DCS F16 performance

[Hummingbird]

Ok, here's the track:

 

ITRF16.trk

[wilbur81]

On 11/15/2021 at 3:05 PM, Mirage2425 said:

  Until then I suggest you approach Mover's impression of the Viper with a little more respect.  Mover had proven he's a SME for the platform and what you've said has discounted his experience with the Viper.  I love the Viper and all of the work you guys have done.  Please keep this in mind when you read my response.

Mike Torrealday is one of ED's SME's for the Viper. No disrespect to Mover's Viper experience, but "T-Day" has over 4000 hrs in the Viper. ED knows what they're doing with the Viper, the Hornet, and the other airframes.

Edited November 17, 2021 by wilbur81

[Mars Exulte]

It's well known ED have their own SMEs if people would stop bashing their face on the keyboard long enough to read anything about the very topic they're so passionate about, but then they'd have to come down from their fever dreams set to the Dangerzone soundtrack and accept it's not the jet's fault they get pwnd LOL

[Blinky.ben]

7 hours ago, Aquorys said:

so maybe what's actually causing this problem is the simulation of the flight control system.

This would make sense, ED are confident they have the modelling right compared to the charts which it seems they are very close, fairly strong evidence including experienced pilots indicate somethings off. So something like this makes sense.

2 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

My friend, Mike Torrealday is one of ED's SME's for the Viper. No disrespect to Mover's Viper experience, but "T-Day" has over 4000 hrs in the Viper. ED knows what they're doing with the Viper, the Hornet, and the other airframes.

So is it mover isn’t your friend or is it mover doesn’t have 4000 hours in the viper that means he’s not a respectable SME?. I personally would like to keep listening to what ALL pilots would have to say.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Blinky.ben

[Versor]

This video show what we are talking about.

 

[wilbur81]

45 minutes ago, Blinky.ben said:

 

So is it mover isn’t your friend or is it mover doesn’t have 4000 hours in the viper that means he’s not a respectable SME?. I personally would like to keep listening to what ALL pilots would have to say.

 

You misread my comma. "My friend" was a friendly address to the poster I was responding to. I don't know T-day or Mover. So, I would have greater respect for a 4000 hr Viper SME than a less experienced Viper driver, yes... and I have GREAT respect for Mover and anyone who has taken the controls of a real fighter.

[Blinky.ben]

4 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

You misread my comma. "My friend" was a friendly address to the poster I was responding to. I don't know T-day or Mover. So, I would have greater respect for a 4000 hr Viper SME than a less experienced Viper driver, yes... and I have GREAT respect for Mover and anyone who has taken the controls of a real fighter.

I see, my apologies

Edited November 16, 2021 by Blinky.ben

[BIGNEWY]

4 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

Ok, here's the track:

 

ITRF16.trk 440.24 kB · 4 downloads

thanks we will take a look

[gavagai]

4 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

My friend, Mike Torrealday is one of ED's SME's for the Viper. No disrespect to Mover's Viper experience, but "T-Day" has over 4000 hrs in the Viper. ED knows what they're doing with the Viper, the Hornet, and the other airframes.

Do we have any videos of t-day flying the dcs F16 and discussing it?  I'd love to see him, mover, and other rl pilots discuss the current model together.

Edited November 16, 2021 by gavagai

[wilbur81]

1 hour ago, Blinky.ben said:

I see, my apologies

 

No problem at all. I could've been clearer with my grammar. 

[NineLine]

5 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

Ok, here's the track:

 

ITRF16.trk 440.24 kB · 6 downloads

Ok, so I am confused. What are you trying to show here? We have stated that ITR is still WIP. So what is the point of this track?

1.10 Product feedback and constructive criticism is encouraged when provided in a mature and courteous manner. However, feedback that is abusive, insulting or condescending is not welcome. Additionally, to bring up a particular issue repeatedly after it has already been acknowledged will be considered "trolling" - in such cases a warning will be issued to the author and the post will be removed.

[Hummingbird]

4 hours ago, NineLine said:

Ok, so I am confused. What are you trying to show here? We have stated that ITR is still WIP. So what is the point of this track?

1.10 Product feedback and constructive criticism is encouraged when provided in a mature and courteous manner. However, feedback that is abusive, insulting or condescending is not welcome. Additionally, to bring up a particular issue repeatedly after it has already been acknowledged will be considered "trolling" - in such cases a warning will be issued to the author and the post will be removed.

 

No, earlier in this very thread BIGNEWY litterally said:

 

"When we compare our Viper to the data it is correct. 

We still have some work to do on G-onset, but that is all. "

 

and then later:

 

"Just reiterate, 

we have tested our viper with the real world data and it is correct, if there are track replay's that we can check that shows it is wrong we will take a look.  "

 

To which I responded regarding the ITR (didn't mention G-onset because that issue had already been acknowledged), hence no trolling going on here.

