need evidence F1 EE flight model tweaks coming?

[Harley Davidson]

I think I have just about everything in the DCS aircraft line up and 2 choppers, it seems to me like the F1 is the worst flying jet right now. A few years ago the f-16 wasn't that great and they adjusted the flight model to represent how it actually flys. I'm hoping that there are updates on the way for this beautiful bird because you may as we fly a Cessna in combat. I fly mostly single player and I know that the AI can fly like UFO's but wow the F1 will not out turn anything...  well maybe a C-130.

I really hope they change it to make it fly like I've read it does instead of a little pull on the stick and you get that wet fart and you basically hover. I've tried out fight F4's, su 17s,  mig 19's and most 3 gen jets, its just terrible. I thought the F1 was supposed to be really good for its time?

[Rudel_chw]

43 minutes ago, Harley Davidson said:

I really hope they change it to make it fly like I've read it does

You have read the flight performance charts of the real aircraft? 

[fausete]

@Harley Davidson do you have any hard evidence to support your claims?

The FM has been validated against performance data and tested by multiple F1 pilots with thousands of hours on the real aircraft.

That being said, the aircraft can outturn any of its contemporary counterparts in-game when flown to its strengths. It can carry a lot of fuel for its size but going into a dogfight with the tanks full is probably not the best idea. Its strengths are good energy retention and good acceleration at high speeds, so it likes to stay fast. Nevertheless, if you find yourself going slow, it's imperative to use combat flaps, otherwise the performance loss is very significant.

Pitch sensitivity can also be an issue. The aircraft works better at lower AoA and when the pilot is gentle on the stick. Make sure you have the 'Emulation of effects of stick forces on aircraft behaviour' option selected in the special menu and tweak the sliders below it in case you use FFB. Otherwise also play with curves if needed.

Also, all this applies to flying against a human in MP, the performance of the SFM of AI aircraft is always far better than the PFM of the one you are flying. Hopefully this will be fixed by the implementation by ED of what they call the GFM (check the most recent newsletter).

Again, the module is in EA and the FM has been tweaked multiple times after the release but we're happy with how realistic it is now and we'd need more specific evidence than just saying 'it flies like a wet fart when you pull the stick', like a specific performance issue at a certain regime...

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by fausete

[Thinder]

4 hours ago, fausete said:

@Harley Davidson do you have any hard evidence to support your claims?

The FM has been validated against performance data and tested by multiple F1 pilots with thousands of hours on the real aircraft.

Cut the BS. I spoke with AdlA Squadron members which were flying the Mirage F1, if the aircraft is said to be "pointu" at high AoA and demands to be flown with the rudder which is counter-intuitive when trying to counter excessive yaw instability, it's nowhere near as unstable in Yaw and its trim is responsive, no trim hunting there.

So this "validated" argument is dumb, and if anyone wants to know what this module should really fly like, they can ask for themselves.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Thinder

[Snappy]

4 hours ago, fausete said:

@Harley Davidson do you have any hard evidence to support your claims?

The FM has been validated against performance data and tested by multiple F1 pilots with thousands of hours on the real aircraft.

That being said, the aircraft can outturn any of its contemporary counterparts in-game when flown to its strengths. It can carry a lot of fuel for its size but going into a dogfight with the tanks full is probably not the best idea. Its strengths are good energy retention and good acceleration at high speeds, so it likes to stay fast. Nevertheless, if you find yourself going slow, it's imperative to use combat flaps, otherwise the performance loss is very significant.

 

 

 

When you write „outturn“ , do you mean literally, as in „generate a higher turnrate“ or as a figure of speech as in „reach an advantageous position by other means“?

Regards,

 

 Snappy 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Snappy

[Dustband]

47 minutes ago, Thinder said:

Cut the BS. I spoke with AdlA Squadron members which were flying the Mirage F1, if the aircraft is said to be "pointu" at high AoA and demands to be flown with the rudder which is counter-intuitive when trying to counter excessive yaw instability, it's nowhere near as unstable in Yaw and its trim is responsive, no trim hunting there.

So this "validated" argument is dumb, and if anyone wants to know what this module should really fly like, they can ask for themselves.

