200 knots? Oh my! ;) In one of those clips they even get down below 120 knots. I have yet to see any Falcon video show off the ability to still be able to dogfight at such a slow speed with an adversary that is supposed to reign supreme in that regard. Also take note that in few cases is the F-16 anywhere near its cornering speed, although you could argue that they've just cashed all their smash in to get that guns kills. Also note the altitude they're getting these kills at. Trying this in F4AF is like watching a 500 pound man trying to run the 100 meter dash.

Edited November 1, 2008 by RedTiger

[RvEYoda]

AS's first video shows a closed BMS version that is not available for public.

It uses flight dynamics similar to ED's AFm.

 

It was actually showcased for a group at last year's LLTM, where f-16 pilots (real ones)

commented it as the most realistic PC F-16 feeling in a sim so far.

Edited November 2, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[RedTiger]

AS's first video shows a closed BMS version that is not available for public.

It uses flight dynamics similar/at the same level (maybe even better) than ED's AFm.

 

It was actually showcased for a group at last year's LLTM, where f-16 pilots (real ones)

commented it as the most realistic feeling in a sim so far.

 

Why wasn't it availble to the public?

[Vekkinho]

I hear often also ..you cant fly knife edges...well rudders are very useless above 340kts and fuel is mostly 100%...thats might be a reason.

 

Real F-16 can't do Knife edge, no matter the fuel or smash!

[Cosmonaut]

AS's first video shows a closed BMS version that is not available for public.

It uses flight dynamics similar to ED's AFm.

 

That statement is a huge leap of faith. :smilewink: .. IMO it doesn't even look as good as the SFM in Lockon. In fact the F15 in LO looks more like F16 HUD tapes I've seen than anything coming from any derivative of F4.

 

I'm not saying this is how it actually works but... F4's FM has always seemed like numbers in a given target area were being reached, for example, an F16 can roll X degrees at Alt X when at speed X, so if you push the stick it rolls exactly at that speed that was set in the FM and all other inertial aspects of flight have just been left out. This gives the entire flight envelope a very scripted feel and appearance and how the F16 reacts to the gas it's flying through doesn't seem to be modeled at all. The cockpit in the first video moves around the sky like my mouse cursor moves around my desktop and that is with a precision that only a computer can generate, don't get me wrong it looks like a vast improvement, but still a lot looks like it's missing to me.

[RedTiger]

That statement is a huge leap of faith. :smilewink: ..

 

Hence why I asked why it was released to the public! ;) Its a tiny bit disingenuous to say that you have an awesome F-16 model that the pros said was spot-on but it just so happens it can't be experienced by the general public.

 

Another thing I thought of...have those F-16 pilots experienced lots of sims? Hypothetical situation; If I'm a fighter pilot, and the only sims I've experienced were the professional-grade ones I train on and lets say, Falcon 3.0, my base of comparison for other commercial sims is going to be pretty weak. I might try Falcon4.0 and think "wow, this is pretty close" since I've never tried anything else.

 

IMO it doesn't even look as good as the SFM in Lockon. In fact the F15 in LO looks more like F16 HUD tapes I've seen than anything coming from any derivative of F4.

 

I'm not saying this is how it actually works but... F4's FM has always seemed like numbers in a given target area were being reached, for example, an F16 can roll X degrees at Alt X when at speed X, so if you push the stick it rolls exactly at that speed that was set in the FM and all other inertial aspects of flight have just been left out. This gives the entire flight envelope a very scripted feel and appearance and how the F16 reacts to the gas it's flying through doesn't seem to be modeled at all. The cockpit in the first video moves around the sky like my mouse cursor moves around my desktop and that is with a precision that only a computer can generate, don't get me wrong it looks like a vast improvement, but still a lot looks like it's missing to me.

 

Thank you for explaining it better than I could. ;)

[A.S]

...alot bollocks here

[RedTiger]

...alot bollocks here

 

Wip out those shears and...de-bollocks away?! :crazy:

[DarkWanderer]

where f-16 pilots (real ones)

commented it as the most realistic feeling in a sim so far.

Bolded and underlined. There was no Lock On in any perspective at this time. In 1998 it definitely may have been a good model, but it's 2008 now, mate...

Edited November 3, 2008 by DarkWanderer

[RedTiger]

Bolded and underlined. There was no Lock On in any perspective at this time. In 1998 it definitely may have been a good model, but it's 2008 now, mate...

 

He was referring to a much more recent version with an updated flight model displayed in one of those videos, not the original 1998 Falcon 4.0.

[Cosmonaut]

...alot bollocks here

 

.. funny that's what I was thinking before I posted :D .