reported G Onset and G Visual Effects

[maxTRX]

19 minutes ago, SickSidewinder9 said:

It's 8 hours from bottle to throttle!

 

 

or is 12?

You mean 1 bottle? lol    8 would probably be enough, if you gobbled up lots of water gradually throughout the the night but who does that. Coffee dehydrates as hell too.  

Now back to the sim... I only fly Hornet and never have issues with high G, before I know it the energy is gone and I'm just wallowing, spiraling down and... still kill the bots. 

[darkman222]

 Before this goes too much off topic.

Although the thread  says the issue is reported, its two different things.

First is that a pilot in flight is not already g warmed up. Thats a minor thing. Can be fixed by a couple of loaded barrel rolls. And it is reported.

Second is that the current g modelling of the pilot not withstanding long enough to meet the demands to be qualified for a 9G jet like the F16, which is about to be revised, but with no timeline on the list. My opinion is that it will be about time to look into that while the DCS F16 is being pushed out of early access.

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by darkman222

[Vortex225]

Tried out the FM changes ED listed in the 2.9 patch notes. My first impressions were very positive. I could be wrong (will defer to those who have tested it longer or more thoroughly), but the jet seemed to retain and gain energy better in high-G 2C flows against the AI. I actually had to come out of blower several times to avoid blackout or going well above optimal rate speeds.

Overall, the Viper in 2.9 feels like it better matches the expectations provided by Mover (i.e., a real Viper driver) in his last FM review on YouTube 5 months ago. I'm pleased and curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

*Just a friendly reminder to keep the conversation civil and at the unclassified, publicly releasable level.*

"Improved FM:

-The characteristic of the displacement of the pressure center during the transition to supersonic has been corrected.

-Improved the characteristics of turns at high altitudes. Smoothed the effect of 'bubble' when passing the transonic zone on a turn at high altitude. 

-G-onsets transition characteristics improved over the entire range of heights and speeds."

[hawk4me]

The G-Onset is much better in 2.9. Even at slower speeds your able to pull the nose around much better than before. As for energy retention it is better and it feels like the overall ability to get nose on target is great. Before it felt like all they had to do was get you above 20K feet and you just fell on your face dead nothing you could do. Still kinda feels like that but not quite as bad as it was.

[darkman222]

While I have not been able to test it myself, as I am travelling at the moment. I was wondering...

What does "improved g onset" stand for. An improvement in Numbers which means quicker.

Or an improvement to match real world data which also can mean slower but also faster.

[SickSidewinder9]

1 hour ago, darkman222 said:

While I have not been able to test it myself, as I am travelling at the moment. I was wondering...

What does "improved g onset" stand for. An improvement in Numbers which means quicker.

Or an improvement to match real world data which also can mean slower but also faster.

I think it means our pilot no longer blacks out stupidly easy.

Definitely seems to turn better at higher altitudes too

[bkthunder]

G onset rate seems slower and the FLCS response to control input is sluggish. The FLCS often can't trim for 1g and will stay at 1.1 or 1.2 for for a number of seconds. 
Also, when centering the stick after a pull, the aircraft keeps pulling Gs by itself, slowly going from e.g. 9G back to 1.0G. So it looks like both the onset rate as well as the "unload" rate are slower. 
The input lag is still there too.

One more strange thing is the elevons deflect upwards quite a bit during pulls at all speeds, which shouldn't be the case since this would defeat the purpose of a relaxed stability airframe, which is to reduce trim drag and drag that arises from the displacement of tail surfaces. The elevons are there to initiate the pitch moment and then should stay mostly neutral for the duration of the pull.

IMO this is still not a good representation of the real aircraft FM/FLCS combination

[SickSidewinder9]

I have never noticed any input lag.  That seems like a hardware or Windows issue.  Make sure the game is running in high priority.  It shouldn't matter, but it does.

I know people get control ghosting from unpowered USB hubs, but maybe any hub is bad?  I'm not using one.

[hawk4me]

The input lag is there if you keep the default axis. If you put negative 15 or so on the pitch and roll axis the responsiveness is much better. I think it has to do with ED trying to emulate the pressure on stick input instead of stick movement. The default saturation is were my issue's came across. Never really needed to adjust them in other aircraft before. I also put negative curvature on the throttle since without afterburner detent it seems like you have to give it a ton more throttle than needed to get the afterburner to light up.

[SickSidewinder9]

15 minutes ago, hawk4me said:

The input lag is there if you keep the default axis. If you put negative 15 or so on the pitch and roll axis the responsiveness is much better. I think it has to do with ED trying to emulate the pressure on stick input instead of stick movement. The default saturation is were my issue's came across. Never really needed to adjust them in other aircraft before. I also put negative curvature on the throttle since without afterburner detent it seems like you have to give it a ton more throttle than needed to get the afterburner to light up.

nope, no problem there.  Little bit of curve and deadzone.  X56 if that matters.

[DrumminJ219]

The absolute biggest issue regarding G here in my opinion: F-16 pilots in the real world demonstrate 30 seconds of tolerence at 9g's in a centrifuge before they go to the B-course. In DCS, the pilot lasts a fraction of that. 

This negates the strengths of the F-16. It was built around high rate high-G 2 circle principles. 

[Vortex225]

On 10/22/2023 at 9:34 PM, hawk4me said:

The input lag is there if you keep the default axis. If you put negative 15 or so on the pitch and roll axis the responsiveness is much better. I think it has to do with ED trying to emulate the pressure on stick input instead of stick movement. The default saturation is were my issue's came across. Never really needed to adjust them in other aircraft before. I also put negative curvature on the throttle since without afterburner detent it seems like you have to give it a ton more throttle than needed to get the afterburner to light up.