 

Could you be more specific, like what angle of AoA they said, what the weight of the aircraft was and what flight regimes? And with a cited primary sources to back it up? If that is not possible for privacy reasons, let the pilots try the DCS module and contact Aerges themselves with what parts are wrong.

Vague statements like "The flight model is wrong, ask 'people' " is wasting everybody's time.

[Tango3B]

1 hour ago, Thinder said:

Cut the BS. I spoke with AdlA Squadron members which were flying the Mirage F1, if the aircraft is said to be "pointu" at high AoA and demands to be flown with the rudder which is counter-intuitive when trying to counter excessive yaw instability, it's nowhere near as unstable in Yaw and its trim is responsive, no trim hunting there.

So this "validated" argument is dumb, and if anyone wants to know what this module should really fly like, they can ask for themselves.

 

Hold your horses here, Thinder. The FM is actually quite close to the performance charts publicly available. This is a fact and this has also been tested. Also, AERGES did a really good job adjusting the FM over the last few months. Furthermore, I strongly agree with Fausete that in the F1 you really have to understand the basics of dogfighting and you have to have a constant eye on your energy state. The F1 is easy to fly but a lot harder to fight in. Avoid getting slow, stay above 400kts. Best is around 425-450kts. Try barrel rolls, flat scissors and Yo-Yos. Have an eye on your fuel. If you‘re above 50% of fuel she's a bit like a pig. At or below 50% of fuel she really starts to shine. Also play with the curve setup for your stick. This is very important so you don‘t constantly overshoot AOA. You really need to learn flying her. Treat her nice and she‘ll do some amazing things for you. Indeed, you can beat any contemporary jet. Just use the right maneuvers and fly smooth. Don‘t yank on the stick like a madman. Again, learn the fundamentals of dogfighting and you‘ll get better eventually…just keep trying and you‘ll succeed.

[fausete]

@Thinder again, please stop with the aggressiveness and implying I'm lying unless you have specific evidence to prove that. As @Tango3B has reafirmed, the performance of the module closely matches the performance data of the aircraft.

Regarding stick feeling, it's highly dependant on setup, the F1 has a complex force retribution system that could only be reproduced with an amazing FFB setup that I don't think exists commercially. As a consequence, we have developed a sort of emulation that limits the stick displacement in situations in which the real aircraft would increase the resistance on the stick, which can be toggled in the Special Options menu.

Again, you say at high AoA the aircraft had to be flown by rudder, which is how the module has to be flown at high AoA. Have these AdA pilots actually flown the module? Are they happy for you to send their contact info so they can provide feedback directly, or test the module if they have a DCS setup?

And in general, just saying the aircraft flies badly (or some other less polite adjective) or underperforms is too general (as @Dustband says), in what altitudes/speeds, what weight, what AoAs, in pitch, in roll, in yaw? Otherwise, with the vast amount of variables involved, there's nothing we can do, it's just destructive criticism. And if you expect something that can match a 4th gen fighter or that allows you to easily defeat any 3rd gen in any situation, it's just not going to happen, the performance is already what the data says it should be within a very low error margin.

In general, the tips given by @Tango3B are really useful and on point.

@Snappy, I mean in some regimes and fuel set ups the F1 generates a higher turn rate than other contemporary modules. Obviously, I don't have the numbers or data for other modules but this is based on the performance analysis I've seen for other DCS aircraft (which I know are not necessarily 100% accurate) and performance data that can be found on the internet (which again, might not correspond exactly to the same aircraft version, be 100% accurate...).

[Phantom_Mark]

Quote

Regarding stick feeling, it's highly dependant on setup, the F1 has a complex force retribution system that could only be reproduced with an amazing FFB setup that I don't think exists commercially.

I have the new Rhino FFB base here, 20nm iirc, whatever power it is, it is more than sufficient to rip the stick out of my hands, and/or snap my stick clean in half if it wanted to, so maybe that time is here ?

[fausete]

In that case you have access to what we believe is the closest we can get to implementation of the real stick feelings of the aircraft. As I think we have discussed before, you can still control the ARTHUR relations and minimum and maximum forces in the stick to fit your stick well.

From our last interaction I got the impression that you were happy with what we had implemented. As you know, it requires a bit of tweaking on the user's side to get everything perfectly set up but considering the variability in FFB models forces, we think it's best for the user to be able to adjust the behaviour of the FFB as much as possible, in the same way that users of non-FFB sticks have access to the curves to adapt their input behaviour to their set up and preferences.

