Single AIM-120C-5 on station without draggy weighty multi-missile mount.

[FlankerKiller]

12 minutes ago, Swiftwin9s said:

Wait so you started off complaining about not being able to load lau-127 directly onto the pylons and now you are saying you don't even want to use amraams at all? I'm confused, what is you angle here. 

My point is to play the F/A-18C in any way that I give one <profanity> about I'm already "breaking reality" hard core. So I don't care if the Swiss pylon was ever mounted on U.S. jets because it damn well could have been. I doubt McDonald Douglas made a whole new hard point. And because we do things in the sim that just didn't get done IRL. And having to eat that damn drag penalty sucks. Can't fly as fast, as high, or as far. And the main opponent has a make believe flight model so that hurts even more. So sense realistic is out the window, and the Hornet is already at a massive disadvantage, I don't really care if it's perfectly realistic or not to mount a single rail. Especially since it was done on a version of the Hornet. Doesn't matter want I want ED already did it. The Hornet has already made most of the sales it's ever going to make so there is no reason for them to care any way. Just sucked to get used to some air to air loadouts to loose them, and have to eat a completely ridiculous drag and weight penalty to use the same loadout. Kinda ruined the jet there. But hay that's the way the stupid ass U.S. DOD did it so that's the way it is. My other angle is I'm not just talking to all of you. ED reads this and I'm talking to them. Even though they modeled a 2005 Hornet it's really meant to be used as a generic Hornet. Anyone who wants to fly any kind of historical mission has to fly unrealistic loadouts. So why not let it have the Super Hornet or Swiss pylon. As it's just as realistic as our Hornet in the campaign they made for it. 

[FlankerKiller]

3 minutes ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

Just wait for the Eurofighter if you want total superiority in BVR. 

I don't want total superiority in BVR. I want a chance. Honestly I'm torn on the Erofighter. On the one hand I want to support Heatblure. But on the other I'll never even install it. I do think it's going break online play. But hay. 

[Hobel]

16 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

I don't want total superiority in BVR. I want a chance. Honestly I'm torn on the Erofighter. On the one hand I want to support Heatblure. But on the other I'll never even install it. I do think it's going break online play. But hay. 

Why do you think the f16 has a bad flight model?   Because it is superior to the f18 in bvr?

The only thing I see here is that the f16 is faster, and it is faster in real life, and that is quite an advantage in the bvr.

+ the currently poor aim120

[FlankerKiller]

15 hours ago, Hobel said:

Why do you think the f16 has a bad flight model?   Because it is superior to the f18 in bvr?

The only thing I see here is that the f16 is faster, and it is faster in real life, and that is quite an advantage in the bvr.

+ the currently poor aim120

Watch the recent mover and Gonky fight. Because an F-16 fighter pilot shows in Tachview and in the sim the F-16 massively over speeding. Not being able to pull the correct G in BFM, and pulling 30° AOA. Two fighter pilots getting a good laugh at your flight model isn't a great look. So since we have abandoned all realism with the Viper, and since in FOX3 fights pure Kinematics is actually very very important, and since both piolets have stated that the Hornet is pretty good, if a little over powered. And since those double racks do simulate a good bit of drag. I think leveling the playing field with a real option, although one not used on the U.S. Hornets is acceptable. Personally I'm absolutely disgusted with everything about EDs Viper. IRL I personally hate the Viper as a fighter, but damn make it realistic at least. Until that POS module gets a new FM, and it's reviewed by an independent Viper pilot I really don't give one <profanity> about "realism" in DCS. 

[FlankerKiller]

17 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

So you dn't have a chance by using the double racks on a Hornet? Get the F-16 maybe? Really sounds like bad tactics if anything. Pure kinematic perf. isn't everything.

Yeah and having to hit the deck and notch isn't really staying in a fight. A clean Hornet loaded two by zero by two has ok Kinematics. But only two AMRAAMS is a real disadvantage. The double rack is really drag inducing. So now you aren't close to first shot at all. All the while the Viper is overspeeding by alot at 40K. So you are double disadvantaged ether way. Single rails are a compromise. Yes you can dump the double rail, but it already forced you to ground just by being there. Was it used IRL, I have no idea. There hasn't been a tone of air combat since Desert storm. And it what there has been has been pretty one sided. 

