Jump to content

C.W Lemoine revisits the F-16


Default774

Recommended Posts

The forces involved are on order of 25lbf, or 11kgf. If you can lift a 6-pack of 2l Coca Cola bottles with one hand (hardly a feat of strength, no matter your sex), you can command full pitch up in the Viper. Other directions take less. Center sticks can be around 40lbf maximum, but that still works out to 20kg at full deflection, and now you can use both hands. It's not a huge amount of force, if you're not a total wimp, you can handle it. And yes, this is different between aircraft, particularly T-38 and F-16, although pilots said it's not a particularly difficult adjustment.

Sure, they're stiffer than desktop sticks, it probably helps that they're bolted to the cockpit as opposed to standing around on the desk. It would actually be really nice to have an option for a realistically stiff stick, because it does give more precision. They also have damping, which further improves precision. However, the difference between real aircraft controls and high end sim controls isn't big enough to matter when you're used to a given control method.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
23 hours ago, Furiz said:

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.

It's a near impossibility to compensate for all the different types of sticks out there, and yes each is slightly different. Rather we base our FMs on the real controls, this is the same as something like all the way back to the Spitfire. Controls need to be adapted through the tools we have to get the best feel for an individual user and equipment, be it extensions, different bases, curves and such. 

  • Like 3

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NineLine said:

It's a near impossibility to compensate for all the different types of sticks out there, and yes each is slightly different. Rather we base our FMs on the real controls, this is the same as something like all the way back to the Spitfire. Controls need to be adapted through the tools we have to get the best feel for an individual user and equipment, be it extensions, different bases, curves and such. 

What I meant to say is that 90% the consumer sticks have something in common, they are not force sensing sticks, those are normal computer sticks. I didn't think you gonna compensate for every possible stick, that is indeed impossible. But since 90% (guessing) has normal sticks it would be great if ED would take that into account, so in the end we get the same effect and precision.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

It's a near impossibility to compensate for all the different types of sticks out there, and yes each is slightly different. 

Just get rid of the deadzone and you'll compensate for most sticks on the market. Force sensing stick users can add a breakout force to their liking in their own software.

Note that this built-in deadzone can't be removed by adjusting curves or anything like that. Spitfire is different, since it has a normal moving stick, just a little sensitive. The Viper's controls are quite unique in comparison.


Edited by Dragon1-1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sticks can be solved by custom predefined curves egg. matching stick product specific.
flight dynamics/drag issues can be solved by using extensive CFD prior setting up flight modeling that is tabular in lua files. no need for live hpc farm cfd and even home pc can do it it just takes more time and less accuracy even with open source soft if you like. also for reference, x-plane has primitive cfd in engine and its bmp the best flight modeling out.


if rl pilots say it feels some way ed should take that into account BUT the speed feel can be matter of perspective egg. car bumper vs roof cam or zoom level, ALTHOUGH sensor numbers shouldn't lie. if ed needs help, supply us with 3d model and nda to run the tests, comparison and corrections. this should be done long time ago and introduced as mandatory on 3rd party devs as internally. if there's a will there is a way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure flight dynamics are good, it's the stick that has a well documented problem with how it responds. The chain goes pilot-stick-airplane, and the problem is on the first link, not the second. The airplane matches all the numbers, but what the pilot does to the stick IRL is not properly transplanted to the sim. That's why it feels wrong, it's stick response that is not what he's expecting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I'm pretty sure flight dynamics are good, it's the stick that has a well documented problem with how it responds. The chain goes pilot-stick-airplane, and the problem is on the first link, not the second. The airplane matches all the numbers, but what the pilot does to the stick IRL is not properly transplanted to the sim. That's why it feels wrong, it's stick response that is not what he's expecting.

well i disagree about fldyn. can you tell at what fuel point the clean airframe reaches t/w ratio over 1 and start to accelerate climb up? name any plane that has enough power and performs so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

Folks please do not derail the topic. 

thank you

i'll try mr big. dont wanna steal the show ofc.

