correct as is F16 Still Underperforming

[FusRoPotato]

The curve has no effect on response time. All it does it increase/decrease demand based on stick position.

[Minhal]

That sluggishness put me off too and i set the Viper on the shelf for a long time due to that. There seems to be a hardcoded deadzone. Everbody recommending negative curve but curves are horrible, because they are... well, not linear. Which comes with downsides but no upsides imho. So i cut saturation X lately and it works way better for me since that deadzone shrinks quite well. Jet becomes responsive with linear output compared to the varying output of a curve.

Still would like ED to have a look at that. Even in the Hog with a loadout close to max takeoff weight i just need to put minimal pressure at, not even move, the stick to make small corrections. In the Viper, that deadzone makes one wiggle back and forth. It feels completely off for an agile jet with a FSS. Afaik the real jet got a deadzone so you don't go whoop with slightest pressure and i assume ED tried to emulate that?

Bit offtopic, but i think it was worth mentioning.

nullnull

[janitha2]

19 hours ago, VarZat said:

I suggest a negative curve

nope!

[FusRoPotato]

There is no joystick calibration trick that can make up for latency or rotational inertia problems.

[NineLine]

4 hours ago, Minhal said:

That sluggishness put me off too and i set the Viper on the shelf for a long time due to that. There seems to be a hardcoded deadzone. Everbody recommending negative curve but curves are horrible, because they are... well, not linear. Which comes with downsides but no upsides imho. So i cut saturation X lately and it works way better for me since that deadzone shrinks quite well. Jet becomes responsive with linear output compared to the varying output of a curve.

Still would like ED to have a look at that. Even in the Hog with a loadout close to max takeoff weight i just need to put minimal pressure at, not even move, the stick to make small corrections. In the Viper, that deadzone makes one wiggle back and forth. It feels completely off for an agile jet with a FSS. Afaik the real jet got a deadzone so you don't go whoop with slightest pressure and i assume ED tried to emulate that?

Bit offtopic, but i think it was worth mentioning.

nullnull

While there is some work being done what we have and are doing matches available data. If you have any sort of evidence beyond this we can take a look  Thanks.

[Dragon1-1]

You do have data on the F-16's stick forces, right? The breakout force, the max G/roll rate, the response curve and so on. It just seems like it's implemented in a way that isn't very friendly to desktop-type sticks. Most of us don't have a force-sensing control stick, and there's only one on the market that really replicates the Viper's stick. I think the problem here is how the stick response is simulated, not anything about the FM.

[TobiasA]

The AI can do some weird moves that humans can't do. That's all. Work in progress afaik, the MiG-29 is the first after the rework and really is more "human".

Against the AI, try to keep the fight tight to deny heater shots and when you see the AI extending and climbing, pop a 9X against the cold sky.

Edited April 9, 2023 by TobiasA

[wilbur81]

On 4/6/2023 at 2:28 PM, S said:

G modeling is not fine. Watch any of the former F-16 pilots on YouTube talk about 9G in dogfights and how that is a defining advantage of the Viper against other planes. Anything over 7-7.5G for more than 5 seconds and you black out in DCS. Hasard Lee just put out a short the other day talking about pulling 9G and having some burst blood vessels in his arm from doing it. He didn't experience GLOC. Also, C.W. Lemoine talks about how the Viper in DCS doesn't have the acceleration during 4+ G maneuvering that the real Viper has. IIRC he mentioned accelerating all the way up to 7G with full blower. Go over 4G in a horizontal turn in the DCS Viper and you're definitely losing energy, not accelerating. 

You will likely not find a single YT HUD tape showing a Viper driver pulling 9g's for more than a few seconds (if at all). There are a fair number of YT videos of real world Vipers (HUD tape footage) performing BFM... you will find very few (I've never found one myself) where the max G exceeds 7g or the airspeed exceed 350 kts. Here's one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOa9eWgFllE. Another example from Defensive BFM with telemetry data afterwards: https://youtu.be/nEOnP7zpcXs?t=199. Neither pilot breaks 7g in either engagement. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but probably a lot less common than people assume. A person doing 60 seconds of 9g's in a centrifuge is certainly impressive, but they're doing nothing else but sitting there... real world flying is obviously a good deal different.

