C.W Lemoine revisits the F-16

[Default774]

11:30 - G-Warmup

13:00 - Energy bleed rate

13:46 - Slow speed

14:20 - Low altitude

21:30 - Closing statement

[Willdass]

Nice to see him back in the DCS F-16 and good to hear that the module has improved

[AngleOff66]

I know that we arent supposed to read yt comments, but some folks mentioned that he may have not seen the performance he was expecting as it looked like alt hold may have been on somehow.

I guess that he will try again.

[Mars Exulte]

I saw that, too, and noted the AI being its usual self.

Really highlights DCS biggest flaw : it's a great simulation but a terrible game (ie all the stuff you're supposed to do with this fancy ultra detailed aircraft). But hey, we have 152 miles of fully modeled wiring harnesses (under the skin where you can't see them, of course) and the rivets were accurately counted, that's what really matters.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Mars Exulte

[Furiz]

He did a nice review,

Air to Air refueling not the first real life pilot that said AAR is easier in real life than in DCS. I guess DCS has a problem with precision flight in general, as soon as you have to precise like AAR or hover in the Apache you are all over the place. For heavy piece of equipment like a jet or a attack heli (they weight a couple of tons after all) it shouldn't act like a feather.

[Tom Kazansky]

11:20 "in the real aircraft... when you refuel... the boom will kinda drive you around a little bit. so once you get connected it's pretty easy to stay where you're at"

 

Although I'm able to refuel under the unrealistic conditions of current DCS AAR/boom implementation where you don't feel any contact at all, I won't stop to ask:

Please ED, can we finally get this kind of realistic improvement???

I don't want to start another DCS-AAR-discussion here. I would like to end those with this request.

[skywalker22]

8 hours ago, Tom Kazansky said:

11:20 "in the real aircraft... when you refuel... the boom will kinda drive you around a little bit. so once you get connected it's pretty easy to stay where you're at"

 

Although I'm able to refuel under the unrealistic conditions of current DCS AAR/boom implementation where you don't feel any contact at all, I won't stop to ask:

Please ED, can we finally get this kind of realistic improvement???

I don't want to start another DCS-AAR-discussion here. I would like to end those with this request.

in RL the boom actually represents an obstacle, a kind of physical resistance, we can say a stick on which the plane is caught on, which we don't have in DCS unfortunately (yet).

Anyway, kind of a nice review, but it looks he got a bit rusty 

Although I would like to believe him about the bleed rate, he seems to be very sure and convincing, that the real F-16 (his block 30 and 40 which he used to fly) bled way less then ours here. Any comments on this?

Edited May 11, 2023 by skywalker22

[Willdass]

My guess would be too high pylon drag of the outboard missile station (2&8). There is a noticeable difference in performance with those mounted. 
 

Or maybe there is a difference in gross weight between the blocks? Don’t know the numbers. 
 

For the 9G turns I think it’s maybe down to his stick/axis. I have both his setup and a realsim fssb, the latter makes the jet feel more responsive since I don’t need any curves.

[BIGNEWY]

13 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

I saw that, too, and noted the AI being its usual self.

Really highlights DCS biggest flaw : it's a great simulation but a terrible game (ie all the stuff you're supposed to do with this fancy ultra detailed aircraft). But hey, we have 152 miles of fully modeled wiring harnesses (under the skin where you can't see them, of course) and the rivets were accurately counted, that's what really matters.

 

Not really. It was one mission that was broken when we recently updated the instant action missions to include the improved weather. It's already been fixed internally.

We appreciate this video and we studied it carefully. We then compared his exact set up to public Energy Management (EM) diagrams and it seems his comments are not matching the data. We've sent him these findings and we look forward to him helping us understand this disparity. Above all, we want to provide most authentic simulation possible.

thank you
 

[skywalker22]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Not really. It was one mission that was broken when we recently updated the instant action missions to include the improved weather. It's already been fixed internally.

We appreciate this video and we studied it carefully. We then compared his exact set up to public Energy Management (EM) diagrams and it seems his comments are not matching the data. We've sent him these findings and we look forward to him helping us understand this disparity. Above all, we want to provide most authentic simulation possible.

thank you
 

hehe, so he really was unfortunate, picked the only one which had the broken AI.

I hope he does answer, it would be in a huge help I suppose. To have a RL pilot helping with a sim - like a dream come true for all of us, and specially for ED team. Thumbs up.

Btw, since you are here, can you check it out, if there might be any work done on the boom, to be more like he is describing? Now there is really no resistance from it, you can fly around like there is nothing connected to the f-16.

Just curious, it would meant a tone to us all. 

-- 

I had to laugh, I have the same unfortune as he did (sim and RL), whenever I come to pre-contact, the tanker starts turning

Edited May 11, 2023 by skywalker22

[NineLine]

13 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

Btw, since you are here

Lets stay on topic, if you have something else feel free to create a bug report or wishlist. Thanks. 

[Canada_Moose]

57 minutes ago, Willdass said:

My guess would be too high pylon drag of the outboard missile station (2&8). There is a noticeable difference in performance with those mounted. 
 