 

But glad to hear the ITR issue is acknowledged and still WIP, that is all I wanted. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Hummingbird

[NineLine]

Also note that you flight should be much smoother when doing these sorts of tests, you were somewhat 'rough'. I would also recommend testing as real as possible. You did no G warmup, most likely why you were seemingly unable to pull as many G's as you did the second try. If you want to experience real results, you need to fly as real as possible as well. We are actually pretty close (and happy) on STR and ITR below 20k feet as stated in the newsletter below.

Notes from the team if you want to test these sort of things proficiently:

Quote

If testing ITR, he must be level on the horizon at the set altitude, gross weight, drag index, and start above ITR speed to test, and smoothly pull full back in an energy depleting turn. The replay should then be played back in Tacview and view the turn rate at the speed of the ITR test.

Also are previous comments on the FM:

 

[Hummingbird]

12 hours ago, NineLine said:

Also note that you flight should be much smoother when doing these sorts of tests, you were somewhat 'rough'. I would also recommend testing as real as possible. You did no G warmup, most likely why you were seemingly unable to pull as many G's as you did the second try. If you want to experience real results, you need to fly as real as possible as well. We are actually pretty close (and happy) on STR and ITR below 20k feet as stated in the newsletter below.

Notes from the team if you want to test these sort of things proficiently:

Also are previous comments on the FM:

 

 

I don't understand this, I was as smooth as in the video I posted, and used the same technique, and ofcourse also level with the horizon, esp. at the relevant speeds (otherwise maintaining altitude wouldn't be possible):

I really don't see how the above can be considered 'rough' in any shape or form.

 

Furthermore no G warm up was required as G-effects were turned off, as I always do when testing so as not to allow this to affect the results.

 

Really important (!): From testing I know that above 454 KTAS (452 KIAS) in full burner the DCS F-16 will accelerate at 9 G (at 22,000 lbs, clean, SL, 15 C), hence I need to be at full back stick & 9 G right before that. Also I need to be in full burner when noting the load factor, as anything less will result in less ITR/load factor at the same speeds for the DCS F-16, eventhough thrust shouldn't affect ITR. (This is easy to test, try a full back stick turn at full mil vs full AB, and note how a lower max ITR/load factor is attainable at the same speeds)

 

Crux of the matter: In the DCS F-16C a 9 G instantanous load factor is only attainable from 432 KTAS (M 0.65) upwards, and in full burner only, whilst the real thing is capable of attaining it starting at 409 KTAS (M 0.618), at which speed the DCS F-16 will only manage 8.8 G instantaneous. This lacking behind the reference values continues down to M 0.488 where finally it matches at 7 G DCS vs 7 G reference.

 

Finally the use of tacview really surprises me, as I've experienced it not matching infobar figures on numerous occassions, and hence have always rejected tacview as inaccurate.

 

The figures  from the infobar are live, clear and unmistakable in all the tests:

Quote

9.0 @ 432 KTAS / 0.653 M

8.9 @ 416 KTAS /  0.628 M

8.8 @ 409 KTAS /  0.618 M

8.7 @ 404 KTAS /  0.610 M

8.6 @ 399 KTAS /  0.603 M

8.5 @ 394 KTAS /  0.595 M

8.4 @ 388 KTAS /  0.586 M

8.3 @ 383 KTAS /  0.579 M

8.2 @ 378 KTAS /  0.571 M

8.1 @  373 KTAS /  0.563 M

8.0 @ 368 KTAS /  0.556 M

--------------

7.9 @ 363 KTAS /  0.548 M

7.8 @ 359 KTAS /  0.542 M

7.7 @ 354 KTAS /  0.535 M

7.6 @ 350 KTAS /  0.529 M

7.5 @ 345 KTAS /  0.521 M

7.4 @ 341 KTAS /  0.515 M

7.3 @ 338 KTAS /  0.511 M

7.2 @ 332 KTAS / 0.501 M

7.1 @ 327 KTAS /  0.494 M

7.0 @ 323 KTAS /  0.488 M

 

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Hummingbird

[totmacher]

Compare sustained turn in game with real diagrams. Seems all pretty close to truth:

https://dcs.silver.ru/Diagram/F16C

[Hummingbird]

5 minutes ago, totmacher said:

Compare sustained turn in game with real diagrams. Seems all pretty close to truth:

https://dcs.silver.ru/Diagram/F16C

 

Im sorry but the above quite simply doesn't correspond to actual ingame values atm, which can clearly been seen when watching the posted videos and noting the G's attained at a specific speed and then comparing it to the real charts.

[totmacher]

26 минут назад, Hummingbird сказал:

 

Im sorry but the above quite simply doesn't correspond to actual ingame values atm, which can clearly been seen when watching the posted videos and noting the G's attained at a specific speed and then comparing it to the real charts.

Here RAW data, getting directly from game through LUA script interface. Altitude 10m

P.S. in game 9.81G in toolbar displayed as 9.9g

F-16C_50 alt 10m, clean.xlsx

Edited November 17, 2021 by totmacher

[Hummingbird]

1 minute ago, totmacher said:

Here RAW data, getting directly from game through LUA script interface. Altitude 10m

F-16C_50 alt 10m, clean.xlsx 11.83 kB · 0 downloads

 

Need atleast a video recording where the infobar readings are visible, and also a track file according to ED. Otherwise it's moot.