 

Edited April 9, 2023 by wilbur81

[Minhal]

First off: i did not mean to highjack or derail this thread. It just happened Potato mentioned the sluggishness and i tried to give a litte tip. Feel free @NineLine to fork this into a separate thread, especially if you need to for internal reasons for the developers.

On 4/9/2023 at 7:28 AM, NineLine said:

While there is some work being done what we have and are doing matches available data. If you have any sort of evidence beyond this we can take a look  Thanks.

Hi NiineLine, Dragon said it quite well already. But i would like to elaborate and add a bit. I was not to imply there is something wrong with the flight model itself, this is a topic i can not contribute. The problem to me seems to be the behaviour of the real stick is implemented "too realistic" so to say - "too realistic" with the fact in mind the vast majority of users do not have a force sensing stick at home.

As far as i am aware of, in the real Viper there is a force sensing stick that does not move much at all but is measuring pressure and translating this into deflection of the control surfaces. To my knowledge this stick has a center deadzone, a certain minimum of force you have to apply, before there are signals sent to the control surfaces. Like said, most DCS users do not own a force sensing stick but a regular one with simple X and Y movement measuring axis. Also regular user joysticks have a way bigger range of movement available than the real Viper stick. This discrepancies had to be overcome and translated into the game in a certain way. This is the part i was referring to when i asked for ED to take a look again. My impression is, that this deadzone from the real thing has been carried over to the simulation accurately, which is causing some trouble. I did some short videos in the A-10C II, the F/A-18C and the F-16C. All videos are with a clean aircraft with 100% internal fuel, all control settings are at default. So no deadzones, no curves and 100% X and Y saturation in the settings. I also do not use 3rd party software that fiddles with the stick.

A-10C II:

F/A-18C:

F-16C:

One can clearly see how in the F/A-18C and especially in the A-10C II, there is immediate reaction of the control surfaces to even small physical inputs. The F/A-18C seems to be a bit slower in response than the A-10C II, where you can not even see the diamond move on the controls overlay. This is me just applying little pressure on the physical stick, not really moving it. In the F-16 though, at the end of the video i can even wiggle my physical stick (TMWH) in a circle about 1 inch in diameter and the diamond ingame follows this movement well. The control surfaces though do not show any reaction. I thought this might be the FLC interpreting short inputs, but holding the stick in such position did not have any effect either. I assume this is the (correct) simulation of the aforementioned deadzone of the real stick. So in a sense, it is "correct as is" - given you own a force sensing stick that can translate this. Users that bought one report this solved the sluggishness for them and they have way more control. For the average user though, in this case "realism is not realistic" as we do not own the hardware necessary.

F-16C stick moving less 1/4 inch max in the real thing:

The ingame deadzone for regular joytick users is some "arbitrary" point along the movement axis we can not "feel". Not hitting it leads to a sluggish feeling and results in pilot induced oscillation due to the agility of the jet and suddenly onsetting reaction of the control surfaces somewhere along the movement axis. In the real jet i assume you just relax that little pressure you put on and apply it in another direction for tiny corrections. This is a way finer process and easier to (fine) control than 1 inch or so movement of the stick through a deadzone on our joysticks. Like said, probably implemented accurately along the data charts, but with a regular joystick it does not translate very well.

Looking at forum threads and questions in a variety of discords, this seems to be a common problem for Viper users. I therefore kindly ask ED to have a look at this again and maybe offer an option in the "special" menu to remove this deadzone for regular joystick users.

A current workaround it lowering the saturation X settings in the controls menu to 50-65% for pitch and roll or apply a -20 curve, which both seem to shrink that deadzone a little bit but it is still present.

Thanks for your time!

edit: i can ofc provide trackfiles if needed/helpful. Just let me know. Thanks again!

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Minhal

[darkman222]

The original post is about out rating an opponent, and g modelling plays a part for these reasons:

1. The viper's peak performance is in the 9g regime.

2. It does not matter if there's a public available HUD Tape of a viper pulling 9g or not. Read the EM diagram. It's available to the public.

3. Nobody needs to pull 9g for 60 seconds. But the current g modelling does not allow for a long enough 9 g usage to use the strengths of the viper. You rate around with sustained rate at 7.5 g and for the final higher Gs to pull the bandit in the HUD, the DCS pilot blacks out. That's part of the problem.