Or maybe there is a difference in gross weight between the blocks? Don’t know the numbers. 
 

For the 9G turns I think it’s maybe down to his stick/axis. I have both his setup and a realsim fssb, the latter makes the jet feel more responsive since I don’t need any curves.

He actually stated in the video it was set up the same way they did in real life

[TheFreshPrince]

I've heard the comment about F-16 bleeding energy too quickly also from other pilots in other videos, like this one:

But since the F-16 is one of the faster jets in DCS, probably the fastest jet, this might apply to other aircraft as well.

Edited May 11, 2023 by TheFreshPrince

[jackmckay]

step 1: determine drag vs AoA graph (alpha and beta) up to egg 30deg.

step 2: use rude calculator egg.: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/drag-equation or just use excell

match and correct numbers in lua. simple as that.

maybe there's an issue with reynolds numbers here as it appears to be too high, if its implemented.

also, there was a overall object-world scale misalignment making objects appear larger than they would in RL. that could also make an impact too. egg. train tracks vs tank width.

just to add that t/w ratio is progressive value depending on fuel quant mostly, so there should be a point when plane can stay suspended in air and start to accelerate upwards when above 1 at certain fuel level, case pointing up 90deg. in general, energy management needs some improvements. old story.

[Willdass]

18 hours ago, Canada_Moose said:

He actually stated in the video it was set up the same way they did in real life

Yeah, I mean that the drag of the pylons are too high in DCS, which may be the reason he thinks it bleeds to fast compared to real life. I have no idea though, just a guess.

[FusRoPotato]

On 5/11/2023 at 7:40 AM, BIGNEWY said:

We appreciate this video and we studied it carefully. We then compared his exact set up to public Energy Management (EM) diagrams and it seems his comments are not matching the data. We've sent him these findings and we look forward to him helping us understand this disparity. Above all, we want to provide most authentic simulation possible.

If a pilot says its bleeding too fast, but the data vs simulation doesn't, it may indicate a feedback loop problem. He spoke a lot about his controls being sloppy due to his spring, but I don't really know what he meant by that. I assumed his stick is physically sloppy vs a 16 stick.

Can it be demonstrated that the ED simulation matches available data specifically for AoA response to pitch demand? If the AoA overextends by even a slight degree, this would result in a major discrepancy that would still fall within energy diagrams, especially if the interpreted focal point region concerns a G limit instead of an AoA limit. I suspect not, because there probably is no such data that validates the AoA, at least I've never seen or heard of such analysis. I can however tell you one possible source of such an occurrence...

Moment of Inertia

I could set up an experiment that evaluates this and checks for excessive overshoot. It would certainly contribute to excessive bleed if there is any.

[Mars Exulte]

5 hours ago, FusRoPotato said:

If a pilot says its bleeding too fast, but the data vs simulation doesn't, it may indicate a feedback loop problem. He spoke a lot about his controls being sloppy due to his spring, but I don't really know what he meant by that. I assumed his stick is physically sloppy vs a 16 stick.

Can it be demonstrated that the ED simulation matches available data specifically for AoA response to pitch demand? If the AoA overextends by even a slight degree, this would result in a major discrepancy that would still fall within energy diagrams, especially if the interpreted focal point region concerns a G limit instead of an AoA limit. I suspect not, because there probably is no such data that validates the AoA, at least I've never seen or heard of such analysis. I can however tell you one possible source of such an occurrence...

Moment of Inertia

I could set up an experiment that evaluates this and checks for excessive overshoot. It would certainly contribute to excessive bleed if there is any.

ED aims for +/- 5% so it's not perfect, but very close. It's never going to be exact, and doesn't really need to be. As long as it's within narrow parameters, it's good enough for game purposes. While it's possible to just live simulate a virtual wind tunnel, that's not a realistic expectation from a home PC. It's a lot better than it was, and more closely matches expectations as mentioned even by these rl pilots, but it's always gonna be a LITTLE off, because it's not the real thing.

And also, as you mention, controls are very different from in-RL and the ''feel'' will obviously be very different. SME ''feels'' shouldn't be completely dismissed, but it's not wise to overweight them, either, as it will literally never ''feel'' like the real thing in any way. Remember those now mediocre sims from the 90s? Yeah, they were often sold with the tag of SME input and real pilots breathlessly describing how realistic if was. We would now say they were crap and the plane flies like it's on a rail, but A REAL PILOT SAID. So, yeah, a grain of salt is still required.

[FusRoPotato]

39 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

ED aims for +/- 5% so it's not perfect, but very close. It's never going to be exact, and doesn't really need to be. As long as it's within narrow parameters, it's good enough for game purposes.

There's an unexplained control delay and a swapped inertia value that makes a 12% problem. Mix those two together and maybe you get an overshoot that makes bad draggies. I'd have to test to see what happens with a correct value, though there's nothing I can do for the 5-6 frame control delay at 60hz.

[NineLine]

19 hours ago, Willdass said:

I mean that the drag of the pylons are too high in DCS

Based on what information?