[QuiGon]

On 1/22/2022 at 11:11 PM, FlankerKiller said:

I don't want total superiority in BVR. I want a chance. Honestly I'm torn on the Erofighter. On the one hand I want to support Heatblure. But on the other I'll never even install it. I do think it's going break online play. But hay. 

Oh, so this is what this is all about: Balanced gameplay for eSports/tournaments...
Yeah, please no. I would like DCS to stick to simulating real world performances, which are not balanced.

[Shimmergloom667]

On 1/22/2022 at 11:11 PM, FlankerKiller said:

I don't want total superiority in BVR. I want a chance. Honestly I'm torn on the Erofighter. On the one hand I want to support Heatblure. But on the other I'll never even install it. I do think it's going break online play. But hay. 

Didn't you "abhor post 1995 planes" or something along these lines? Why do you care what it would or would not break.

[Hobel]

5 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Yeah and having to hit the deck and notch isn't really staying in a fight. A clean Hornet loaded two by zero by two has ok Kinematics. But only two AMRAAMS is a real disadvantage. The double rack is really drag inducing. So now you aren't close to first shot at all. All the while the Viper is overspeeding by alot at 40K. So you are double disadvantaged ether way. Single rails are a compromise. Yes you can dump the double rail, but it already forced you to ground just by being there. Was it used IRL, I have no idea. There hasn't been a tone of air combat since Desert storm. And it what there has been has been pretty one sided. 

We let it stand that the f16 has a broken flight model in their opinion well.... In the bfm that is one thing.

But in bvr it is the speed that counts, even with a realistic flight model (if in your opinion it is unrealistic) the F16 would still have the advantage in bvr because it is simply faster.Nothing would change

 

Apart from that you can also have a look at the big pvp tournaments, where the f18 is used often enough, it will have its reasons.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Hobel

[FlankerKiller]

6 hours ago, Shimmergloom667 said:

Didn't you "abhor post 1995 planes" or something along these lines? Why do you care what it would or would not break.

Because that isn't the direction DCS went with. I, and other cold war lovers like me, are stuck with the ultra modern SPAMRAAM fight between two U.S. aircraft. It's that or just don't play flight sims at all. So here we are. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by FlankerKiller

[Bunny Clark]

On 1/24/2022 at 12:50 AM, FlankerKiller said:

Watch the recent mover and Gonky fight. Two fighter pilots getting a good laugh at your flight model isn't a great look. 

In that exact same video, Mover also comments on how realistic the Viper is. The flight model being slightly off at the extremes of the performance envelope is hardly "abandoning all realism."

Quote

Until that POS module gets a new FM, and it's reviewed by an independent Viper pilot I really don't give one <profanity> about "realism" in DCS. 

Good lord, are you capable of speaking in anything other than hyperbole? ED has multiple real Viper pilots that review the flight model and provide feedback. It's not perfect, they know that, and they're working on it, but calling it a POS is nothing short of disingenuous. 

There has to be a middle ground between "every nut and bolt perfectly realistic" and "<profanity> it, nothing is realistic anyway, give everyone what they want."

[FlankerKiller]

6 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

In that exact same video, Mover also comments on how realistic the Viper is. The flight model being slightly off at the extremes of the performance envelope is hardly "abandoning all realism."

Good lord, are you capable of speaking in anything other than hyperbole? ED has multiple real Viper pilots that review the flight model and provide feedback. It's not perfect, they know that, and they're working on it, but calling it a POS is nothing short of disingenuous. 

There has to be a middle ground between "every nut and bolt perfectly realistic" and "<profanity> it, nothing is realistic anyway, give everyone what they want."

