correct as is F16 Still Underperforming

[FusRoPotato]

I feel like this is a broader problem in where the interpretation of what a control input should be, translating from a spring stick to either a force stick, collective, or cyclic, has limited to no customization in where the deadzones, latencies, filters, or even to what extent various types of feedback loops are available. I think it should be understood as a developer that how an aircraft moves affects the body and mind, something we don't get in our race gaming chairs. Our body physically reacts, not just by mental reflex, but by stress and the physical inertia of our arms as well. The only way to get around that is to offer those tools and access to all the gains, filters, and gain scalars(Reynolds#) for every aircraft.

This is probably why there are zero instances of an F-14 ever having its wings ripped off in RL despite it being such a frequent occurrence in DCS, or why so many people wobble around in their choppers. They can't feel what is happening and their sticks aren't centered on neutral force. Currently I can fly around a helicopter and if I let go of the stick at high speed, the helicopter will just explode because my stick returns control to an exact center cyclic position rather than the neutral force position. The only way around this we've been given is by spamming a very distracting force trim button that's not realistic and that can also cause major accidents. A feedback loop and neutral force mapping would have been way better.

I suppose it might be possible to implement custom feedback responses if there were some way to access control stick input through that export.lua since I can force a stick output position with the 2001 command, but I haven't found a reference for direct controller inputs yet.

 

I don't know if what I'm seeing in the F-16 is a dead zone in position. It rather feels like a deadzone in small motion changes, as if the movement is simply filtered out or the feedback loop is dominating input at those small values. I could make more graphs of different input levels and durations if anyone is curious. Check again those graphs I posted and look closely at the F16. There is an 80 ms delay in reaction after an instantaneous change of input compared to what looks like 10 ms for the tomcat, but 10 ms makes sense because that's the framerate the script is running at. It's probably simply instant.

Edited April 12, 2023 by FusRoPotato

[Scott-S6]

It makes sense for an FSSB to have that deadzone and that latency in the real aircraft to prevent jostling of the aircraft translating into inadvertent control inputs. Doesn't make sense with a gimbal stick.

For people suggesting that they can't see a difference, try flying a variety of aircraft back to back. With both sticks there is a distinct difference between the 16 and the 14/15/18 although it's definitely more noticeable with the gimbal stick where the larger inputs needed by the viper are very obvious. Something is different about control inputs on the viper.

ETA - I quite frequently give people their first taste of DCS and get them to fly a bunch of different aircraft. I generally keep them on the gimbal stick initially (because the FSSB is out of reach on cost for someone just starting) and I always have to make a point of telling them that the viper needs bigger inputs.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Scott-S6

[Minhal]

49 minutes ago, FusRoPotato said:

I don't know if what I'm seeing in the F-16 is a dead zone in position. It rather feels like a deadzone in small motion changes, as if the movement is simply filtered out or the feedback loop is dominating input at those small values.

I think it is in position. Check again my F-16 video from first page. At the end i circle my stick within that deadzone and there is zero reaction of the control surfaces. Tried moving fast and slow, there is no difference. As soon as you hit a certain treshold, response kicks in. Once beyond that point, i never had the feeling of sluggishness. This is e.g. when holding a certain amount of G and then pulling some more. This felt well to me with immediate response. Try holding a 5G level turn, then pull 5.1G slowly. If it was filtering small changes, there should be some kind of sluggishness or delay too?
I also just tried a level turn and very slowly pulling back up to 5G, then relaxed. Marked the position of the stick before relaxing with my other hand and then went there in one quick motion. About 5G again. Not a scientifically accurate method but an indicator. If it was filtering slow/small inputs, a quick motion should result in higher G pull i think?

Just my observations and thoughts, in the end you seem to be the master of chart magic

[M1Combat]

So...  what we don't really know...

When a pilot transfers to a viper initially...  Do they feel the same thing being felt here?  Do they decide that it's somehow sub-optimal from a control precision point of view, but also decide that it's worth it due to a stability issue if it's not the way it is?

Figuring out how to make the aircraft react "properly" with a gimbal stick is one thing..   but simulating the initial reaction of a pilot transferring to a Viper may be more important ;).

