correct as is F16 Still Underperforming

[VarZat]

At some point close to 2000lb fuel, i have always felt that the FM just «jumps» and changes. Its like going from a soccer-mom car to a sports car, it just becomes a total machine. Dont know how i can prove this, but i think we are onto something there.

[Noctrach]

25 minutes ago, gortex said:

@darkman222

Maybe, maybe I found something here.  There is an EM diagram we can't post for 26,000lb and a drag index of 50.  I set up with an F-16 for a drag index of 52 based on sources I can find (I don't know exactly how to make 50), so that's pretty close.  Fuel is set to unlimited so the weight is constant, altitude is very close to sea level.  I held sustained mach and recorded the g-load, then did some math to get deg/s STR.

 

So that is a funny trough at mach 0.6 and 0.7.  The diagrams we have a for a clean Viper are at 22,000lb, which is bingo fuel.  Maybe something is up with the FM at heavier fuel loads.  Losing 0.5deg/s is nothing to sneeze at.

Is it not more likely that this is drag related caused by the addition of stores?

All of the youtube viper drivers seem to comment on stores drag feeling off and it has always been the part where DCS FMs have been most wonky.

[TheBigTatanka]

Yeah, i think everyone has experienced the leap in performance when you hit around 2k pounds of fuel, and the sheer doggedness of the aircraft above 3k pounds of fuel.

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

[TheBigTatanka]

Great data Gortex!

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

[Gungho]

16 hours ago, St4RgAz3R said:

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

Yup very good data proves why i lose in rate two circle fights against all the fighters. Nevermind glocking at 390+ knots of sustained rate. Hope they will fix this.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Gungho

[Braunn]

On 6/14/2023 at 6:25 PM, 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...

 

 Where did I state AI planes are hard to shoot down? Pretty sure I never did. So what are you disagreeing with? 

[F-2]

On 6/17/2023 at 8:59 AM, Noctrach said:

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.

I have what appears to be a Chinese language performance table on the mirage 2000-5 (Taiwanese?) if that helps

[M1Combat]

On 6/9/2023 at 4:07 AM, Cab said:

What? Seriously, it's probably me, but I have no idea what your point is.

Also, your assessment of the paddle is just plain incorrect. The dominance of the Hornet in BFM is directly attributable to using the paddle.

No.  It's directly attributable to what the aircraft is capable of.

[jaguara5]

13 hours ago, F-2 said:

I have what appears to be a Chinese language performance table on the mirage 2000-5 (Taiwanese?) if that helps

What performance table is that? But i'm not sure if you can share it here, would be wise perhaps to ask ED in advance 

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by jaguara5

[F-2]

18 minutes ago, jaguara5 said:

What performance table is that? But i'm not sure if you can share it here, would be wise perhaps to ask ED in advance 

 

 

I wouldn’t, it’s Chinese simplified so mainland. They evaluated the aircraft and Rafale a few times till the late 90s so it might be from that. I’m trying to confirm exactly.

[BIGNEWY]

Hi folks, 

please ensure you are aware of our 1.16 rule about data and documents, and please remember the topic here, lets not go off topic. 

thank you

[Cab]

5 hours ago, M1Combat said:

No.  It's directly attributable to what the aircraft is capable of.

"The F-18 is the toughest fight a pilot can face. It dominates is all aspects of BFM." Said no F-16 pilot ever.

[howie87]

 

21 minutes ago, Cab said:

"The F-18 is the toughest fight a pilot can face. It dominates is all aspects of BFM." Said no F-16 pilot ever.

I think it's probably more a case of people abusing the paddle switch in DCS. Real life DACT, an F/A-18C is probably carrying at least one drop tank and only pulling 6G's. No tanks and 9 G's with the paddle switch and suddenly it's a very different fight.

[Cab]

37 minutes ago, howie87 said:

 

I think it's probably more a case of people abusing the paddle switch in DCS. Real life DACT, an F/A-18C is probably carrying at least one drop tank and only pulling 6G's. No tanks and 9 G's with the paddle switch and suddenly it's a very different fight.

