correct as is F16 Still Underperforming

[Gungho]

9 hours ago, Glide said:

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

Yeah i see them pop out when at low speeds.

1 hour ago, SickSidewinder9 said:

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.

Yeah its funny people say to rate around at 430-450 kts when you blackout and cant sustain that rate at those speeds. 

[janitha2]

4 hours ago, SickSidewinder9 said:

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.

 

you clearly have no idea what your talking about... 

[Scott-S6]

On 4/14/2023 at 4:02 AM, Gungho said:

Yeah i see them pop out when at low speeds.

Yeah its funny people say to rate around at 430-450 kts when you blackout and cant sustain that rate at those speeds. 

Some of the people saying that play with G-effects off..

Edited April 17, 2023 by Scott-S6

[Temetre]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb 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.

Idk about the other stuff, but the pilots g-limit does seem extreme concerned to everything I read about G-forces on pilots and the capabilities of the F-16. Apparently the F-16 is supposed to do be able to do a 9G 180 degree turn? I dont think that works in DCS.

[SKIPPY 7-7]

Had a AI Mig-21 dominate the rate fight in my F-16. I never got below 350knts in a clean config with 2xAim-120's/ Pretty sad

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, SKIPPY 7-7 said:

Had a AI Mig-21 dominate the rate fight in my F-16. I never got below 350knts in a clean config with 2xAim-120's/ Pretty sad

Upload a track so we can make sure where the issue lies. It might be the AI MiG-21.

[Moonshine]

did the test as described by skippy (clean viper, full fuel, 2 wingtip 120, clean mig21 full fuel). does not seem to be too much of a problem (ACE AI to guarantee he cheats). the only thing in the AI behavior that was rather surprising is that after some time in the 2 circle on the deck he decides to slightly climb while maintaining the rate fight without any noticeable loss of speed.

Mig-21_rate-fight.trk Tacview-20230415-091634-DCS.zip.acmi

Edited April 15, 2023 by Moonshine

[Glide]

6 hours ago, SKIPPY 7-7 said:

Had a AI Mig-21 dominate the rate fight in my F-16.

They will win every time.  Don't be fooled. 

[Aquorys]

I just tried it 5 times head-on, MiG-21bis, ace level AI, with 2x R-60M against me flying the F-16C with 4x AIM-120C and 2x AIM-9X. Got 5 kills, 3 with the 9X and 2 guns kills. Not much of a challenge with the 9X, somewhat tricky with guns because the Fishbed is small, keeps flying fast and jinks somewhat effectively, but I could still get a good track both times.

Harassing the Fishbed on the horizontal plane long enough seemed to be sufficient, but dominating the vertical space was more effective.

[darkman222]

So what a surprise. You dont have to rate fight if you have 9Xs.

[Aquorys]

7 hours ago, darkman222 said:

So what a surprise. You dont have to rate fight if you have 9Xs.

My point was that I could consistently outmaneuver a MiG-21 that has two R-60Ms with an F-16C that has two 9X and four AMRAAMs. I shot it down twice with guns, and three times with the 9X.

[FusRoPotato]

The Mig21 AI has been demonstrated numerous times on tacview to have super climb and maneuvering capabilities far beyond one that is human controlled. They can punch through a vertical straight into space if they want. Unlikely you will outrate them in all settings, but if you learn their behavior triggers, you can break their super rate abilities, but this is completely a simple-AI flight model problem and doesn't mean the F-16 is underperforming.

Edited April 17, 2023 by FusRoPotato

[Minhal]

On 4/10/2023 at 2:45 PM, Minhal said:

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.

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!

 

 

 

On 4/12/2023 at 5:43 AM, 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

 

 

 

On 4/12/2023 at 2:21 PM, Scott-S6 said:

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.

 

Hey @NineLine and @BIGNEWY, just stopping by to ask if you had opportunity to internally look at this. Not seeking to push but, as it is offtopic to the thread title, to not have it drown. If possible, maybe drag the relevant posts to a separate thread. Lots of folks in here agreeing. If you need me to open a new thread myself, please let me know. Thanks!

To clarify again: this request is not about the FM. It is about a difference between the real life stick and our regular consumer sticks. A matter of translating real life to consumer hardware. Like we have the "central position" trimming mode in helicopters, because everyone has a self centering stick without a clutch. For the same reason (difference real life vs. consumer hardware), we think we would need an optional stick behaviour (special options), that takes away the center deadzone for us non-force-sensing-stick owners (which is probably 98% of the DCS population).

[Vortex225]

On 4/17/2023 at 2:37 PM, Minhal said:

 

 

Hey @NineLine and @BIGNEWY, just stopping by to ask if you had opportunity to internally look at this. Not seeking to push but, as it is offtopic to the thread title, to not have it drown. If possible, maybe drag the relevant posts to a separate thread. Lots of folks in here agreeing. If you need me to open a new thread myself, please let me know. Thanks!

To clarify again: this request is not about the FM. It is about a difference between the real life stick and our regular consumer sticks. A matter of translating real life to consumer hardware. Like we have the "central position" trimming mode in helicopters, because everyone has a self centering stick without a clutch. For the same reason (difference real life vs. consumer hardware), we think we would need an optional stick behaviour (special options), that takes away the center deadzone for us non-force-sensing-stick owners (which is probably 98% of the DCS population).

I think it's important that this change, if ever pursued, should only be an option. I have a force-sensing stick from Realsimsulator and it works beautifully with the current control implementation for the DCS Viper. Coming from several "high-end" cam/spring bases from Virpil and VKB, my upgrade to a force-sensing solution was a revelation and transformed my enjoyment of the module. I even prefer it now for other modules like the Tomcat and Apache.