Mover is covering his ass. He has a relationship with ED and puting egg on their face isn't good for that. Also I definitely never saw any part where he defended the Vipers FM. He said the Hornet was close, though Gonky said it gains speed back too quickly. They did a pretty damn good job of casting doubt on the Viper. So at this point I don't really care what ED's paid SMEs say. Getting the FM correct seems like it should be number one priority. After that maybe get out and do some rest pilot <profanity> and actually show where you are in relation to the EM diagram. I believe the Viper enthusiasts deserve that. But yeah, since we will never have true realism in DCS there is a line of realistic enough. 

[Swift.]

You do realise that having a FM within like 10% of the real numbers is already twice as good, in a lot of regimes, as the industry standard for flight simulators?

[Bunny Clark]

3 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

After that maybe get out and do some rest pilot <profanity> and actually show where you are in relation to the EM diagram.

How convenient someone has already done that. Turns out it's pretty close: https://dcs.silver.ru/Diagram/F16C

Quote

So at this point I don't really care what ED's paid SMEs say.

Mike T-Day (https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/045-f-16-fighting-falcon/) is one of ED's Viper SMEs. Are you questioning his competency or integrity?

[FlankerKiller]

Technically I'm questioning Eagle Dynamics competency and their integrity. One of the two big gen four modules is wrong. Or they both are, or they all are. And yes I am questioning the integrity of any who is paid by, affiliated with, or who benefits from Eagle Dynamics as an extension of my questioning of both Eagle Dynamics is competency and integrity when it comes to the fourth generation fighters. We as a community took way to much at face value. The scientific method requires peer review. So yeah, when a SME that is in not one single way affiliated with Eagle Dynamics independently verifies the flight model then I question if this is anything more then a shiny arcade game. I took an F-18C for a nice little spin around Groom lake today with no wings. Where dose that fit into they're international SME opinion on the flight model? I'm of the opinion that ED bit off way more then they could chew with both the Viper and the Hornet. I believe that inorder to keep the backlash down they cut corners thinking that few people would notice. And I believe that some people have noticed. Now with both the Viper and Hornet in unfinished inaccurate states the Apache is about to drop. And the 4th gens are about to get abandoned. So again when one or preferably more INDEPENDENT SMEs verify the Viper in particular, and any module in general I will consider them nothing more then a fun arcade game, and set my expectations appropriately. 

[Swift.]

And after all that, the Flight Models are one of the better parts of DCS

[MAXsenna]

3 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Technically I'm questioning Eagle Dynamics competency and their integrity. One of the two big gen four modules is wrong. Or they both are, or they all are. And yes I am questioning the integrity of any who is paid by, affiliated with, or who benefits from Eagle Dynamics as an extension of my questioning of both Eagle Dynamics is competency and integrity when it comes to the fourth generation fighters. We as a community took way to much at face value. The scientific method requires peer review. So yeah, when a SME that is in not one single way affiliated with Eagle Dynamics independently verifies the flight model then I question if this is anything more then a shiny arcade game. I took an F-18C for a nice little spin around Groom lake today with no wings. Where dose that fit into they're international SME opinion on the flight model? I'm of the opinion that ED bit off way more then they could chew with both the Viper and the Hornet. I believe that inorder to keep the backlash down they cut corners thinking that few people would notice. And I believe that some people have noticed. Now with both the Viper and Hornet in unfinished inaccurate states the Apache is about to drop. And the 4th gens are about to get abandoned. So again when one or preferably more INDEPENDENT SMEs verify the Viper in particular, and any module in general I will consider them nothing more then a fun arcade game, and set my expectations appropriately. 

What you write doesn't make sense.
You don't trust independent SMIs and therefor you think it's an arcade game?
You'd rather trust SMIs that are bought and paid?

Now I'm pretty sure you mean the exact opposite. But could it be that since you write the opposite, maybe you read it too?

Before is the word you're looking for, not when.

Cheers!

[FlankerKiller]

Yeah talk to text failed me on that one. I meant to say when totally independent SMEs verify a module the I will begin to believe that is anything more then a fancy arcade game. 

[Swift.]

