correct as is F16 Still Underperforming

[Cab]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

So you are forced to wonder if the other jets overperform because you didn't run the numbers on them?

11 minutes ago, gortex said:

When did the F-14 enter this discussion?  Do you mean the F-18?

No, I meant the F-14. I was referring to the comment above about "the other jets". The F-14, like the F-15 (and others, as well) can be made to overperform.

[Cab]

1 hour ago, gortex said:

News to me.  Hardly anyone flies it for BFM anymore.  It was very popular when you could overspeed it with flaps deployed without damaging the wing sweep mechanism.

Yeah, there are still barnstormers who come in blazing with flaps down, break them in the rate fight to get the kill, then just get a new jet.

[Artax]

Il 22/5/2023 at 00:50, Braunn ha scritto:

Didnt know Thunderbirds were basically a test bed for structural demands. They sure are using Block 52s as well. Anyhoo, it's great to see the ED team is on the ball and strive for realistic flight characteristics like many of us nerds are. I dont care about occationally losing dog fights to good pilots in those darn <profanity> box Hornets and Migs in the rate fight but at the same time reading and hearing so many comments from F-16 pilots saying how "invincible" they felt in the Viper is a little contradictory to the DCS experience so far. 

https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2017/04/25/f-16-block-52-upgrades-set-to-take-thunderbirds-into-the-future

I know however the C model is NOT the A model Viper and I believe a lot of the stories of dogfighting excellence comes from the A model, or earlier versions than the C Block 50, which had more aggressive avionics controlling the leading edge flaps etc. 

 

Honestly, it's really hard with an f16 to lose versus ai at ace level, in every aircraft, i really can't agree with you, sry.

The only one a little harder is the f18, all others you just can't lose...

Edited June 14, 2023 by Artax

[Snappy]

1 hour ago, Artax said:

Honestly, it's really hard with an f16 to lose versus ai at ace level, in every aircraft, i really can't agree with you, sry.

The only one a little harder is the f18, all others you just can't lose...

 

Like gortex said, you can't use the AI as a valid reference, as the AI is nowhere, nowhere near an even semi-capable human opponent from a skillset point of view . The only thing the AI has going for it , are the highly unrealistic simplified flight models it uses, further disqualifiying it from having any usability as a performance reference point.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Snappy

[wilbur81]

7 hours ago, gortex said:

No, with the paddle the Hornet outrates the F-16 at any airspeed.  Anyone who tests this objectively instead of relying on hearsay discovers this fact.  Blackout or no blackout won't make any difference.

 

Gortex, just out of curiousity, maybe you could run and graph some of your turn-rate data on Hornet STR and ITR like you did with sustained G several days ago, without the Hornet paddle employed, at airspeeds b/w 150 kts and 550 kts? No pressure, of course... just interested.  Some real-world E-M data apparently suggests that the blk 50 and lot 20 jets are actually quite close in turn rate in real life (of course without the Hornet paddle employed). I've posted below a screen-grab from a post awhile back to that effect. The account (in the blue text) recorded below was not written by me but to me in a private message here on the forums.

Edited June 14, 2023 by wilbur81

[darkman222]

@wilbur81And now ask yourself where each fighter turns the best, at which G loads. While the DCS F18 pilot is chilling at 7.5G (without paddle) the DCS F16 pilot rates around with 8G at the edge of conciousness not being able for the final 9G pull, because he will pass out.

Even if both jets are more or less equal in turn rate performance, in an ideal world and in DCS, because lets assume F18 and F16 are correct as is in their performance, why would the outcome be different, if there was not something limiting the F16s performance here?

Letting go of the G also involves reducing the thrust for not speeding over the rate speed etc. and throttling up again. It is a lot of complex things involved here.

[wilbur81]

Cool, no worries. That makes sense. Thanks, Gortex. 

2 minutes ago, darkman222 said:

@wilbur81And now ask yourself where each fighter turns the best, at which G loads. While the DCS F18 pilot is chilling at 7.5G (without paddle) the DCS F16 pilot rates around with 8G at the edge of conciousness not being able for the final 9G pull, because he will pass out.

Even if both jets are more or less equal in turn rate performance, in an ideal world and in DCS, because lets assume F18 and F16 are correct as is in their performance, why would the outcome be different, if there was not something limiting the F16s performance here?