[Phantom_Mark]

6 hours ago, fausete said:

In that case you have access to what we believe is the closest we can get to implementation of the real stick feelings of the aircraft. As I think we have discussed before, you can still control the ARTHUR relations and minimum and maximum forces in the stick to fit your stick well.

From our last interaction I got the impression that you were happy with what we had implemented. As you know, it requires a bit of tweaking on the user's side to get everything perfectly set up but considering the variability in FFB models forces, we think it's best for the user to be able to adjust the behaviour of the FFB as much as possible, in the same way that users of non-FFB sticks have access to the curves to adapt their input behaviour to their set up and preferences.

I never said I wasn't happy, I was informing you of new hardware, when we last talked FFB I was using a 20+yr old Microsoft Force Feedback 2 stick, I just got this new monster

I haven't had a chance to fully exploit the best of what the F1 has to offer with it yet, you can be sure I will tho.

[Thinder]

11 hours ago, Dustband said:

Vague statements like "The flight model is wrong, ask 'people' " is wasting everybody's time.

 

Hilarious to mention vague statements when we're served with those on a regular basis in the form of " has been validated against performance data and tested by multiple F1 pilots with thousands of hours on the real aircraft" to justify unfinished flight envelops of this module.

If a proper flight envelop had been done first time it wouldn't have need revision after revision.

Then there is one public source for AdlA Squadrons even if I contacted one particular Squadron, the reply comes from a pool, and pilots are protected by anonymity, I served in AdlA at BA-102 Dijon and know the drill, if I knew them personally I wouldn't disclose their identity, I have my sources and they are reliable.

Then asking for specifics angle of attacks? Are you kidding? Which "multiple F1 pilots with thousands of hours on the real aircraft" have validated a range of AoA used for landing and unresponsive trim for this module I wonder... I mentioned those issues from the first time I flew it and the answer haven't changed yet.

I understand "pointu, qui se pilote au palonnier" because I flew light aircraft when the vast majority of you weren't even born and guess what, I had the head of the flight test center of Bretigny as instructor, I think I picked up a few things from him and other advanced pilots, I don't need pseudo-lectures from anyone here...

No need to be so specific, the module behavior is not on par with that of the real aircraft in this region of its flight envelop, despite what we're told repeatedly, if you want specifics, there is no damping in the YAW axis which is not how the aircraft behave, it is sensitive but controllable.

Have you ever saw a Mirage F1 pointing its nose from one side to the other at those AoA in thousand of video hours or eared of trim issues? Me neither, as if Dassault-Aviation didn't do their home work, for that matter before the release of the first serie aircraft they sorted them by adding ventral fins precisely to make sure it wouldn't happen at high AoA, and we all know what this range is, it is marked in the indicator.

So unless Devs accept that they still have some work to do  wont be taking the usual explanation seriously and Aerges better take the matter seriously if they want to retain some credibility, it cost little to say "it's not perfect but we're making progresses" and keep working at it, a proper research work would be a good start.

And something else Dustband, 1) You're not "everybody", 2) you're projecting by talking about waste of time, 3) People asking question are right to do so and if you don't like it, change career and do politics..

Don't bother replying.

Quote

@Thinder again, please stop with the aggressiveness and implying I'm lying unless you have specific evidence to prove that.

You can play the victim all you want and keep taking the mickey with your usual reply, if I want to know something about the aircraft, I know where to ask which is what I did and it's evidence enough for me.

My tip: Follow RAZBAM example and get in touch with Dassault-Aviation or AdlA, or even better, do some home work and contact one of the F1 test pilots, I'm sure some of them are still alive and can be find in Facebook or elsewhere.

LOL! Now I'm sure one genius is gonna imply that I fly this module out of its flight envelop... We never know.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Thinder

[Thinder]

On 7/3/2023 at 2:12 PM, fausete said:

 

@Snappy, I mean in some regimes and fuel set ups the F1 generates a higher turn rate than other contemporary modules. Obviously, I don't have the numbers or data for other modules but this is based on the performance analysis I've seen for other DCS aircraft (which I know are not necessarily 100% accurate) and performance data that can be found on the internet (which again, might not correspond exactly to the same aircraft version, be 100% accurate...).