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I'm pretty sure flight dynamics are good, it's the stick that has a well documented problem with how it responds. The chain goes pilot-stick-airplane, and the problem is on the first link, not the second. The airplane matches all the numbers, but what the pilot does to the stick IRL is not properly transplanted to the sim. That's why it feels wrong, it's stick response that is not what he's expecting.

holly cow! f16 actually climbs up! though tweaked at 1% unlimited fuel clean I reached angels 28(8500m) from near deck stop. it looks like there's a hope for 16. i mean, there's excess of 10k lbf(4.5tf) force available what is never going to be rl case ofc and should be replaced by fuel weight to start at tw1.

well, 16 is the least to criticize at this point based on this initial test.

during mission setup i noticed some other things as numbers don't match official manuals in weight exactly and for comparison mig29s just reached 2/5(3700m) of 16 alt in similar test. some planes cant have pylons removed and its impossible to set wp speed at 0 in ME but only scripted spawn.

@BIGNEWY can we have separate topic for independent module performance testing of next airframes? i'd like more people to test tw1+ fighters, since i noticed some numbers in ME dont match official, for a start, and it would be great not to sparse this topic wide but centralized.

f16bl50 - ew: 19,200lb/8708kg - eng: General Electric F110 - wt(1/1): 29,500lbf/131.2kN - 1% fuel: 8500m
f15c - ew: 28,000lb/12,701kg - eng: Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 - wt(1/2): 23,770lbf/105.7kN - 1% fuel:
f18c - ew: 23,000 lb (10,433 kg) - eng: General Electric F404-GE-402 - wt(1/2): 17,750lbf/79.0kN - 1% fuel:
j11a - ew: 36,112lb/16,380kg - eng: Shenyang WS-10A - wt(1/2): 30,000lbf/132kN - 1% fuel:
su27 - ew: 36,112lb/16,380kg - eng: Saturn AL-31F - wt(1/2): 27,600lbf/122.6kN - 1% fuel:
mig29s - ew: 24,251lb/11,000kg - eng: Klimov RD-33 - wt (1/2): 18,340lbf/81.58kN - 1% fuel: 3700m
mig21bis -ew: ?? - eng: Tumansky R-25-300 - wt (1/1): 15,640lbf/69.58kN(21,800lbf/97.1kN) - 1% fuel: engine shutdown!
m2000c - ew: 16,535lb/7,500kg - eng: SNECMA M53-P2 - wt (1/1): 21,400lbf/95.1kN - 1% fuel:

+ f14, Su33, ajs37, f5, (theese i dont own so .. jf17, f1)

TW Test.miz

Anyone interested in some more testing? This topic is very crucial btw so any help is welcomed. thank you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2023 at 7:53 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.

A bit long ago now,  but I noticed how air refulers would change speed instantly, by 5-10 knots and jitter up and down, not smooth, and this would throw me off a lot. I don't think that's realistic and I hope it's not doing this anymore. In the big picture, all air refulers should be much more of a dynamic unit because of interaction with real players, not just the simple SFM AI's, the boom and basket should be collidable/soild eventually. The AI logic could be improved for AI refulers to have some kind of a dynamic pathing where they could deviate from the ME (mission scripted) waypoints depending on whether they're called in for, so they would avoid turning unless threatened (or receiving override commands from EDDCE strategic AI) but that would also make them terminate the refueling procedure and go for evasive manouvers,etc. And you should be able to call refulers to GET THEMSELFS OVER HERE instead of you having to fly to them all the time (without having to specifically script that player action for each mission, if it's technically possible right now)

 

On 5/15/2023 at 5:16 PM, NineLine said:

It's a near impossibility to compensate for all the different types of sticks out there, and yes each is slightly different. Rather we base our FMs on the real controls, this is the same as something like all the way back to the Spitfire. Controls need to be adapted through the tools we have to get the best feel for an individual user and equipment, be it extensions, different bases, curves and such. 