And to expand on that, its a Sparrow mounted on a LAU-115. Which has no problem directly mounting to the pylon.

[FlankerKiller]

As to commercial sims and DCS. I've flow a few comercal Sims and it's hard to compare. DCS was the closest at the time for sure. But at the time the gulf was wide. I would still say the atmosphereics in the comercal sims are far better, but it's definitely closer. As for FMs. Commercial sims don't really model the edges of the envelope. The edge of the envelope is where combat sims live. We literally only have EDs word that what they are putting out is accurate. Ever since the Viper released people from "the other sim" have been saying it's under performing in BFM. Then a video comes out of real Viper and Hornet driver's in VR. Guess what, it looks exactly like what the "other sim" guys have been saying for three years now. Add to that the recent FM changes in the Hornet, and a picture starts to form. It's a fun game for sure, but I think we can all take that most realistic combat flight simulator claim with giant heaps of salt. So yes I've moved from the total realism to the game play camp. Because it's really not all that realistic. Maybe some interested third party will come out and validate everything. Or maybe ED will fix the discrepancies. But after almost four years I kinda don't trust them on the whole realism thing anymore. 

[Durnt]

Now I just feel stupid.

So, the hornet uses 2 lau-127 attached to a lau-115 for amraams, but the sparrow is mounted directly to the lau-115.

But if the amraam is compatible with sparrow launchers, why can't it mount direcly to the lau-115? Since the amrram can be rail launched or jettison launched.

 

This is more info I found.

LAU-115/A and LAU-115A/A are rail launchers designed for carriage and launch of AIM-7 missiles from F/A-18 aircraft. The launcher is suspended from the BRU-32 bomb rack on wing stations. The LAU-7 launchers or LAU-127 launchers may be attached to the sides of the LAU-115 for carriage of AIM-9 or AIM-120 missiles. The LAU-115 requires use of a jettison adapter (ECP-422) for safe separation of the LAU-115/LAU-127/AM-RAAM when jettison as a package.

[Wizard_03]

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

I meant to say when totally independent SMEs verify a module the I will begin to believe that is anything more then a fancy arcade game. 

That will probably never happen as the actual EM charts for our hornet are not available to the public. As for the comments from real hornet pilots on this forum and others that aren't SMEs for ED they have so far all turned out to have never flown the EPE hornet in the first place, never mind the stripped down no pylon, low fuel state configs of the EPE hornet you see on youtube, which are completely unrealistic. And even if they had they couldn't comment on specific data points. So I wouldn't hold your breath.

ED's Flight modelling for other aircraft such as the F-15C, A-10C, F-5E and others, have been verified as more accurate then military sims by their respective SMEs and both ex and active duty pilots, and are often within 1 percent error of their respective data sources. So personally I think ED is pretty trustworthy. Perhaps More so then open source Devs for the other three letter sim that aren't paid, and using an incredibly old game with significant limitations in the exact areas that you are interest in. I won't even get into non combat sims, they also have repeatedly have said both FM for the hornet and viper are not complete and under active development. So its kind of Apples to nothing right now anyways. They also have zero reason to make one of their products intentionally worse then another with regards to realism. Especially the newer one.

 

Is the FM perfect, probably not, nothing is perfect, but is anything else out there even remotely close, absolutely not. I would love to see a competitor to DCS make a better FM and provide proof of that, but that fact is there aren't any right now and It took ED literally years and they didn't start from scratch at that. SO before talking about the FM make sure you actually have evidence that its wrong and why its wrong because their are literally mountains of data and man hours that go into it from people that do have data and are privy to non-public sources, otherwise leave it to the full time engineers that have made it their profession. Some of which have worked for other game studios that made study sims of the hornet in the past.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Wizard_03

[FlankerKiller]