Do you know what the Mirage F1 wing surface is? That of a Mirage III? That of a Mirage 2000?

I was at the Bourget Airshow when the F1-M53 got spanked by the YF-16, and I know for a FACT that it is a rocket, flying very fast and accelerating very well too but certainly not a turning fight aircraft.

I'm curious to know at which point of its flight envelop the F1 will beat the laws of Aerodynamics with 25m² of wing surface, that's 20m² less than the Mirage III, the top gunner I knew well who I mentioned earlier flew the Mig-21 at Reims in 1973 (Yep, Normandie-Niemen privilege) just a couple of years before I started training with him.

He was rather complementary about the Mig, the only thing he did not like was the limited G allowance for the HUD gunshight which prevented the pilot to fire passed a given AOA, to make matter worse, the ballistics of the 23mm were also inferior to that of the DEFA 30mm.

Now of course the engine thrust plays a role in the final equation but the Mirage III had the reputation of a Mig Killer for some very good reasons, especially in the hands of IAF pilots.

So putting Mig-21 and Mirage III side to side with similar performances, including turning rates, I wonder where you'll fit the F1 in to that?

To give you a clue: Clean with fuel and pilot, it has 448kg/m² wing loading and if you doubt it, ask this gentleman. "448kg/m² is really enormous!", "NOT a dogfight aircraft".

Computed on their gross weight:

Mig-21 Bis = 380kg/m². On 50% internal fuel, your Mirage F1 barely reaches this value at 380.8kg/m².

F-4 = 382.60kg/m²

F-105 = 451.53kg/m²

Edited July 4, 2023 by Thinder

[HWasp]

23 hours ago, Harley Davidson said:

I think I have just about everything in the DCS aircraft line up and 2 choppers, it seems to me like the F1 is the worst flying jet right now. A few years ago the f-16 wasn't that great and they adjusted the flight model to represent how it actually flys. I'm hoping that there are updates on the way for this beautiful bird because you may as we fly a Cessna in combat. I fly mostly single player and I know that the AI can fly like UFO's but wow the F1 will not out turn anything...  well maybe a C-130.

I really hope they change it to make it fly like I've read it does instead of a little pull on the stick and you get that wet fart and you basically hover. I've tried out fight F4's, su 17s,  mig 19's and most 3 gen jets, its just terrible. I thought the F1 was supposed to be really good for its time?

 

1. Don't ever compare FMs to the AI, because they are not accurate at all, that MiG-19AI might outrate an F-16. They are UFOs as you said.

2. If you can't control your speed and you just get a "wet fart" out of it, maybe learn to fly it, and try again?

(btw the MiG-19 is a very good rate fighter, it might outrate the F-1 for real, this does not depend on age, the MiG-17 and 15 will also outrate it for sure)

Edited July 4, 2023 by HWasp

[fausete]

@Phantom_Mark good to know! I hope you find it works well with the new stick too and can report back your impressions.

@Thinder I reply to you just to clarify a couple of things but I don't get the impression that your criticism is intended to be constructive. Developing a module for DCS is a massive undertaking, teams are generally rather small and sometimes some things have to be prioritised over others, so sometimes things have to be adjusted after release, that is what EA is for. For us, release was a point in which the module was ready enough for it to be an enjoyable experience for the users and for them to provide valuable insight into bugs, useful features... We have used the time since release to continue working with our SMEs feedback and with the customer's feedback to solve any possible problems, bugs, things that didn't work, or that we had missed or had been broken during development (also happens).

Regarding the anonimity of your sources. It's understandable that you want to protect their identities but again, not useful for us if we don't get more precise feedback, if we can't contrast their feedback to that of our current SMEs... If any of them wants to contact us instead of you giving their details, we're also happy doing it in this way.

Finally regarding the wing loading discussion. I just don't get your point... I said in certain regimes and fuel configurations, not everywhere all the time. I included the disclaimer that my knowledge of the performance of the other aircraft is incomplete. And the MiG 21 has 23 m^2 of wing surface and comparable thrust so I don't know why the wing surface of the Mirage III or the Mirage 2000 would matter.