 

Or maybe not...  We are just playing a game here.

[Dragon1-1]

6 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

When a pilot transfers to a viper initially...  Do they feel the same thing being felt here?

From what I've heard, pilots' initial reactions were actually very good. They all said, more or less, that the force-sensing stick took very little time to get used to, and that response was very snappy and precise. The only thing to learn was that you didn't return the stick to center, just let go and the roll will stop. 

Right now, we seem to have a deadzone that's supposed to correspond to the breakout force of the stick, scaled to work with the normal stick range. Only, that doesn't work too well in practice, unless you have a force sensing stick, in which case it works as intended. A typical desktop stick has a physical breakout force instead, and a simulated one on top of that gives a control response that just doesn't feel right.

@NineLine, can you comment on this? I'm pretty convinced the problem being reported here isn't the FM, but rather the control response, specifically the simulated breakout force. If an option was added to remove it, I'm pretty sure it'd feel a lot better.

[M1Combat]

23 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

From what I've heard, pilots' initial reactions were actually very good. They all said, more or less, that the force-sensing stick took very little time to get used to, and that response was very snappy and precise. The only thing to learn was that you didn't return the stick to center, just let go and the roll will stop. 

Right now, we seem to have a deadzone that's supposed to correspond to the breakout force of the stick, scaled to work with the normal stick range. Only, that doesn't work too well in practice, unless you have a force sensing stick, in which case it works as intended. A typical desktop stick has a physical breakout force instead, and a simulated one on top of that gives a control response that just doesn't feel right.

@NineLine, can you comment on this? I'm pretty convinced the problem being reported here isn't the FM, but rather the control response, specifically the simulated breakout force. If an option was added to remove it, I'm pretty sure it'd feel a lot better.

 

Feels right to me...  I suppose first we need to have 100% confirmation that it's actually a different setup in the Viper.  The presented evidence "seems" to suggest that's the case for sure...  but it was also based on data collected from two ENTIRELY different DEV teams.  I'd like to see what the 18 does just to keep all the data we're looking at "in house" so to speak.  If so...  I guess ED would need to assess the viability of having that switch.  Could be difficult to program, but "probably not". (<---  famous last words LOL)

[FusRoPotato]

Options are usually always good. Why force some to be annoyed?

If anyone knows how to read controller axis directly through lua, let me know. I'll do a sweep and post graphs.

Also, why do these threads keep being marked correct, even when it's stated that changes are coming?

Edited April 12, 2023 by FusRoPotato

[M1Combat]

12 minutes ago, FusRoPotato said:

Options are usually always good. Why force some to be annoyed?

If anyone knows how to read controller axis directly through lua, let me know. I'll do a sweep and post graphs.

Also, why do these threads keep being marked correct, even when it's stated that changes are coming?

 

Probably because it actually is "correct" now...  but that there are also adverse situations that could be made better.  It can certainly be correct now and changed in the future to be less correct, but more usable.  Also...  It's "early access".  These discussions are the primary reason for early access.  Also...  It makes a LOT more sense, based on what I know of ED's approach, that they would model the aircraft like it actually is first, then make concession for the people.

 

Also...  keep in mind that what we're discussing here isn't really part of the thread title.  The thread was initially about concerns of the jet under-performing.

Edited April 13, 2023 by M1Combat

[Gungho]

People are starting to catch on. For some reason the aoa you can pull during pitch up max deflection is much lower than the pitch down. I propose a change in the control input sensitivities as Minhal has pointed out. The FLCS feels awful compared to the hornet. In this first video you can see the f16 has extremely impossible pitch down spiraling movement. Ive done testing on my own and this is achieved by staying below 250 knots to avoid g-lock from negative gs, pulling power to idle and applying full pitch down and full aileron deflection(maybe a little rudder). My theory is By entering a low speed spiral the fcs thinks that full pitch down is to decrease aoa and break the stall and gives much more aoa control for pitch down movements in the f16. Im not sure if this is the way the developers have intended the f16 to be able to do these maneuvers. As it stands right now when im flying the f16 the poor aoa it can pull, poor sustained rate, coupled with the insane energy bleed has caused me to be put in a defensive position. My only option is to do this goofy negative g high aoa nose down maneuver to force an overshoot. My opinion is that the f16 is still underperforming and bleeding too much energy for exchange for below average instantaneous rate. 
 