Letting go of the G also involves reducing the thrust for not speeding over the rate speed etc. and throttling up again. It is a lot of complex things involved here.

This further emphasizes that these Viper pilot G-modeling comments belong in their own bug thread and not under the title, "F-16 Still Underperforming." I agree that the Hornet pilot shouldn't be able to hang out at 7.5 G without stronger physiological effects...and that the Viper G model could be improved as well. 

[skywalker22]

How do you do these graphs @gortex?

[sinn]

After reading all this discussion, I wanted to throw out the idea that this discussion be reframed as a gameplay issue rather than a flight model/realism issue. Without claiming that there are or aren't potential realism or FM issues, just to redirect at least some of the focus at a different type of potential solution.

Let's say all of these following statements are entirely correct for the purpose of considering this viewpoint just for a moment even if you don't agree, just to explain the line of thinking behind this:

1. ED has the flight model correctly implemented or so close to it any tweaks from this point on will be minor and won't materially change anything with respect to this discussion.
2. The SMEs are correct in their recollections of relative performance. The stores configuration was likely different than the one being focused on this thread and and dissimilar aircraft situations, the F-18 and F-15 pilots were not pulling the paddle, over-G-ing the aircraft or flying outside of safe limits in these IRL scenarios.
3. The OP of this thread and DCS multiplayer guns pilots making supporting arguments are correct in their observation that the F-16 performs poorly relative to it's near peers in the typical online guns configuration for the majority of its its usable flight envelope in online servers where the paddle on over G are used whether intended or not because there is essentially no practical way to enforce their usage at this time.
4. The G model is a known factor at this time and ED has stated it is under review, but this affects a crucial, but small part of the flight envelope.

DCS already has gameplay options such as labels, external views, G effects modeling, etc. What if there was a gameplay option added to either limit or disallow entirely the use of the Hornet paddle or more comprehensively, limit or disallow over G globally within the mission? This would allow the mission creator or server operator to decide whether to keep things exactly as they are now or use this option. Even if this is not technically feasible (and it may baked into each flight model currently and be extremely difficult to add a global limitation or control over) is this a way of viewing this topic that helps move it past the current discussion cycle which seemingly stalls after people who (in my opinion legitimately) use DCS in different ways for different purposes cannot reach a shared understanding of whether one group's problem even is a problem or how to address it? I'm hoping this approach at least has a better chance to make everyone happy, because it's basically saying in principle that "everyone's right" and it would just add an option to better support one desired use case than it is currently?

[wilbur81]

2 minutes ago, sinn said:

this discussion be reframed as a gameplay issue rather than a flight model/realism issue.

Agreed. 

 

[sinn]

Just to add some more clarity to my last post, part of my thinking is that since the Viper doesn't include systems like the paddle that allow someone to voluntarily enter an unrealistic gameplay state whereas other aircraft do. The F-16 forces you to "behave" or follow its rules but other aircraft make it the pilot's choice (and the breaking wings mechanic is currently not sufficient to control this enough to where this thread was created).

This restriction would enforce more of a level playing field/gameplay scenario and make it a server or mission creator choice, which hopefully fosters a feeling of improved fairness. Clearly, this doesn't address the M2k because it's a beast without even using the "elastic override" switches (sorry if I messed the name up) that can allow it to go past its G limiter. I just hope it's a way to take a step in the right direction. 

[sinn]

10 minutes ago, gortex said:

You and I both fly the Mirage 2000.  Against the Hornet it is a beast because most Hornet pilots don't know they should rate-fight the M2K.

Against the F-15 the M2K cannot catch it unless the Eagle pilot decides to be nice and slows down.   And even then the F-15 ITR (over-g) can make it a very dangerous adversary for a M2K running up against the limiter.

I know you are right about what you're saying here, and I freely admit my suggestion is not comprehensive or perfect. If anyone can add to it to make it better than what I thought of, I'm grateful for that. Also, if it's a non-starter because it doesn't do enough to address the issue or other reasons that's fine with me, but I would love to hear someone else's better alternative.

I'm interested though in what people think of the gameplay option idea though. Maybe we need more options to fully solve everything? Is this a better way of framing issue for consensus and progress to be made?

Edited June 14, 2023 by sinn
missing word typo

[GGTharos]

8 hours ago, gortex said:

You're not sure?  I'm not sure either, but I'm 90% confident it's because ED doesn't seem to be in a hurry to do something about it.