( Yes you will be slow then, but you will also have a kill. At the moment, you'll be only slow and sleeping)

4. Question: What's the required time of a Pilot to sustain 9g to be qualified as viper driver? For the German Euro Fighter it's 15 second's of 9g for example. It can't be less for the viper.

Edited April 10, 2023 by darkman222

[VarZat]

1 hour ago, darkman222 said:

The original post is about out rating an opponent:

1. The viper's peak performance is in the 9g regime.

2. It does not matter if there's a public available HUD Tape of a viper pulling 9g or not. Read the EM diagram. It's available to the public.

3. Nobody needs to pull 9g for 60 seconds. But the current g modelling does not allow for a long enough 9 g usage to use the strengths of the viper. You rate around with sustained rate at 7.5 g and for the final higher Gs to pull the bandit in the HUD, the DCS pilot blacks out. That's part of the problem.

( Yes you will be slow then, but you will also have a kill. At the moment, you'll be only slow and sleeping)

4. Question: What's the required time of a Pilot to sustain 9g to be qualified as viper driver? For the German Euro Fighter it's 15 second's of 9g for example. It can't be less for the viper.

 

30 seconds under 9G for the viper i believe, though no way DCS pilot survives that without blacking out

[SickSidewinder9]

Keep in mind that the system models how quickly you are piling on the G's.  A sudden increase in G load will black you out quicker than gradual.  Try to be smooth.  Because of the high speed rate turning of the F-16, it's a little more cat and mouse against an opponent than something like the Hornet which can just slow down and stay inside the bandit's turn.  Work on letting the aircraft run a bit and not pulling hard and jerky on the stick.
But yeah, I little more 9G tolerance might be better to simulate a trained and experienced and in shape Viper pilot.  Not sure if setting the green lever to PBG does anything in game.  IRL it forces more air with G's.

[Aquorys]

17 hours ago, darkman222 said:

4. Question: What's the required time of a Pilot to sustain 9g to be qualified as viper driver? For the German Euro Fighter it's 15 second's of 9g for example. It can't be less for the viper.

Judging by the fact that the Eurofighter is a way more agile aircraft than the Viper, I would not be surprised if Germany's physical requirements for Eurofighter pilots were more demanding than e.g. the requirements for a Viper pilot in the USAF.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Aquorys

[FusRoPotato]

Got a little bored today and performed a little experiment.

Set up an export.lua to allow for two things:

1. Record pitch response data
2. Enforce a strict timed impulse of perfect control input using LoSetCommand(2001, input)

I performed this by hijacking a button in the F16, the radar emission switch (why not). I begin with a hot airstart and have the export.lua programmed to detect when I turn the radar to quiet mode. Once in quiet, it holds pitch input steady at 0 for 1 second, kicks it up to 1 for 200 ms, then back down to 0 again while recording the pitch rate using LoGetAngularVelocity().

I did this for speeds starting around 200 and going up to 500 in increments of 50 while at 4kft no stores, then repeated the process again for an F-14, only this time using the missile step button as a trigger (why not lol). I can share the export file I used that shows how this is accomplished if anyone wants to repeat or expand on the idea, but digging through lua files to find the argument ID for the stick position and some random trigger switch can be a challenge. Here is what I found:

First graph is what the response looks like very close up in the span of 100 milliseconds:

2nd is zoomed out to 2 seconds after impulse:

3rd has all the speeds (longer wave is slower speed) just for the F14 shown next to the impulse control input (black line).

4th is the F16, same idea

Interesting to notice more of a delay in the 16 on response by about 80 millis, that and it appears overdamped vs the cat's underdamped response. I will have to do more digging to see if I can find any specifics on damping factors, but it looks like the 16 got hit with a basic PID which I don't think is correct. I have to double check.

If anyone wants to continue this, here's a miz and export.lua. You will have to modify it to your own log file path of course and change some of the argument IDs based on which plane you fly, but I noted the numbers you need for the 16 and 14...ExportFMTEST.zip

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by FusRoPotato

[Scott-S6]

I have to agree with Minhal. I have both a FSSB (realsim) and a regular stick (vpc). The viper is great with the FSSB. With a regular stick it requires large, aggressive control inputs, markedly different to other aircraft.