Edited July 4, 2023 by fausete

[SEEADLER 111]

No, this is not constructive criticism. According to these people, Viggen should be the best dogfighter in history. And the B-2...

When you guys get F-4, you're in for a bitter surprise. You'll see, I can't wait to read complaints.

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, fausete said:

but I don't get the impression that your criticism is intended to be constructive.

It isn’t, that’s why I have him on ignore since long ago … I wouldn’t waste time debating with him. 

[Thinder]

7 hours ago, fausete said:

 

@Thinder I reply to you just to clarify a couple of things but I don't get the impression that your criticism is intended to be constructive.

 

Perhaps if you weren't so prompt to dismiss what people are saying you wouldn't have this problem, I was the first to congratulate your team for the excellence of the work done (modellism, mapping, as a 3D CGI techie I can appreciate that) but I highlighted those issues only to see the very same reply than today.

Your post about the aircraft turn rates just highlight what your collective problem is, you have no clue what its aerodynamics are about, if you based the flight envelop of this module on the assumption you made about how it can out-turn contemporary aircraft and/or other DCS modules, no wonder you got it plain wrong first time.

So let me help you with some basics: For a good turn rate at equal temperature (air density) you need 1) low wing loading. 2) high lift coefficient. 3) high maximum structural limit (G).

Using common sense being a good start, does the Mirage F1 check on with 1) 2) or 3)? Answer for 1) AND 2) is NO. And that's valid for 2) despite the flaps and slats.

That's for instantaneous turn rate, if you want to compute sustained turn rate you add Drag Coefficient vs Thrust.

Now I don't know if you even bothered studying the aircraft history, visited the Dassault-Aviation Website but it is pretty obvious that the aircraft was conceived as an interceptor not a dogfighter, and that they figured early enough that to meet their goals for lower landing speed they also had to increase AoA and needed to fit those ventral fins to it.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 So when one flies this module and find oneself unable to prevent an oscillation in Yaw at AoA where they shouldn't happen, it looks like you assumed that Dassault didn't know what they were doing and that the aerodynamic damping provided by the ventral fins doesn't work, and I forgot to mention the fact that they fitted a trim so unresponsive it leads to trim hunting at every change of speed.

I passed on all those information to you and your team long ago, how you manage to complain that a paying customer is not reacting positively to your commercial rhetoric on how it have been validated is striking, I know perfectly how difficult it is to get a flight envelop close to the real thing but before you start to sell it as "validated" you might want to inform yourself properly.

Now, you guys have the module, IF it have been modeled properly, you can find every tool FREE online to check on its aerodynamics, just visit the student section of Dassault-Systems, they have free modeling and fluid dynamic tools I used long ago for a dimension accurate wing of the F-100, including wing profile courtesy of DRYDEN, except I used CATIA and FLUENT, my tip make your model water tight.

That's clarification, for you...

 

  

6 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

It isn’t, that’s why I have him on ignore since long ago … I wouldn’t waste time debating with him. 

Assumption is the mother of all you know what, good to know you ignore my posts I'll do without groupies. Cheers.

>>>

Other seems to assume that I don't know that the aircraft needs to be flown with the rudder at high AoA, and that's not 40°, that's the first thing you learn in a flight school (1975), with stall, to prepare you for flaring the aircraft for landing.

What I am saying and always have said is that the adverse Yaw coming from the use of the spoilers at approach AoA is greatly exaggerated with this module and we won't mention trim hunting... I rest my case, they're going to ignore my info and complain again... Good practice.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Thinder

[BIGNEWY]

@Thinder if you wish to continue in this thread I suggest you dial it back and treat everyone with respect. 

This is the only warning I will give you. 

[Hiob]

@Thinder

You seem to have expert knowledge on all kinds of aircraft. So why, instead of putting the developers on public trial (disregarding the limitations they have to work around),...

don't you offer them your help in a less public environment, where your sources and credentials may be openly discussed with them?

The way you do it know just suggests attention craving.....

Just an idea.

[Thinder]

12 hours ago, Hiob said:

@Thinder

don't you offer them your help

Already done multiple times...

