reported G Onset and G Visual Effects

[SickSidewinder9]

It does seem like the controls have some "damping" of a sort.  This might equate to the slower response or G onset.  Disappointed to see and notice at as soon as you hit 7G's it starts graying out again.  I would imagine at 7G your vision does start to get narrow or blur, but again, the pilot of an F-16 shouldn't be blacking out as soon as you get to 8 or 9G.  Ridiculous.  2.9 has been such a cluster.  Nothing good has come from it for me except that the TGP animation looks right most of the time.  Not all the time, but most of the time.

Edited October 31, 2023 by SickSidewinder9

[SickSidewinder9]

Just flying around.  It would appear that if you ease into it, you  can go at least 8G with no tunneling.  Which I think is true for the pilots in meat space too.

[darkman222]

1 hour ago, SickSidewinder9 said:

8G with no tunneling

Unfortunately the F16 is a 9G fighter. With peak performance at 9G and not 8G.

[SickSidewinder9]

1 hour ago, darkman222 said:

Unfortunately the F16 is a 9G fighter. With peak performance at 9G and not 8G.

it's not like they just fly around at 9G.  It's incredibly hard on the body, the plane can't usually hold it unless it's very light, and your vision would probably be a very small tunnel at that point.  Was watching that video with the MMA guy and the centrifuge and anything over 30 seconds is not good.  capillaries break and stuff.  That is the limit of human endurance.  They aren't going to do 9G for more than a few seconds.  Even if the test in the centrifuge is 30.  After a few seconds at 7 or 8, it's probably pretty hard to keep it up.  Disorientation and loss of consciousness become a real problem.  And fatigue.
They simply are not holding high G's for more than a few seconds each time.

Edited November 1, 2023 by SickSidewinder9

[NineLine]

On 10/24/2023 at 11:46 AM, Moonshine said:

Funny how in 2.9 air starts start with a 3-5 degree nose down attitude right off the bat. Can be seen in the video above. Although the same track just replayed in two different dcs versions.. this might have an effect on the outcome of this comparison although it might be a small one

 

If something changed between versions that is stored in the track, then for sure that can have an impact. It's why tracks fail if the changes were too great.

[darkman222]

12 hours ago, SickSidewinder9 said:

Was watching that video with the MMA guy and the centrifuge and anything over 30 seconds is not good.

Thats why you, me and MMA guys probably should not fly F16s. If you know that video, you also should know the video where Hasard Lee goes for 38 seconds of 9G to test the myth of the "Euthanasia Roller Coaster". He does not look disoriented to me after that. Look into his channel.

The F16 G Limiter is built to bring you to exactly 9G and this what pilots expect to be faced with and what they are trained for. I am not going into that discussion again. If the engineers of the F16 were of the opinion, that 8G are good enough, they would have set the limiter to 8G instead of 9G. And probably not talk about a reclined seat to accommodate G forces better than in other jets.

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by darkman222

[Snappy]

5 hours ago, darkman222 said:

Thats why you, me and MMA guys probably should not fly F16s. If you know that video, you also should know the video where Hasard Lee goes for 38 seconds of 9G to test the myth of the "Euthanasia Roller Coaster". He does not look disoriented to me after that. Look into his channel.

The F16 G Limiter is built to bring you to exactly 9G and this what pilots expect to be faced with and what they are trained for. I am not going into that discussion again. If the engineers of the F16 were of the opinion, that 8G are good enough, they would have set the limiter to 8G instead of 9G. And probably not talk about a reclined seat to accommodate G forces better than in other jets.

 

 

Sure. But the built-in capability to make a turn at 9G does not mean the engineers envisioned a game plan where you drone on in a continuous 9G 2Circle to win.Reclined seat or not. I think the current G-load modelling of DCS gives people the wrong ideas about fatigue or better lack of it in DCS.

[darkman222]

39 minutes ago, Snappy said:

I think the current G-load modelling of DCS gives people the wrong ideas about fatigue or better lack of it in DCS

Exactly. The common misunderstanding is that doing 9G 2circle for 30 seconds will help. Thats not the case. Because if your jet can do that, youre way too fast.

The gameplan is to rate with the bandit and then pull him in the HUD for the kill. But even that short amount 9G needed for the final pull is denied by the G modelling. Its more like 10 - 15 seconds needed. ( but staying in rate speed already exhausted our poor pilot)

The current G modelling gives you the abilitly to barely stay awake for one instantanteous 9G pull from 450 kts down to buffet speed. The only gameplan this works for is to employ a 9X. But not for BFM and manovering behind a bandit.