They never are, this isn't news

8 hours ago, gortex said:

And before you go lecturing anyone about realism, you were one of the people deflecting and spinning when we said the F-15 should have structural g-limits.  Funny how that one worked out.

Exactly like I said it would.  At least I don't have a problem with the wings coming off anyway.

[darkman222]

As @sinnsays. We even have 4 discussions here.

1. Gameplay. Over-G-ing with paddle or in the case of the F14 and F15 by anlogue control input. Disabling the paddle is a too easy thinking, because you just cant disable over-G-ing in traditional aircraft.

2. How realistic is the flight performance while over-G-ing or paddle pulled. There are no EM charts for an F15 at 12 G. So this has to be extrapolated from existing data.

3. F16 performance. That is what the thread title says. Over-G-ing of other aircraft should not be in this discussion. The turn rate of the F16 has been claimed to be correct for quite a while now. Lets assume this. What remains open is energy bleed while turning. People are still suspicious about it because it has been adjusted, and that was not just a little difference in the FM but quite a lot. So its hard for people to believe in that everything is correct now if it was not in the first release versions of the F16.

4. F16 pilot G tolerance, which has not something to do with the F16 flight performance in the first place. But in the second place because the pilots G tolerance does limit what you can get from the DCS F16s flight models performance.

The big question is, will it ever be possible to deal with that different topics separately, or will people be mixing them up again and again because all of the 4 topics affect the over all impression you'll get from the DCS F16.

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by darkman222

[Cab]

26 minutes ago, darkman222 said:

The big question is, will it ever be possible to deal with that different topics separately, or will people be mixing them up again and again because all of the 4 topics affect the over all impression you'll get from the DCS F16.

I think we all know the answer to this. 

[sinn]

1 hour ago, darkman222 said:

We even have 4 discussions here.

Nice job separating the issues concisely. Hopefully it will help move this discussion forward in a more productive way.

The Viper accelerates like crazy when unloaded at zero G, but even mild G loadings (2-4) can prevent it from accelerating at all below around 300kts when aircraft like the F-18 and Mirage 2000 accelerate easily under similar conditions. This is a significant factor in the "experience" because you must either give up all the angles to unload and regain speed while other aircraft can just pull around the circle while gaining speed.

1 hour ago, darkman222 said:

that was not just a little difference in the FM but quite a lot

I totally agree this was not a subtle change, and I think you're onto something here because while ED has been confident in the turn performance, this is a proven area of the model where they have been open to and made changes. There are also well written posts posing questions about the FLCS parameters/performance where ED has not had a response yet. Maybe they haven't had the time, or maybe that is another area they are open to or now looking at.

[Versor]

"The Viper accelerates like crazy when unloaded at zero G, but even mild G loadings (2-4) can prevent it from accelerating at all below around 300kts when aircraft like the F-18 and Mirage 2000 accelerate easily under similar conditions. This is a significant factor in the "experience" because you must either give up all the angles to unload and regain speed while other aircraft can just pull around the circle while gaining speed."

I totally agree with that. I think that something is really wrong here. Yesterday i had a couple of BFM round against F-18 and it was terrible. F-18 is way way better than F-16. 

In two circle BFM my F-16 lost speed very fast. After that i had a huge problem to regain speed. I think that someone made a mistake and switch Viper and Hornet FM

Edited June 16, 2023 by Versor

[Torri]

A lot of people cite the STR as being bang on the money, which might be the case. One cannot argue against the numbers.

I think however that the problem many are facing is the rapid energy loss (induced drag) once you go over that Ps = 0 line.

It does not seem to scale in line with what one would expect from an neutral/unstable aft CG design like the F-16.

 

Also the Block 30 vs 50 weight argument could just be offset by changing the fuel mass. Even with Block30 weights our DCS Viper creates a lot of drag the moment you slightly overstep that STR.

[Noctrach]

So let's turn this on its head, how do we demonstrate this?

What are we expecting to see if we fly the Ps = -200 line at a given weight, standard day, 15,000 feet? Is there a way to generate that data and fold in into a track?

8 hours ago, Torri said:

A lot of people cite the STR as being bang on the money, which might be the case. One cannot argue against the numbers.