In other words, please don't change things for those if us with compatible simulation hardware. 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Vortex225

[Temetre]

Am 12.4.2023 um 05:43 schrieb 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

 

 

Wow, thats a great post. I wondered why the F-16 felt so unnatural sometimes. Especially the difference between control inputs at 350-500 knots, and 200 to 350 knots always really threw me off. Suddenly the same input I would do for a reasonably hard turn would throw me to 20+ AOA. is that normal?

Im not sure if its any more correct or not, but I found in BMS, the F-16 flies way more like a conventional plane, less explosive and more predictable.

[skywalker22]

Another proof1 and proof2 of under performing.

But I have one question, if current version of F-16 in DCS is really underperforming, there is no aircraft out there that could beat it in a 2-circle fight. If ED one day make it right, that would make F-16 ever better 2-circle fighter then it is now. No aircraft would stand a chance. Which at the same time puts all other planes currently in DCS under question about their current implementation as well. Maybe all underperform?

Edited May 15, 2023 by skywalker22

[Minhal]

1 hour ago, Vortex225 said:

I think it's important that this change, if ever pursued, should only be an option. I have a force-sensing stick from Realsimsulator and it works beautifully with the current control implementation for the DCS Viper. Coming from several "high-end" cam/spring bases from Virpil and VKB, my upgrade to a force-sensing solution was a revelation and transformed my enjoyment of the module. I even prefer it now for other modules like the Tomcat and Apache.

In other words, please don't change things for those if us with compatible simulation hardware. 

 

Absolutely, thats been my point from the start. Make it an option for those that do not have a FSS so people can choose. Would be a shame to just replace it and by that push folks off the road that invested a good amount of money into special hardware.

[feipan]

 

Old F-16 pilot with his F-16 pilot son agree the F-16 bleeds to much energy when turning, even in an A2A loadout.

5 hours ago, Minhal said:

Absolutely, thats been my point from the start. Make it an option for those that do not have a FSS so people can choose. Would be a shame to just replace it and by that push folks off the road that invested a good amount of money into special hardware.

No worries, it is not hard to make it an option or even auto-detect the hardware and apply any configuration.

[Gungho]

skip to 11:30 real F16 pilot says the energy bleed is still too fast. He says it is better but is still garbage. I flew the f18 yesterday and was just destroying in dogfighting with differential thrust. This is a new video! Like come on the hard paper data cannot discredit so many real pilot’s opinion.

[Gungho]

Original thread got moved. I wish to bring further attention that my favorite plane in real life is still butchered. Skip to 11:30

and my old thread that is now in “wish list” for some reason. 

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Gungho

[Vortex225]

9 hours ago, Minhal said:

Absolutely, thats been my point from the start. Make it an option for those that do not have a FSS so people can choose. Would be a shame to just replace it and by that push folks off the road that invested a good amount of money into special hardware.

All good. An option would be great, agreed.

[GGTharos]

4 hours ago, Gungho said:

skip to 11:30 real F16 pilot says the energy bleed is still too fast. He says it is better but is still garbage.

A real F-16 pilot who hasn't flown the jet for 10 years.  He didn't say the bleed rate is garbage; he's also at 12000', so the speed will bleed.  There's no magical 4th gen jet that will bleed speed nice and slow at that altitude.

4 hours ago, Gungho said:

I flew the f18 yesterday and was just destroying in dogfighting with differential thrust.

That doesn't mean anything ...

4 hours ago, Gungho said:

Like come on the hard paper data cannot discredit so many real pilot’s opinion.

Like come on yes it can and yes it does.  It also doesn't say 'if I remember right', or 'disclaimer'.

Now, does anyone have energy bleed data for the Viper?  I don't know  (Although you can infer the bleed rate to some degree from the sustained and instantaneous graphs).  But I do know that ED gets help from real operators to build the FM, so what is it about the youtube guys that you believe more than the guys ED asked to test the FM?

Finally, if it 'bleeds too much', how much should it bleed?  How many g's for a 1kt/s bleed at a given altitude?  How about a 5kt/s bleed?

Edited May 16, 2023 by GGTharos

[Thx1137]

25 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

so what is it about the youtube guys that you believe more than the guys ED asked to test the FM?

It's the internet. A negative opinion is always "more correct" than a positive opinion! Well, it generates a lot more views that's for sure. 

Using "hard paper" means very little. Simmers often think an aircraft will always hit POH numbers even though POH numbers are under very specific conditions that rarely match real life. They are a guide. But a big part of being a good and safe pilot is knowing how to evaluate the POH given real life. 

It has been 5 years since I've flown and I know for a fact I can't remember many details about my aircrafts flight model now. I know if I like it or don't and that's about it. That is not the same as "accurate". Others have a better memory I'm sure, some will be even worse. So I'll take a grain of salt...

That isn't to say that it is OK to be silly, like for an F16 to fly like a Cessna 152 of course. But so many complaints are splitting hairs that have zero or little effect on the use of the product in the sim. 

None of the above is to say the youtuber is wrong. It is saying that I'm not going to assume he is right.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Thx1137
Clarification.

[VarZat]

Ill throw this tip in here. Optimal rate speed is rarely the same number in my experience. To find optimum rate speed, go full AB and pull stick back untill you get «the donut» ( 13~ degree AoA) Your speed will decrease and stabilize at the best rate speed

[skywalker22]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

A real F-16 pilot who hasn't flown the jet for 10 years.  He didn't say the bleed rate is garbage; he's also at 12000', so the speed will bleed.  There's no magical 4th gen jet that will bleed speed nice and slow at that altitude.

 

Like he doesn't have memories how it used to be, right? LOL

And he also tried the same thing at the deck, see my previous post. He sounds very convinced that the speed bleeding is way too fast.

Edited May 16, 2023 by skywalker22