Edited November 1, 2023 by darkman222

[SickSidewinder9]

Ok, you have a point, but same Hazzard Lee video talks about the damage to his body and how bad it was doing 9G for more than 30 seconds.  So you proved my point too:  It's not a flight regime pilot and plane just hangout in.

[darkman222]

3 hours ago, SickSidewinder9 said:

So you proved my point too:  It's not a flight regime pilot and plane just hangout in.

Nobody ever argued against that.

But better have some bruises from 9G than a gun round from a Mig in your back. Thats why pilots train for that extreme situation and thats why they take the calculated risk of body injuries. And thats why engineers built a 9G fighter. And thats why we need a better approach for something that is incredibly hard to model like G tolerance.

The best guess is if an F16 pilot needs to take 30 seconds of 9G, a german Eurofighter pilot needs 15 seconds of 9 G, and the DCS pilot is blacking out after less than 10 seconds, the DCS pilot is not qualified for this kind of aircraft. And the discussions about the DCS F16 performance comes to the limiting factor which is the DCS pilot in that case.

Edited November 1, 2023 by darkman222

[Fuggzy]

I've logged hundreds of DCS Viper hours, and I do believe in my heart and soul that in 2.9 she flies better and retains energy a smidge better at higher AoA and altitudes. 

Just flies gooder. Me shoot amraam

[SickSidewinder9]

All of this is out the window of course when that laggy Mig-21 starts out turning you 

[TobiasA]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb SickSidewinder9:

All of this is out the window of course when that laggy Mig-21 starts out turning you 

This will never be a turning fight because your HMCS and 9X give you a pretty nice advantage. Once he ends up in your front hemisphere, he is dead.

However... Since flares in DCS are some kind of magic versus 9X, I usually let him spend all the flares and then press pickle. Or let him evade the 9X and follow up with a 120. We don't have any MiG-21-93 in DCS. Long turning fights with 9G are a dogfight server thing, and not anything that would be a realistic scenario for a late 2000's missile equipped multirole fighter.

Might happen, but it ends pretty fast.

Any prolonged 9G turn will get you killed against an adversary with off boresight IR missiles.

[darkman222]

25 minutes ago, TobiasA said:

Any prolonged 9G turn will get you killed against an adversary with off boresight IR missiles.

Of course youre not rating around a bandit when he has off boresight IR missiles.

The  current G modelling allows for only this scenario actually. Full instantaneous 9G pull, bleed down to buffet speed, fire your 9whatever. (if its not a 9x, start praying that the bandit bled his speed down too)

But if both of you dont have any more heaters, all of the mentioned above counts again. And yes: Then its a dogfight.

 

But apart from the G modelling discussion, can we agree on that the FM changes are rather minor in this update. Except for low speed oscillations which seem to be worse now. Also possible to depart controlled flight at slow speeds now. ( Gonna reproduce it in a single player mission, maybe on the weekend)

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by darkman222

[Nedum]

On 10/24/2023 at 8:33 PM, darkman222 said:

I am totally on your side, that the DCS F16 FBW response is slow. But comparing the F16s FLCS to radius fighters like the F18 or Mirage which rely on fast response, but not on out-rating the opponent as the F16, does not bring us forward. I dont know any other rate fighter we have in DCS here for a fair comparison. Unless we cant prove it to ED with declassified material its wasted time doing comparisons.

Dont know about the input lag either. I have a traditional gimbal stick and the force sensing stick both and it feels fine to me using both of them.

Comparing 2.8 with 2.9 concerning the g onset, it just shows minor differences. And dont get me wrong. If its that way in reality it has to be in DCS too. But what you can take away is that the point in time you enter the 9G regime is now a little later than before. ( see the video comparison when the blackout starts) So you have to pull even harder to get the same rate ( over time in average). What becomes more and more important now is the the g tolerance of the pilot, because this update is again a minor thing acting against the F16 concept of being a rate fighter. I was hoping that 2.9 brings an updated g modelling as well, but apparently no.

I think its time to start a separate thread about it. I have gathered some nice in game footage to illustrate that with a more realistic g modelling the Viper would get quite some kills it just cant get because of the fainting pilot.

Edit: The impression that one might get that the g modelling was changed for a better is that due to the slower g onset the time you'd reach 9 G is later than before in 2.8. ->

 

I watched the video. It looks to me as if the new FM is slower. The circle is completed in the same time. With the new FM there is less speed left and the blackout comes faster and takes longer.

The video shows exactly what I thought after the first few tests. I lose more speed and the blackout comes quicker and lasts longer. And I feel like the rolling axe is very itchy.

I need to test it again, but I also feel like I black out before I even get to the 9G.