Well you basically just agreed with my main point. "The EM diagrams are not publicly available". So no way to have an exact FM anywhere close to 1%. So it's not a simulation of a Hornet or a Viper. So why be a stickler about loadouts, exact wepons, exact pods. Etc etc etc. I don't disagree that the older products were of better quality. But again that also my point. We are almost four years into development on the Hornet, and Three in on the Viper. And they are not done within 1% or 2% in any way. And then what should have been a bad ass video pushing both these modules tums into "well it shouldn't do that". Again they are not the only voices saying that same thing. So still in development BS is kinda played out at this point. So yeah the older products were very fucking accurate. And the big name 4th gens not so much. So far the Mi-24 seems to be coming along. And I'm hoping the Apache is going to be up to the same old quality. As for the 4th gens. Maybe they are best left to a time when they can be properly simulated. Or enjoyed as the close approximation arcade games that they are. That was not what I was expecting when I put my money down. To me I don't see the point in pushing strict realism in one area of you are not adhering to it in every area. But it's kinda gotten to a point for me that it's past making it right. If the Apache is anything but butter and praise through it's development cycle then it will be the last module form ED that I buy. At least modern one anyway. You will not change my mind, and I will not change yours. So I'm done responding to this.  

 

 

[Wizard_03]

10 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Well you basically just agreed with my main point. "The EM diagrams are not publicly available". So no way to have an exact FM anywhere close to 1%. So it's not a simulation of a Hornet or a Viper. So why be a stickler about loadouts, exact wepons, exact pods. Etc etc etc. I don't disagree that the older products were of better quality. But again that also my point. We are almost four years into development on the Hornet, and Three in on the Viper. And they are not done within 1% or 2% in any way. And then what should have been a bad ass video pushing both these modules tums into "well it shouldn't do that". Again they are not the only voices saying that same thing. So still in development BS is kinda played out at this point. So yeah the older products were very fucking accurate. And the big name 4th gens not so much. So far the Mi-24 seems to be coming along. And I'm hoping the Apache is going to be up to the same old quality. As for the 4th gens. Maybe they are best left to a time when they can be properly simulated. Or enjoyed as the close approximation arcade games that they are. That was not what I was expecting when I put my money down. To me I don't see the point in pushing strict realism in one area of you are not adhering to it in every area. But it's kinda gotten to a point for me that it's past making it right. If the Apache is anything but butter and praise through it's development cycle then it will be the last module form ED that I buy. At least modern one anyway. You will not change my mind, and I will not change yours. So I'm done responding to this.  

 

 

 

ED isn't the public, Its a safe bet they have the EM charts or we wouldn't have the product to begin with. The vipers are  in fact available, and wouldn't you know it, its very close. There's work left to be done but it actually is quite close right now. There's some drag issues and G onset problems at the moment, its underperforming by a few degrees in the turn rate department up at high altitude. But Hardly: " not done within 1% or 2% in any way" as you said, and It's getting better almost every patch.

The bigger issue IMO is the mountains of confirmation bias over on the viper forums, hoggdit, and youtube. That the Viper should just outrate everything it encounters because that's what they have heard regardless of what the charts say. In fact There are bits and pieces of data on the EPE hornet that ARE available that seem to contradict that but If everything else in the game is super accurate I don't see why they would suddenly forget about realism with the hornet. That's just me. Also the margins by which the FM on the viper are still WIP are not enough to make you loose in a dogfight, nor will having it be in its final state be significantly better then where its at right now. 1 or 2 degrees more above 20K is not going to suddenly make the viper the dogfight god people make it out to be.

In any case, the other issue people like yourself have a hard time with the fact that ED takes a long time in early access and you also seem to have a better understanding of how long it takes get things like the FM done then the people actually doing the work. So with that mindset your going to be disappointed no matter what they or I say, Because its unreasonable, your welcome to be critical of them I certainly have been, but at the end of the day I don't understand what benchmark your comparing them too. Is there some other company with a more accurate hornet and viper simulation that took less time? How long should it take to tweak a FM within reasonable accuracy to the data?

Edited January 26, 2022 by Wizard_03

[Durnt]

18 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

Those are Sparrows. Show me one US legacy Hornet with single pylon AMRAAM's then we'll talk.

 

[razo+r]

11 minutes ago, Durnt said:

 

US Hornet, not a swiss one