[Willdass]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

Based on what information?

Sorry, I don't have any. This was referring back to my first comment where I made a guesses to Movers points. Did not verify these guesses as this is a "off topic" thread .

But thanks for being active in this thread! 
 

[Furiz]

16 hours ago, NineLine said:

Based on what information?

Just for comparison, F-16 currently at mil power loses airspeed with 2 bags 2 bombs pylons at 30k, and its slowing down constantly, while Hornet speed is increasing with same loadout, not forever off course, it stops at some point. Both starting at mach 0.77.

Viper - F-16 losing airspeed .trk

Hornet - F-18 increasing airspeed .trk

 

P.S. imo this should have not been moved to chit chat, should have stayed in F-16 forum section.

Edited May 13, 2023 by Furiz

[Spartan111sqn]

57 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Just for comparison, F-16 currently at mil power loses airspeed with 2 bags 2 bombs pylons at 30k, and its slowing down constantly, while Hornet speed is increasing with same loadout, not forever off course, it stops at some point. Both starting at mach 0.77.

Viper - F-16 losing airspeed .trk

Hornet - F-18 increasing airspeed .trk

 

P.S. imo this should have not been moved to chit chat, should have stayed in F-16 forum section.

 

Agree with you, F-16 must have much power in MIL, it should handle high altitudes better than today.

[JB3DG]

On 5/11/2023 at 1:53 AM, Furiz said:

He did a nice review,

Air to Air refueling not the first real life pilot that said AAR is easier in real life than in DCS. I guess DCS has a problem with precision flight in general, as soon as you have to precise like AAR or hover in the Apache you are all over the place. For heavy piece of equipment like a jet or a attack heli (they weight a couple of tons after all) it shouldn't act like a feather.

That's not a software problem. I got to try the full cockpit T-38C simulators at Sheppard AFB as well as the VR simulators I work on with commercial grade forcefeedback hardware. I'm a pretty skinny guy and found it took considerable effort just to move the stick in the full pit sim. The base commander jumped in and demonstrated a few things and if he threw a TM warthog around like he did that stick he would have snapped the shaft clean off the base. Stick forces in real aircraft are designed for guys who routinely pump quite a bit of iron at the gym, not lightweights with desktop sticks. And I found my own precision at formation flight took a giant leap with the higher force sticks compared to what I run at home, which is also due to the fact that they have a much greater range of motion compared to your average desktop stick. 1 inch of movement on a warthog vs 1 inch of movement on those sticks is considerably different.

[Furiz]

3 hours ago, JB3DG said:

Stick forces in real aircraft are designed for guys who routinely pump quite a bit of iron at the gym

And yet women who don't pump quite a bit of iron at the gym or don't have that kind of muscle structure can fly F-16. You telling me that Aimee pumps quite a bit of iron in the gym so she can fly demo Viper, I'm not saying she is not in shape, just saying that your story doesn't hold water.

As you said

3 hours ago, JB3DG said:

I'm a pretty skinny guy

well I'm not, and I can tell you that I can move that stick, cause it's not designed for people with godlike strenght, you have to be in shape and that's it. So please don't make a myth about it.

3 hours ago, JB3DG said:

And I found my own precision at formation flight took a giant leap with the higher force sticks compared to what I run at home, which is also due to the fact that they have a much greater range of motion compared to your average desktop stick.

And that's what ED needs to compensate for, they are making a product for consumers which 90% or more have normal computer sticks, not for that 5% that have force sensing sticks.

3 hours ago, JB3DG said:

1 inch of movement on a warthog vs 1 inch of movement on those sticks is considerably different.

The topic is about f-16.

[JB3DG]

42 minutes ago, Furiz said:

And yet women who don't pump quite a bit of iron at the gym or don't have that kind of muscle structure can fly F-16. You telling me that Aimee pumps quite a bit of iron in the gym so she can fly demo Viper, I'm not saying she is not in shape, just saying that your story doesn't hold water.

As you said

well I'm not, and I can tell you that I can move that stick, cause it's not designed for people with godlike strenght, you have to be in shape and that's it. So please don't make a myth about it.

And that's what ED needs to compensate for, they are making a product for consumers which 90% or more have normal computer sticks, not for that 5% that have force sensing sticks.

The topic is about f-16.

While the F-16 stick is based on force sensing, it still moves a small amount and requires quite a bit of force to move it. And no, there are indeed women out there with way more power than many computer based folks (my previous gym instructor is a petit girl with a beastly amount of strength that I aspired to. Routinely won Toyota black ops warrior races which are all upper body strength), so I'm not surprised that there are very capable women flying fighters. 

Also I'm not saying it's godlike strength, just describing the sharp difference in force between what actual aircraft have vs desktop sticks which are pretty flimsy in comparison.

Finally I was talking in general, jets like the F-18 and F-15 have that much large range of motion. In the F-16, it would translate to a much larger range of force required. You aren't going to go from the heavy forces in a T-38 to a featherweight touch in an F-16. The designers would be sure to make it of equivalent sensitivity.