I have a replica force-sensing Viper base and grip from Realsimulator, and I don't notice any input lag at all. It feels smooth and hyper-responsive to me. I use completely default axis settings in DCS for it too; no saturation of curvature. 

However, I did notice that something felt off when I was previously using a traditional cam and spring joystick and base. Maybe your hardware is creating that feeling?

[Grodin]

I like how it feels now, it is better, however the well documented 60-80ms input lag (nothing to do with curves) still remains, anyone can confirm this by recording the gameplay at high fps and calculating how many frames it takes for the plane to respond to inputs - it takes a lot longer than other planes. I'm not debating if it is correct or not, but the input delay is there.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Grodin

[bkthunder]

@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?

Edited October 24, 2023 by bkthunder

[darkman222]

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. ->

On 10/21/2023 at 1:45 AM, SickSidewinder9 said:

I think it means our pilot no longer blacks out stupidly easy.

Edited October 25, 2023 by darkman222

[Moonshine]

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

Edited October 24, 2023 by Moonshine

[darkman222]

13 hours ago, Moonshine said:

Funny how in 2.9 air starts start with a 3-5 degree nose down attitude right off the bat.

I just did a quick test about that. Turns out, its not the replay doing that. Its a new 2.9 behavior. That mission is obviously just one F16 air spawning. I have 2.8 still installed on my laptop. If you do an air spawn in 2.8 the jet just starts off perfectly level flight.

If you'd run the same simple mission in 2.9 the jet does that automatically. Like the FLCS gives a one second of pitch down command when spawning. Weird.

Despite that, yes that initial nose down makes my test results little washed out. Not really sure if the g onset changes drastically with a 6 kts speed difference. But like I said, no criticism on my end. If that g onset is more realistic, its the way to go. I just wanted to see what "g onset improvement" means for us.

Edited October 25, 2023 by darkman222

[Moonshine]

Yup, thats also my observation. Dont know what exactly has been done to the flight model but i doubt the nose should dip like that. 

[bkthunder]

18 hours ago, 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?

 

@darkman222 can you please test the above routine like you did in the videos you posted? 

[darkman222]

24 minutes ago, bkthunder said:

can you please test the above routine like you did in the videos you posted? 

You mean on 2.8 ? I just updated the laptop to 2.9 aswell now. But its no use to compare it to 2.8 as ED stated the onset in 2.8 was wrong. If thats the case you compare 2.9 with the wrong 2.8 version. My test was only about finding out how the new (no matter if "improved" to the better or worse) onset behavior of the Viper is now and how we might need to adapt to it for dogfighting.

Edited October 25, 2023 by darkman222

[bkthunder]

5 hours ago, darkman222 said:

You mean on 2.8 ? I just updated the laptop to 2.9 aswell now. But its no use to compare it to 2.8 as ED stated the onset in 2.8 was wrong. If thats the case you compare 2.9 with the wrong 2.8 version. My test was only about finding out how the new (no matter if "improved" to the better or worse) onset behavior of the Viper is now and how we might need to adapt to it for dogfighting.

 

yeah i meant 2.8 but pay attention to what I wrote, I am not interested in the onset, but in the opposite: how long it takes to go from 9 g back to 1g when you stop pulling. 

This is way off compared to all aircraft, and very different from that other high fidelity F-16 sim...

[darkman222]

34 minutes ago, bkthunder said:

yeah i meant 2.8

Sorry man. Already switched to 2.9 on my laptop too now. No use to stay on older versions as you wont be able to join Multiplayer servers

[sepruda]

On 10/24/2023 at 5:45 AM, Vortex225 said:

I have a replica force-sensing Viper base and grip from Realsimulator, and I don't notice any input lag at all. It feels smooth and hyper-responsive to me. I use completely default axis settings in DCS for it too; no saturation of curvature. 

However, I did notice that something felt off when I was previously using a traditional cam and spring joystick and base. Maybe your hardware is creating that feeling?

I guess if ED have tried emulating the force-sensing SSC, you're setup should be perfect for that. Seems there should be an option to toggle it on and off for the Viper. I myself am waiting for the realsimulator base and stick, because I don't enjoy flying it as it is now.

[Hummingbird]

On 10/22/2023 at 10:36 PM, bkthunder said:

G onset rate seems slower and the FLCS response to control input is sluggish. The FLCS often can't trim for 1g and will stay at 1.1 or 1.2 for for a number of seconds. 
Also, when centering the stick after a pull, the aircraft keeps pulling Gs by itself, slowly going from e.g. 9G back to 1.0G. So it looks like both the onset rate as well as the "unload" rate are slower. 
The input lag is still there too.

One more strange thing is the elevons deflect upwards quite a bit during pulls at all speeds, which shouldn't be the case since this would defeat the purpose of a relaxed stability airframe, which is to reduce trim drag and drag that arises from the displacement of tail surfaces. The elevons are there to initiate the pitch moment and then should stay mostly neutral for the duration of the pull.

IMO this is still not a good representation of the real aircraft FM/FLCS combination

I can confirm that the G-onset rate (aka pitch rate)of the F-16C has been noticably reduced, it was a lot more responsive before. Not sure why this was done, and I'm not gonna lie, kinda feels like 1 step forward and then 2 steps back.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Hummingbird

[darkman222]

6 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

Not sure why this was done, and I'm not gonna lie, kinda feels like 1 step forward and then 2 steps back.

It was done for sure because ED has public available data that this should be correct, so its mentioned as "improvement" in the changelog. No use to argue here without contrary evidence. ( I am still hoping someone pulls a new F16 declassified performance chart out of his hat)

I am not gonna lie it is a step backwards in the DCS F16 performance ( although its a step forward towards realism, according to ED)

So to counter that step backward in performance, we need an F16 and 9G capable pilot more than ever before.

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by darkman222