Am I the only one who thinks this is the opposite of better? I don't see anything there that is better.

[bkthunder]

I will leave this here:

null

Source: High G Physiological Protection Training (Acceleratio;s Elevees: Protection par l'Entrainement) (dtic.mil) Page 68.
Unclassified

 

 

"Since the 1983-84 modification of the USAFSAM centrifuge to provide high G-onset rates and subject-in-the-loop control, another 741 TAC aircrew have received high-G centrifuge training at USAFSAM, all in the F-16-configured seat. Only two of the 741 did not complete the 8-G, 15-s G profile during the scheduled training session, and only 44 did not complete an additional 9-G, 15-s profile (99.7 and 94.1% success rates, respectively)."

Source: G-Tolerance Standards for Aircrew Training and Selection (dtic.mil) page 2.
Unclassified

Edited November 4, 2023 by bkthunder
added sources + extra info

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, bkthunder said:

I will leave this here:

null

Why, it is off-topic. G-tolerance is being looked at, but doesn't have anything to do with the topic (FM). Thanks. 

[darkman222]

It is off topic, but has direct impact on the performance and the impression people have of the DCS F16 as g modelling is a limiting factor of it, for an aircraft that relies on best turn rate at 9G.

Real world engineers did not come up with the idea of an reclined seat for nothing.

But agreed. Should be discussed in a separate thread though.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2023 by darkman222

[NineLine]

4 minutes ago, darkman222 said:

It is off topic, but has direct impact on the performance and the impression people have of the DCS F16 as g modelling is a limiting factor of it, for an aircraft that relies on best turn rate at 9G.

Real world engineers did not come up with the idea of an reclined seat for nothing.

But agreed. Should be discussed in a separate thread though.

 

 

 

As I said it is being looked at. Was reported some time ago and the team is looking at the best more dynamic way of making it feel as real as possible. Thanks. 

[BIGNEWY]

A reminder to everyone here when posting official documents newer than 1980 you must include the source showing it is publicly available. 

 

[bkthunder]

On 11/3/2023 at 7:13 PM, NineLine said:

Why, it is off-topic. G-tolerance is being looked at, but doesn't have anything to do with the topic (FM). Thanks. 

Yeah I don't disagree, some people above were talking about g tolerance and I think that's a good piece of info, but agree this should be discussed separately.
It is an important part of achieving best performance in the Viper though, as others have said.

EDIT: @BIGNEWY added sources and links

 

@NineLine I added some extra info you guys may find useful. Maybe you can break out that post into its own topic or just pass it to the team. Thx

Edited November 4, 2023 by bkthunder

[NineLine]

On 10/31/2023 at 2:45 PM, SickSidewinder9 said:

Just flying around.  It would appear that if you ease into it, you  can go at least 8G with no tunneling.  Which I think is true for the pilots in meat space too.

All G talk has been moved to appropriate thread.

Please stay on topic.

 

[irq11]

I found this very interesting video, many information about stick, lift center, gravity center, relaxed stability and so on

 

[Super727]

Hi,

I agree with the OP.  The F-16 definitely has some laggy control response.  This makes flying in a tight formation much more difficult as compared to the F-18, Mirage 2000, AV8B and others.  Same goes for aerial refueling.

Have tried negative curves on my Virpil joystick, but that does not alleviate the underlying issue of control response delay.  Why this has not been fixed yet is beyond me.

Cannot believe that some folks cannot see an issue here.  Are there any current or former IRL F-16 pilots here to comment?  

Edited November 14, 2023 by Super727

[DummyCatz]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:16 AM, bkthunder said:

@Grodign thanks for confirming. 

 

Regarding the other point I raised, just do this test: 

- fly at 500 kts, bank 90 degrees and pull up to 9 gs. 

- quickly center the stick and leave it there

- how long does it take for the plane to go from 9 back to 1g?

- how many degrees has it continued to turn after you centered the stick?

 

Now try the same with the F-18, Mirage or anything else FBW. Does it react in the same way?

 

A bug related to g-response and pitch instability is fixed in 2.9, which could also affect g-onset if more pitch dampening is applied:

Using the example of going from 9g to 1g by releasing the stick, in DCS 2.7 and later 2.8 (with partial fix) this looked like going from 9g to 0.5g rather quickly, undershooting below 1g and then slowly creeps back to 1g, especially at speeds between 400 to 500 kts, displaying a lack of dynamic stability. Now it looks like 9g -> 2g -> 1g as a 1st-order g-response, which is a correct response type as IRL is. But the bug fix introduces pitch creep, which is to say, upon releasing the stick the nose tends to continue creep a bit more degrees until it stops.