Right, if he has enough to spare for a RTX 4090, then he should be able to afford the correct controls for the F-16, just saying.

On 5/15/2023 at 5:39 PM, Furiz said:

What I meant to say is that 90% the consumer sticks have something in common, they are not force sensing sticks, those are normal computer sticks. I didn't think you gonna compensate for every possible stick, that is indeed impossible. But since 90% (guessing) has normal sticks it would be great if ED would take that into account, so in the end we get the same effect and precision.

Then that would be something optional on-top after the base simulation is accurately replicated.

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2023 at 4:21 PM, Worrazen said:

Right, if he has enough to spare for a RTX 4090, then he should be able to afford the correct controls for the F-16, just saying.

Might be a matter of space. RSSB in particular requires a mount of some kind, that can be a lot of added hassle. The best Viper throttle out right now is Winwing, and that's a hefty piece of kit, too, although it's probably less of an issue. If he likes his cheap kit, it's OK, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He flew the Block 30, not the 50, right? Because his feeling might be based on a noticeably lighter aircraft. The difference between clean and AA combat load might just be similar enough in magnitude to difference between blocks that this might be throwing him off. The 50 is no longer the dogfighting hotrod that the 30 was, although it's still pretty great at it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2023 at 12:24 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

I'm pretty sure flight dynamics are good, it's the stick that has a well documented problem with how it responds. The chain goes pilot-stick-airplane, and the problem is on the first link, not the second. The airplane matches all the numbers, but what the pilot does to the stick IRL is not properly transplanted to the sim. That's why it feels wrong, it's stick response that is not what he's expecting.

There might be something to it. I crafted an export.lua test to record pitch changes after forcing a pitch input and found that the game's F-16C doesn't react for 80 ms (10 frames at 120 fps). I did this by programming a loop that detected a certain speed, then slapped the stick with a brief pitch command that returned to zero. I repeated this, I forget maybe 10 times, then compared it to the F-14, which reacts on the very next frame. There's a link to the post with graphs.

So it seems that our F-16 isn't as much fly-by-wire as it is fly-by WiFi. This is either intentional, or a filtering mistake of some sort. I don't know why, because the milstd for the time on fbw required much better than that and I don't think this would have passed 🤷‍♂️

 


Edited by FusRoPotato
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the AAR topic be acknowledged? The boom IRL should be guiding the aircraft. Even BMS has this.

 

Along with this, DCS using stuff like TR instead of A/A TR on TCN being completely unrealistic should be changed. Ask any tanker pilot, it's A/A. 

 

Currently, boom tanking is a massive hurdle to new players and it sounds like from real pilots that it is not accurate. When will that be acknowledged and worked on? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
2 hours ago, gortex said:

A block 50 has about 20% more thrust than a block 30 (PW vs GE).  Don't look at one thing in isolation to draw a conclusion.

Doesn't matter as much as you think. Block 50 will feel heavier because it's heavier. The increase in thrust offsets the increased weight as far as unloaded acceleration is concerned, but it does nothing to change the fact the wings are no bigger than they were on Block 5. Higher wing loading means more AoA is required to maintain the same turn rate, and therefore the jet will feel more draggy, even with a bigger engine. The Block 30, while slightly inferior in vertical and noticeably in acceleration, will tend to outturn the Block 50 thanks to that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, gortex said:

That's an empirical question that requires to testing to answer.

It's not (although if you want charts for different blocks, the other sim has plenty, they're not hard to find). The keyword is feel. We're talking not about empirical data, but about subjective feeling of how the aircraft behaves, compared to RL experiences. The difference in weight and drag of the different blocks is sufficient to account for differences Mover observed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the post you quoted does not talk about that. It talks about how Mover says the DCS Viper feels like. It is very close to charts that ED have, we already know that much. Now, this does not reflect Mover's experience exactly (as stated in the video being discussed), and in my opinion, this is because he flew a noticeably lighter block, and thus his impression of how an F-16 should feel like is slightly different, on order of the difference between flying with pylons and without. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...