Except in real life they don't ever use the paddle switch except in extreme circumstances to save the jet. Tanks or no tanks.

If the goal is to compare the real-life performance of the Hornet v. anything else, it simply has to be done without the paddle. Otherwise, it's just fantasy.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Cab

[GGTharos]

The 'bigger offender' has done this in IRL combat.  There is one known catastrophic over-g instance of an F-15A or C known, and very very little is known about it.  Even finding mentions of it is difficult.   No, I don't mean the one that fell apart at 3g's due to faulty longerons.

There have been multiple documented 12g excursions, and them more 11g, more 10g, etc. going down the line out of which only one is known to have resulted in the aircraft being sent to a museum (ie. written off).

As for your video - I'll check later if it's even possible to hit that much AoA at 460KCAS, but I have doubts.  If it is possible, then that is likely a problem but it is separate from over-g.  Regarding your complaints about 12g excursions, for the reason above, I don't care, nor should anyone else.  If you play that game too often in the flight the wings will come off.

Likewise, score enough damage on the target and the wings will come off under not all that much g.

And as for a high AoA break, I have bad news for you ... that sort of AoA is encountered during specific evasive maneuvers for eagles.  Just not at that speed AFAIK, too fast.

[howie87]

1 hour ago, Cab said:

Except in real life they don't ever use the paddle switch except in extreme circumstances to save the jet. Tanks or no tanks.

If the goal is to compare the real-life performance of the Hornet v. anything else, it simply has to be done without the paddle. Otherwise, it's just fantasy.

 

Yeah, we're in agreement here. The issue is people are saying the viper is underperforming, but they're measuring it against aircraft that are being used in an unrealistic way. Does the viper beat the hornet in sustained turns above 420 knots, without using the paddle switch? Absolutely. 

Edited June 19, 2023 by howie87

[Sandman1330]

32 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

The 'bigger offender' has done this in IRL combat.  There is one known catastrophic over-g instance of an F-15A or C known, and very very little is known about it.  Even finding mentions of it is difficult.   No, I don't mean the one that fell apart at 3g's due to faulty longerons.

There have been multiple documented 12g excursions, and them more 11g, more 10g, etc. going down the line out of which only one is known to have resulted in the aircraft being sent to a museum (ie. written off).

As for your video - I'll check later if it's even possible to hit that much AoA at 460KCAS, but I have doubts.  If it is possible, then that is likely a problem but it is separate from over-g.  Regarding your complaints about 12g excursions, for the reason above, I don't care, nor should anyone else.  If you play that game too often in the flight the wings will come off.

Likewise, score enough damage on the target and the wings will come off under not all that much g.

And as for a high AoA break, I have bad news for you ... that sort of AoA is encountered during specific evasive maneuvers for eagles.  Just not at that speed AFAIK, too fast.

There’s a pretty big difference between one short duration 10-12G pull, and what DCS players do though. Those RL excursions were very short duration, followed by gingerly limping the aircraft home in an unknown serviceability state.

DCS players hit 12G repeatedly and for longer duration over the span of a long fight. The damage potential of repeated and sustained over G is significantly higher than one transient oopsie pull. DCS doesn’t model the cumulative damage that each pull would create, ultimately ending in some kind of aircraft damage. Only battle damage models a weakened airframe and therefore less G before breakage.

I know this is OT, but I oft hear people justifying over G in game using these real life anecdotes, when it’s not the same thing.

[howie87]

Just tried tried this in the Hornet (lightly loaded) and managed 12.1G instantaneous without ripping the wings. Apologies for the terrible quality, first gen VR capture.

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, Sandman1330 said:

There’s a pretty big difference between one short duration 10-12G pull, and what DCS players do though. Those RL excursions were very short duration, followed by gingerly limping the aircraft home in an unknown serviceability state.