 

 

 

 

On 4/2/2023 at 10:32 PM, NineLine said:

I love Max Afterburners' stuff, but he is very new to DCS, its possible it's a setup issue or something else, I will flag this with the team, but remember we also have a number of SMEs looking at our stuff as well as some FM stuff still in progress. Thanks. 

Please see above videos. I believe the f16s flcs should not act in this way.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Gungho

[FusRoPotato]

21 minutes ago, Gungho said:

I believe the f16s flcs should not act in this way.

 

why

[Glide]

I don't think it's quite "correct" yet with respect to the sim, not the real world.  The Mig-29 has a lower thrust to weight ratio, but it can escape from my F-16 no problem.  So, relative to the other jets in the sim, I think it needs more get up and go.  As for the FM, I just learn to fly the FM they give me.  The performance improves as the weight drops off with fuel burn, but I still think it needs a higher rate of acceleration. 

[FusRoPotato]

1 hour ago, Glide said:

The Mig-29 has a lower thrust to weight ratio, but it can escape from my F-16 no problem.

The Mig29 has a lower *PEAK* thrust to weight ratio. A lot of people don't realize that the F16 is super dramatically dependent on already being up to speed to produce that peak thrust, about 6x more than static.

The Mig29 engines are quite a bit more powerful in static conditions, but don't scale in thrust with speed as well. This makes them better at building energy and can easily escape an F-16

[Dragon1-1]

Yup, the F-16 might be "the greatest dogfighter in the world" (at least in its time), but it's only if you are a great dogfighter, too, since it demands proper use of energy tactics. In fact, if you get slow, as many people do, you're easy prey for either a MiG-29 or a Hornet. Those two love flying slow, the Viper hates it with a burning passion. In such case, they both have the Viper dead to rights. The obvious counter is, of course, not to get slow, but it's easier said than done.

[Temetre]

Am 11.4.2023 um 16:30 schrieb Aquorys:

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.

AFAIK the Eurofighter is more designed for high altitude though, so I'd imagine they are not pulling 9g as much.

Actually makes me wonder how the huge delta wings affect drag at low altitude. Probably super efficient turns, but wasteful at angle of attack (and high G)? People told me the F-16 has small wings because its better for sustained high speed 9G turns.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Temetre

[GGTharos]

Most people in DCS do their dogfights at low level and clean, and assume that reality resembles this.   You're not going to be pulling 9g at altitude, or if you do it won't be for more than a few seconds since it can't be sustained up there.  So no, 30 seconds at 9G are not needed. 

[M1Combat]

You can just look at the shape of the airframes and get a pretty reasonable Idea of capability or at least design philosophy.  Yeah the engine has a pretty profound effect of course, but only in how you can use the airframe...  not really in what it's fundamentally capable of.  For example...  LEX on the Hornet and small wings in the Viper.  It's very clear the airframe of the Viper wasn't meant for dogfighting in the lower speed ranges, and the hornet was.  Honestly...  in just looking at the Viper I'm VERY surprised it does as well in a turn fight at all.  But that's because just looking at it doesn't give you a clear picture of how much thrust it has.  Once you realize it's a bit of a hotrod as far as thrust...  Then it all makes sense.

The Viper just isn't made for the same fight as the Hornet...  And why should it be?  They're both made for the same military.  Why on earth would we have decided to duplicate capability in two different packages?  Would have made absolutely zero sense.

All that said...  The Viper is still the top dog IMO...  but only because it has a WAY better Aim120 launch than anything else in the sim.  I still prefer to fly the Hornet.

 

Also...  I'm still convinced the F35 has the best of both worlds.  I know, I know...  everyone says "it sucks..."...  LOL.  OK.

[Glide]

9 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

It's very clear the airframe of the Viper wasn't meant for dogfighting in the lower speed ranges

Does anyone know if the leading edge flaps are modeled in the FM? 