[NineLine]

Or you can just go by what I already stated on it. I think our team is quite on top of it. Thanks.

[Versor]

Ok but can someone explain me how F-14, F-18, Mirage out rate F-16 in rate fight ? 

[NineLine]

11 minutes ago, Versor said:

Ok but can someone explain me how F-14, F-18, Mirage out rate F-16 in rate fight ? 

Read all the responses in the thread. If you feel you have found an issue, supply a track.

[hawk4me]

I think the main issue with the f16 right now is its ability to pull its nose around. That correlates to g-onset I would imagine. Also I think it's more likely the other aircraft over performing vs the f16. 

In a 2 circle the f16 should dominate most aircraft in dcs right now. The issue is the f18 can literally pull a 7.5g turn bleed its speed shove 2 missiles up your butt before your halfway through the turn.

In a guns only fight against hornet he just going to get slow and use his pitch authority to take you out. Not really fault of f16 but more on the f18 ability to shutdown every trick the 16 has to win.

[TobiasA]

vor 49 Minuten schrieb hawk4me:

I think the main issue with the f16 right now is its ability to pull its nose around. That correlates to g-onset I would imagine. Also I think it's more likely the other aircraft over performing vs the f16. 

In a 2 circle the f16 should dominate most aircraft in dcs right now. The issue is the f18 can literally pull a 7.5g turn bleed its speed shove 2 missiles up your butt before your halfway through the turn.

In a guns only fight against hornet he just going to get slow and use his pitch authority to take you out. Not really fault of f16 but more on the f18 ability to shutdown every trick the 16 has to win.

 

This, it is more probably that other planes perform slightly better. Plus, the F-16 is currently still underperforming a little on slow speeds.
I can understand why you dogfight guys are sad about how the Viper performs in dogfights, but... Let's just wait for the final rework, including the landing speed issue and ITR, and then judge about it. STR is pretty much on point in most areas.

You can't beat a hornet in a heater fight if he decides to pull tight in his first run. There is no energy left, you can't extend since you'll catch a heater then, and you can't fight him down there. It's the way it is, never merge with one- or pull and get your 9X off, hoping for him to go wide because that's where you've got a chance. If the hornet wouldn't be such a nasty opponent for the Viper, Dos Gringos hadn't made a song mentioning its alpha...
The one thing you can't beat is a flanker with R-73s.
And the one thing one never ever does if off-boresight missiles are in the fight is a 2-circle turn. If you don't have a significant rate or off boresight advantage, just don't. Never. And you don't have that advantage, neither vs. the hornet (since it rates about the same) nor against the Flanker since the slightly worse off-boresight advantage the 9X has is compensated by the sheer rate amount and the massive amount of angles that beast can pull. If you decide to go 2 circle, pull. Rate all you got slightly above corner speed, throw it all in and hope that 9X does hit because it is about the one chance you get until the other guy has the same idea.

[Top Jockey]

2 hours ago, TobiasA said:

 

This, it is more probably that other planes perform slightly better. Plus, the F-16 is currently still underperforming a little on slow speeds.
I can understand why you dogfight guys are sad about how the Viper performs in dogfights, but... Let's just wait for the final rework, including the landing speed issue and ITR, and then judge about it. STR is pretty much on point in most areas.

You can't beat a hornet in a heater fight if he decides to pull tight in his first run. There is no energy left, you can't extend since you'll catch a heater then, and you can't fight him down there. It's the way it is, never merge with one- or pull and get your 9X off, hoping for him to go wide because that's where you've got a chance. If the hornet wouldn't be such a nasty opponent for the Viper, Dos Gringos hadn't made a song mentioning its alpha...
The one thing you can't beat is a flanker with R-73s.
And the one thing one never ever does if off-boresight missiles are in the fight is a 2-circle turn. If you don't have a significant rate or off boresight advantage, just don't. Never. And you don't have that advantage, neither vs. the hornet (since it rates about the same) nor against the Flanker since the slightly worse off-boresight advantage the 9X has is compensated by the sheer rate amount and the massive amount of angles that beast can pull. If you decide to go 2 circle, pull. Rate all you got slightly above corner speed, throw it all in and hope that 9X does hit because it is about the one chance you get until the other guy has the same idea.

 

Very interesting points.

 

Some curiosities from my part though (as I'm a single player guy):

1. Even without the Hornet's pitch rate and high alpha capability, why can't the Viper also pull tight in his first run ?

... or are we talking in a 1 circle fight right from the merge ?

 

2. Which airframe can't beat the Flanker with R-73s ?

Aren't the Viper or the Hornet with the AIM-9X be more than a match for the Flanker ?

Why specifically the Flanker, and not also the Fulcrum ?

[Krippz]

8 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

 

Need atleast a video recording where the infobar readings are visible, and also a track file according to ED. Otherwise it's moot.

Have you tested other portions of the EM diagram. PS=0 seems to be pretty close but have you tested other portions?