Quote

Now, you guys have the module, IF it have been modeled properly, you can find every tool FREE online to check on its aerodynamics, just visit the student section of Dassault-Systems, they have free modeling and fluid dynamic tools I used long ago for a dimension accurate wing of the F-100, including wing profile courtesy of DRYDEN, except I used CATIA and FLUENT, my tip make your model water tight.

The last were a video from Ate (Ex-MN Rafale pilot) interviewing a Mirage F1 pilot, some explanation on how a F1 couldn't out turn most contemporary aircraft on the basis of its wing loading with those of the Mig-21 BIS, F-4 and F-105 to compare, what is needed for good turn rates, and so on, as I said DONE, only to get the same reply...

Quote

in a less public environment, where your sources and credentials may be openly discussed with them?

It's not with me they should discuss those issues, I'm using my right to complain as a paying customer here, but apparently it is too difficult to get in touch with an AdlA Squadron, Dassault-Aviation or simply get in touch with the pilots Ate have interviewed???

As for my sources, I have explained clearly that I was unable to disclose them, their role with AdlA are not of public relation but active Squadron and as such, I wasn't given any details and if I had I wouldn't disclose them, as I said I served with AdlA and I know the drill, for demo pilots and those interviewed by Ate it's a different matter.

>>>>

Great. now wee have players who take their fantasy for reality, sorry, if a French Mirage F1 pilot says it's NOT a dogfighter, if the laws of physics and aerodynamics proves it, then I know which video to take seriously, and I also know that this module flight envelop is certainly not that of the real aircraft.

Now we know why we learn aerodynamics in flying schools, along with flight dynamics, flight mechanics, MTO, Nav etc, when you know the minimum you can tell the difference between blah blah and reality (or performance charts and flight envelop).

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Thinder

[fausete]

Honestly, I feel like you are just going for a mix of ad-hominem and strawman now. Multiple team members are aerospace engineers, we understand aerodynamics and the module is not based on any assumption about the F1 being a dogfighter or an interceptor, it's based on real performance data used to validate its FM, which, again, it does match within a very small margin of error. That is how I assume any full fidelity module in DCS is made.

And for the last time and to clarify: I've never said the F1 is designed to be a dogfighter, you've put those words in my mouth. The F1 has a big fuel capacity compared to other contemporary modules in DCS, when the aircraft is not flown full, but at half fuel, it still has a good amount of fuel to sustain a dogfight and its turn performance is comparable to other aircraft such as the MiG-21 (at least if the info on the MiG-21 I can see on the internet is reliable). Obviously when turning with full fuel, the performance is way worse, because the F1 is heavier and can hold much more fuel. If you read all that I've written carefully, you will see that I always say 'in certain flight regimes and fuel configurations'.

And regarding the yaw, there have been changes to the yaw damper in the past 2 months, it may be the issues you are describing have been fixed and you've not flown the module recently.

[BIGNEWY]

9 minutes ago, Thinder said:

Already done multiple times...

The last were a video from Ate (Ex-MN Rafale pilot) interviewing a Mirage F1 pilot, some explanation on how a F1 couldn't out turn most contemporary aircraft on the basis of its wing loading with those of the Mig-21 BIS, F-4 and F-105 to compare, what is needed for good turn rates, and so on, as I said DONE, only to get the same reply...

It's not with me they should discuss those issues, I'm using my right to complain as a paying customer here, but apparently it is too difficult to get in touch with an AdlA Squadron, Dassault-Aviation or simply get in touch with the pilots Ate have interviewed???

As for my sources, I have explained clearly that I was unable to disclose them, their role with AdlA are not of public relation but active Squadron and as such, I wasn't given any details and if I had I wouldn't disclose them, as I said I served with AdlA and I know the drill, for demo pilots and those interviewed by Ate it's a different matter.

 

If you can not share your source and data I suggest you move on. It will be a pointless exercise to go back and forth here, you have given your feedback and the team have listened. 

 

[HWasp]

For me yaw oscillations happen only if I do large uncoordinated inputs at high AoA. 

Basic rule:

As AoA increases, more and more rudder is needed for roll and at max AoA it is rudder only. Throwing the stick around at high AoA leads to oscillations... so don't do that maybe?

[HWasp]

Here, you can bank the plane without any yaw oscillations up until 40 degrees AoA... Just use the rudder, thats it.

The compressor stall got me though

F-1roll.trk