[M1Combat]

9 minutes ago, Glide said:

Does anyone know if the leading edge flaps are modeled in the FM? 

Seems like a pretty significant thing to leave out...  but I suppose I also have no proof that they didn't just forget about them or something, so...  Take that for what it's worth

 

Sorry...  your comment makes me laugh.  This isn't War Thunder.  To me it's fairly inconceivable that they even might have left out something like that :).  Please don't take offense...  It's just that making sure all that stuff is both "there" and "right" is the entire point here.  That said...  It's still early access but I can't imagine this being something that wasn't right there near the top of the list to implement super early.  I mean...  everything else would be affected by it so they would have to almost completely re-work the flight model after adding those to get it right.

Edited April 13, 2023 by M1Combat

[Glide]

7 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Seems like a pretty significant thing to leave out

True.  The Mig-29 and Su-27 have them as well.  They animate on the F-16, but I'm not sure they provide the added lift during high AoA.

[janitha2]

12 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Yup, the F-16 might be "the greatest dogfighter in the world" (at least in its time), but it's only if you are a great dogfighter, too, since it demands proper use of energy tactics. In fact, if you get slow, as many people do, you're easy prey for either a MiG-29 or a Hornet. Those two love flying slow, the Viper hates it with a burning passion. In such case, they both have the Viper dead to rights. The obvious counter is, of course, not to get slow, but it's easier said than done.

Try out rating a hornet at 430 kcas with tcx and what not, i dont know why people keep saying the same "dont get too slow" bs when its irrelevant the hornet will out rate the viper.

oh wait maybe it was gs who keeps misinforming people that the viper is the best rate fighter... its not! 

[darkman222]

34 minutes ago, janitha2 said:

oh wait maybe it was gs who keeps misinforming people that the viper is the best rate fighter... its not! 

Growling sidewinder likes to have g effects off. So he gets the performance from the F16 that ED emphasizes to meet the EM charts.

Put the unfit DCS pilot in the F16 and now you have a limiting factor that is not in the EM charts.

Of course that's not THE solution for the discussion here, but an easy to identify factor why the F18 out rates the viper, while it's pilot struggles to stay awake, at the same time the F18 pilot chills at 7.5 G .

Edited April 13, 2023 by darkman222

[janitha2]

Just now, darkman222 said:

Growling sidewinder likes to have g effects off. So he gets the performance from the F16 that ED emphasizes to meet the EM charts.

Put the unfit DCS pilot in the F16 and now you have a limiting factor that is not in the EM charts.

agreed!

[SickSidewinder9]

Again, how smoothly you come on with the G's makes a big difference.  This may even be reflective of the real world.  Just been doing some BFM practice and a sudden hard pull at high speeds with start to black out around 7.5G.  Keeping it smooth and beating the banding, I see that at some point I maxed out at 9.6G, which would ground the plane for extra inspection in real life, but I didn't black out.
PS, it also seems that after the last couple of updates, the Viper can momentarily peak at a higher G.  I think it was 9.2, now it seems to be 9.6.
Be subtle, be smooth, and let the plane rate!  You can't just sit inside the bandit's turn like you can with a Hornet.  You have to be dynamic, and make big fast arcs.  Two circle rate fight implies these big turns may even start out turning away from the bandit, so visual contact is also key.

Edited April 14, 2023 by SickSidewinder9

[SickSidewinder9]

You know what?  Still playing around and I am noticing easy blackout.  It definitely happens after more than a second over around 8G.  Training and adrenaline shouldn't let that happen.  If our theoretical pilot is some kind of frontline USAF Viper pilot, then they should have better G tolerance than presented currently.

[SickSidewinder9]

Ya know, the more I fly Sedlo's BFM trainer mission, the more I guess I'm seeing what you guys are seeing.  More than a second or 2 over 7.5G and the GLOC can come on fast.  If our pilot is supposed to be a frontline Viper pilot, then training and adrenaline should keep them from blacking out as easily as they do in DCS.
There is probably tunnel vision at those G's, but not like we're getting.