DCS players hit 12G repeatedly and for longer duration over the span of a long fight. The damage potential of repeated and sustained over G is significantly higher than one transient oopsie pull. DCS doesn’t model the cumulative damage that each pull would create, ultimately ending in some kind of aircraft damage. Only battle damage models a weakened airframe and therefore less G before breakage.

I know this is OT, but I oft hear people justifying over G in game using these real life anecdotes, when it’s not the same thing.

No, one long (5sec) 12.5g pull in the most g-vulnerable speed band for the eagle resulted in what you said.  The rest did not, at least it's not documented.  I'm not saying the crew chief didn't have to do extra work, just that the alleged severity of your comment does not appear to apply.

Pull 12g for a while in the eagle in DCS and it breaks.  Yes, it is cumulative in DCS.  Add weight or make the g asymmetric and it breaks sooner.  Pull 10g and it will take you a lot longer to break it because it's not 12g.

Edited June 19, 2023 by GGTharos

[howie87]

It's not that they shouldn't be able to reach an instantaneous 12G in an emergency situation. It's just not normal procedure to fly like that for obvious reasons.

We can bend/break as many aircraft as we like because it is a 'game' and people fly like that online to get a competitive advantage. It would be more 'unrealistic' to limit the hornet to 7.5G and have it spontaneously explode it if exceeded the limit, or just not model the system override functions for the sake of 'balance'. 

[GGTharos]

58 minutes ago, gortex said:

I've said several times that the F-16 FLCS might not behave correctly.  In many circumstances I've noticed that the FLCS will overshoot the best g and AoA in a hard turn, and then it will settle into the right spot.

I wouldn't be surprised if the FLCS needs more tuning.  I think a bit of tweaking for its responsiveness and correctness would go a long way.

[howie87]

1 hour ago, gortex said:

Now I think I found a way to exaggerate its behavior to show something strange.  All I do in this video is haul back on the stick, and use a little bit of aileron to prevent roll.  See if you can replicate this:

 

 

You're low speed, nose high, idle throttle, roll inverted, then apply max negative stick deflection followed by a max positive deflection and afterburner... Pretty much outside the realm of any normal flying. The only way to tell if a real F-16 acts anything like this would probably be to repeat that procedure in one. Too many variables.

[Aquorys]

45 minutes ago, gortex said:

If I got the opinion of a SME would you accept it?

If someone tried it in a real one, yeah. If someone can plausibly explain why something happens or doesn't happen, mostly. Otherwise, maybe. Cause I've lost count of the situations where SMEs on some complex piece of technology said, if you do X, then Y happens, and then when someone actually tries it, everyone just goes, "ok, this is interesting"... 

[Cab]

3 hours ago, Sandman1330 said:

There’s a pretty big difference between one short duration 10-12G pull, and what DCS players do though. Those RL excursions were very short duration, followed by gingerly limping the aircraft home in an unknown serviceability state.

DCS players hit 12G repeatedly and for longer duration over the span of a long fight. The damage potential of repeated and sustained over G is significantly higher than one transient oopsie pull. DCS doesn’t model the cumulative damage that each pull would create, ultimately ending in some kind of aircraft damage. Only battle damage models a weakened airframe and therefore less G before breakage.

I know this is OT, but I oft hear people justifying over G in game using these real life anecdotes, when it’s not the same thing.

This is exactly the point. Yes, F-15's have pulled 12g's in real-life, and it's such a rare occurrence that it's possible there's public information about every single one. And in real-life that is the exception but in DCS it is the rule.

To compare the real-life "12g" examples to the performance in DCS completely misses the mark.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Cab

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, Cab said:

This is exactly the point. Yes, F-15's have pulled 12g's in real-life, and it's such a rare occurrence that it's possible there's public information about every single one. And in real-life that is the exception but in DCS it is the rule.

To compare the real-life "12g" examples to the performance in DCS completely misses the mark.

The you probably don't want to compare aircraft performance for all-clean, no-pylon dogfights on the deck, either.  Or really, any kind of modern aircraft gunzo fight.