This should be a special option - "realistic" mode for people with FSSB and "regular" for normal sticks.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Scott-S6

[skywalker22]

Is it the same sluggish feeling for pitch and roll?

I have VKB Gunfigjter MkIII Ultimate joystick, with no curves, and all it feels pretty fine and natural to me.

[Shimmergloom667]

35 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

I have VKB Gunfigjter MkIII Ultimate joystick, with no curves, and all it feels pretty fine and natural to me.

Same, and the Viper feels like everything else to me, tbqh.

[janitha2]

Well there is a problem here with people, they all "think" or "feels" without knowing what it is supposed to do. They all unknowingly make the viper worse by telling ED "there is no problem here it looks normal on my end" even though they dont know what normal is.
 
Clearly some people here notice a difference...

2 hours ago, Scott-S6 said:

I have to agree with Minhal. I have both a FFS and a regular stick. The viper is great with the FFS. With a regular stick it requires large, aggressive control inputs, markedly different to other aircraft.

This should be a special option - "realistic" mode for people with FFS and "regular" for normal sticks.

 

If you dont have the money to get a FFB stick to test it out for your self just look at the data,
 
 

 

11 hours ago, FusRoPotato said:

Got a little bored today and performed a little experiment.

Set up an export.lua to allow for two things:

1. Record pitch response data
2. Enforce a strict timed impulse of perfect control input using LoSetCommand(2001, input)

I performed this by hijacking a button in the F16, the radar emission switch (why not). I begin with a hot airstart and have the export.lua programmed to detect when I turn the radar to quiet mode. Once in quiet, it holds pitch input steady at 0 for 1 second, kicks it up to 1 for 200 ms, then back down to 0 again while recording the pitch rate using LoGetAngularVelocity().

I did this for speeds starting around 200 and going up to 500 in increments of 50 while at 4kft no stores, then repeated the process again for an F-14, only this time using the missile step button as a trigger (why not lol). I can share the export file I used that shows how this is accomplished if anyone wants to repeat or expand on the idea, but digging through lua files to find the argument ID for the stick position and some random trigger switch can be a challenge. Here is what I found:

First graph is what the response looks like very close up in the span of 100 milliseconds:

2nd is zoomed out to 2 seconds after impulse:

3rd has all the speeds (longer wave is slower speed) just for the F14 shown next to the impulse control input (black line).

4th is the F16, same idea

Interesting to notice more of a delay in the 16 on response by about 80 millis, that and it appears overdamped vs the cat's underdamped response. I will have to do more digging to see if I can find any specifics on damping factors, but it looks like the 16 got hit with a basic PID which I don't think is correct. I have to double check.

If anyone wants to continue this, here's a miz and export.lua. You will have to modify it to your own log file path of course and change some of the argument IDs based on which plane you fly, but I noted the numbers you need for the 16 and 14...ExportFMTEST.zip

 

 

 

[Moonshine]

about 3 months ago i moved from a VKB Gunfighter MkIII Ultimate joystick to a FSSB R3 and it indeed does make a difference. more instant reaction to any stick input, much less sluggish feel, overall a better flying experience. i was always hesitant to make that step as it is quite an investment and i always thought "it cant be that bad". when i finally did it, the difference however was very noticeable right off the bat. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Moonshine

[VarZat]

Force sensing from full range is a big difference in the DCS f-16 for sure. I used to run -25 curves on my VKB gladiator, which made it a little better but going to the FSSB R3, i could just feel that it was correct for the F-16. I dont even think about the stick, its amazingly intuitive. The controll for the f-16 in DCS is definitly not made for full range sticks.

[M1Combat]

My 2c...

I've been using an X65F for many years with no curves at all...  It works great in all aircraft including the F16.

 

I'm not 100% sure how it works out but if a force sensing stick seems to work great in all the other jets (including ones that aren't programmed differently) then why would a regular displacement stick feel odd with the Viper?  Please remember though...  It's been a LOT of years since I've sim'd with a regular stick.  It just seems to me that I should be feeling a difference too, just in the other direction yeah?

 

Don't get me wrong...  The data presented above does seem to indicate a difference in response between the two jets compared but I do think the two compared jets should be the 18 and the 16.  At least that way we get only ED's approach to the subject and we eliminate TWO variables.  One being ED Vs. HB, the other being "mostly analogue" vs. "very much not analogue".  Honestly comparing the Tomcat and Viper for this specific test seems a bit dis-ingenuous.  I'm sure it wasn't meant that way...  but it kinda feels that way a little.