I think however that the problem many are facing is the rapid energy loss (induced drag) once you go over that Ps = 0 line.

It does not seem to scale in line with what one would expect from an neutral/unstable aft CG design like the F-16.

 

Also the Block 30 vs 50 weight argument could just be offset by changing the fuel mass. Even with Block30 weights our DCS Viper creates a lot of drag the moment you slightly overstep that STR.

There is a training document on the web containing a F-16CG Blk 42 diagram showing energy bleed rates for turns at 15,000 MSL, 22,000 lbs gross weight clean.

Example: At 425 KCAS, idle power, a 6 second max G level turn should leave you between 250 and 275 KCAS, average turn rate ~16 deg/s

I know this is an F100-PW-220, but would this be a valid starting point?

----

Trying this a couple times: it leaves our jet at around 245-265 KCAS with an average turn rate well above 16 deg/s (around 17.5 deg/s, slightly over 105 degrees of turn). Makes me think it's pretty well tuned tbh... I've run various scenarios in this table and it seems spot on in the sim.

Bleed rates, turn rates, radii, it all matches up almost perfectly.

----

Clean BFM Viper á la dogfight servers (the topic of this thread) seems honestly extremely accurate on all metrics, including drag.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Noctrach

[KlarSnow]

If the current F-16 is performing to match a block 40/42 then it is significantly underperforming. The GE-129 installed in the block 50 has 29,000 lbs of thrust vs the PW-220's ~24,000 lbs of thrust.

 

If you are matching the PW-220 Engined block 40's performance figures with an aircraft of the same weight and 5000 lbs more available thrust, then there is something significantly wrong.

[TheBigTatanka]

I too think the sustained turn rate is matching, but above the Ps=0 line it bleeds a lot more than it should. It's also possible that below the STR line, it isn't gaining energy as easily as it should.

It seems to be an induced drag problem.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

[Noctrach]

10 hours ago, KlarSnow said:

If the current F-16 is performing to match a block 40/42 then it is significantly underperforming. The GE-129 installed in the block 50 has 29,000 lbs of thrust vs the PW-220's ~24,000 lbs of thrust.

 

If you are matching the PW-220 Engined block 40's performance figures with an aircraft of the same weight and 5000 lbs more available thrust, then there is something significantly wrong.

Its still pretty much the same airframe though no? It seems to me that a turn at idle power would minimize the engine difference and be pretty close to a 1:1 comparison on drag or is that not a valid assumption?

Any suggestion on how to quantify the drag performance otherwise?

---

Besides, the tables of the Blk 42-220 and the Blk 50-129 are very very close, with the Blk 50 having a marginal advantage.

No matter how many tests and data comparisons I do on the Viper, it pretty much always ends up matching the available documentation. No matter how hard I look, I can't see any significant discrepancies for any of the clean performance charts outside the sub-3% "this is a videogame" margins. I think if there's anything suspect on the Dogfight server match-ups, the Viper is not the jet to look at.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Noctrach

[St4RgAz3R]

Hey guys here are some graphs with STR and ITR from some tests i did. I made the tests in game and recorded the data from tacview. 

All jets are clean no pylons with 2000 lbs of fuel and are flying at 1000 feet MSL. 

I don't know how accurate they are but it seems to me that the f16 is losing by both f18 and m2000c both STR and ITR at all speeds

[darkman222]

How can we determine that the amount of energy bled in a turn is correct? And the amount of energy in a full pull back on the stick and not just only STR. Everybody is looking at the STR, this disussion should be over for so long now, and focussed on energy retention.

[Noctrach]

14 minutes ago, darkman222 said:

How can we determine that the amount of energy bled in a turn is correct? And the amount of energy in a full pull back on the stick and not just only STR. Everybody is looking at the STR, this disussion should be over for so long now, and focussed on energy retention.

Try flying the Ps = -200 FPS line. For example see if you can maintain speed by dropping ~12,000 feet per minute (it's about 15 degrees nose low). It's not an easy profile to fly, but when you hit the numbers you'll see that it also matches up.

I completely agree with @gortex. You're really better off looking elsewhere because this FM is not going to reveal any magical causes for anyone's BFM woes.

The only reason we're having this discussion is because the Mirage and Hornet have no charts to conclusively say they should or shouldn't out-rate the Viper in their modeled configurations.