Edited April 12, 2023 by M1Combat

[Minhal]

15 minutes ago, VarZat said:

Force sensing from full range is a big difference in the DCS f-16 for sure. I used to run -25 curves on my VKB gladiator, which made it a little better but going to the FSSB R3, i could just feel that it was correct for the F-16. I dont even think about the stick, its amazingly intuitive. The controll for the f-16 in DCS is definitly not made for full range sticks.

Yep, i have no doubt @NineLine is correct when he says they modeled everything in that aspect to the charts. It is just that it does not translate well to the regular consumer stick. When you own a force sensing stick with a small range of movement, a small deadzone absolutely makes sense. But when you do not own one, this deadzone should be absent since you have that wide range of movement already. You won't go whoop with 6g by just touching the stick.

The situation imho is similar to the microswitches on the Mi-24s pedals. You can model it to the real thing in all aspects. But when you do not own the right hardware (here pedals with a microswitch), the aircraft does not behave like it should on the consumer end. This then needs a workaround. For the Hind it were different options to have the microswitch activate automatically. Hence my request to review the stick behavior with its apparent deadzone.

From my point of view regarding my request: no changes to the FM needed, just an additional option in the special options for regular consumer sticks that removes the deadzone.

[M1Combat]

4 minutes ago, Minhal said:

 When you own a force sensing stick with a small range of movement, a small deadzone absolutely makes sense.

As a side note...

A deadzone with a force sensing stick is not optimal in sim.  I know the Viper has one IRL and i'm sure IRL or maybe with a motion rig it would make sense but in sim with a non-moving cockpit it's better to have no deadzone.  When I first got the X65F I had trouble just going straight.  It was fine for all other directions :)...  but just going straight with my hands on the stick took some effort.  I looked into what others were doing to combat that and most people suggested a small deadzone.  I tried that but it presented all sorts of other problems I didn't like...  mainly...  a deadzone.  Eff that :).  So I went back to no deadzone and just used it.  I don't know how many hours it took to get used to it but at least 6-10 I'd say, but it's been many years.  Now it's absolutely perfect.  Many full tanks in all the aircraft sitting on a tanker.  Lots of hovering in heli's without using "hover modes"...  It's fantastic...  but don't use a deadzone :).

[Minhal]

3 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

As a side note...

A deadzone with a force sensing stick is not optimal in sim.  I know the Viper has one IRL and i'm sure IRL or maybe with a motion rig it would make sense but in sim with a non-moving cockpit it's better to have no deadzone.  When I first got the X65F I had trouble just going straight.  It was fine for all other directions :)...  but just going straight with my hands on the stick took some effort.  I looked into what others were doing to combat that and most people suggested a small deadzone.  I tried that but it presented all sorts of other problems I didn't like...  mainly...  a deadzone.  Eff that :).  So I went back to no deadzone and just used it.  I don't know how many hours it took to get used to it but at least 6-10 I'd say, but it's been many years.  Now it's absolutely perfect.  Many full tanks in all the aircraft sitting on a tanker.  Lots of hovering in heli's without using "hover modes"...  It's fantastic...  but don't use a deadzone :).

Interesting to know. I would have thought it makes sense with a FSS at home because you probably unintenionally make little movements. Yet i think it would be cool to let that in the game for everyone who accustomed to this. No need to force onto people who are just fine with how it is right now.

[M1Combat]

3 minutes ago, Minhal said:

Interesting to know. I would have thought it makes sense with a FSS at home because you probably unintenionally make little movements. Yet i think it would be cool to let that in the game for everyone who accustomed to this. No need to force onto people who are just fine with how it is right now.

 

Agreed for sure.  And until I got used to it, yeah... It was difficult to fly straight as you say.  But after a while...  I wouldn't have anything else and I would 1000% not use a deadzone.  I've actually been waiting years for a better FSS and the time is "soon" :).

 

On the subject though...  Yeah I think the deadzone piece of the current Viper (I assume it's programmed in based on the presented data and nineline's comments) should be an option.  The reason for the deadzone in the real aircraft just simply doesn't exist AND seems to be magnified by the regular displacement sticks, which are clearly the majority.