w.i.p. Flight Model Overperformance

[nikoel]

Hey Folks

Thanks for the new flight model. In slower flight envelope the jet feels great, however I do strongly believe that in it's current state the F/A-18 is too dominant in some of the flight characteristics. Here are my main takeaways of the current situation in DCS

1) Viper is a dominant energy fighter with a two circle bias. (Even the brick house that is Block 50)

2) It's widely believed that Viper's flight model is actually following the charts (where they are available) very well. Well done ED

3) In DCS Hornet is better than the Viper in Instantaneous Turn, One Circle, Two Circle. Viper has a minuscule edge in energy retention (if GLOC is managed - a little easier now with the new GLOC mechanic, thank you ED)

I know the flight model is a work in progress, however I understand you need data to do something with it and the tasty parts are classified. Here are a few suggestions:

Below is a chart that was made by GVad. He is a prominent member of the community who focuses heavily on flight model and is on the Mig 17 Team

By the graph below we can see that the Hornet is over 2'/second stronger than the F16 in Rate Performance. That's not a small edge. In a fully balanced rate fight with two aircraft in their best rate speed this would mean that the hornet will have a guns solution in less than 1:30min. We can also see that the Rate speed in DCS for the Hornet is actually 420KIAS instead of the widely recited ~360-380KIAS

What was also mentioned is that 'There's an issue in DCS where planes above mach 0.6 turn better than they should because at above 0.6 wings actually produce less lift'

Why do I think the model need a change? It's undeniable that the F/A-18 is an amazing, but in the end it comes down to the fact that the Hornet is better than the Viper through the entire flight envelope in and in almost all aspects. Viper would not exist and have the reputation it does if this is the case in the real world

For the record, this is how the black F/A-18 "actual" data was derived according to Gvad himself

 

Edited June 25, 2024 by nikoel

[Lord Vader]

Hi @nikoel

The flight model on the DCS: F/A-18C is being constantly improved as we perform audits and look for the necessary data.

Whatever items that need refinement will be adjusted as we continue to do this.

Thank you for your analysis. We will certainly look into it. 

[Stackhouse]

I'll save anybody a few minutes of time reading:

"I talked to somebody who said it was wrong. Here is a nice little chart they drew!".

Edited June 25, 2024 by Stackhouse

[nikoel]

3 hours ago, Lord Vader said:

Hi @nikoel

The flight model on the DCS: F/A-18C is being constantly improved as we perform audits and look for the necessary data.

Whatever items that need refinement will be adjusted as we continue to do this.

Thank you for your analysis. We will certainly look into it. 

Thank you. I appreciate your reply Lord Vader

31 minutes ago, Stackhouse said:

I'll save anybody a few minutes of time reading:

"I talked to somebody who said it was wrong. Here is a nice little chart they drew!".

 

You’re doing great Stackhouse. If you keep working on your literacy and reading skills the next two paragraph post will take you even less time to read. Keep practicing mate!

Edited June 25, 2024 by nikoel

[HWasp]

8 hours ago, nikoel said:

Hey Folks

Thanks for the new flight model. In slower flight envelope the jet feels great, however I do strongly believe that in it's current state the F/A-18 is too dominant in some of the flight envelope

1) Viper is a dominant energy fighter with a two circle bias. (Even the brick house that is Block 50)

2) It's widely believed that Viper's flight model is actually following the charts (where they are available) very well. Well done ED

3) In DCS Hornet is better than the Viper in Instantaneous Turn, One Circle, Two Circle. Viper has a minuscule edge in energy retention (if GLOC is managed - a little easier now with the new GLOC mechanic, thank you ED)

I know the flight model is a work in progress, however I understand you need data to do something with it. Here are a few suggestions:

Below is a chart that was made by GVad. He is a prominent member of the community who focuses heavily on flight model and is on the Mig 17 Team

By the graph below we can see that the Hornet is over 2'/second stronger than the F16 in Rate Performance. That's not a small edge. In a fully balanced rate fight with two aircraft in their best rate speed this would mean that the hornet will have a guns solution in less than 1:30min. We can also see that the Rate speed in DCS for the Hornet is actually 420KIAS instead of the widely recited ~360-380KIAS

What was also mentioned is that 'There's an issue in DCS where planes above mach 0.6 turn better than they should because at above 0.6 wings actually produce less lift'

Why do I think the model need a change? In the end it comes down to the fact that the Hornet is better than the Viper through the entire flight envelope. Viper would not exist and have the reputation it does if this is truly the case

For the record, this is how the F/A-18 data was derived:

null

 

 

I'm also suspecting, that the F-18 overperforms in some areas, but we'll need much more details on how that chart by GVad was created (data sources) to get something going here.

Previous threads on this topic were all dead ends simply because no real data was available.

[BIGNEWY]

Folks keep it civil please and on topic and constructive. 

thank you 

[Snappy]

9 hours ago, nikoel said:

Hey Folks

Thanks for the new flight model. In slower flight envelope the jet feels great, however I do strongly believe that in it's current state the F/A-18 is too dominant in some of the flight envelope

1) Viper is a dominant energy fighter with a two circle bias. (Even the brick house that is Block 50)

2) It's widely believed that Viper's flight model is actually following the charts (where they are available) very well. Well done ED

3) In DCS Hornet is better than the Viper in Instantaneous Turn, One Circle, Two Circle. Viper has a minuscule edge in energy retention (if GLOC is managed - a little easier now with the new GLOC mechanic, thank you ED)

I know the flight model is a work in progress, however I understand you need data to do something with it. Here are a few suggestions:

Below is a chart that was made by GVad. He is a prominent member of the community who focuses heavily on flight model and is on the Mig 17 Team

By the graph below we can see that the Hornet is over 2'/second stronger than the F16 in Rate Performance. That's not a small edge. In a fully balanced rate fight with two aircraft in their best rate speed this would mean that the hornet will have a guns solution in less than 1:30min. We can also see that the Rate speed in DCS for the Hornet is actually 420KIAS instead of the widely recited ~360-380KIAS

What was also mentioned is that 'There's an issue in DCS where planes above mach 0.6 turn better than they should because at above 0.6 wings actually produce less lift'

Why do I think the model need a change? In the end it comes down to the fact that the Hornet is better than the Viper through the entire flight envelope. Viper would not exist and have the reputation it does if this is truly the case

For the record, this is how the F/A-18 data was derived:

null

 

 

I'm all for correcting the F-18 FM , as I personally also think it is overperforming and it is very unfortunate that there is very little officially available turn performance data to check against for the F-18.

However that being said, is GVAD in your conversation seriously suggesting that the available F-5 data is used to extrapolate the F-18 performance, because , quote "the curves are similar" ?!

I hope not, because a) the  only similarities they have is , they are both cropped delta wings and have LEX and trailing edge flaps.

But so have many other planes with  different performance.

b) If thats the same GVAD from the Mig Star Mig-17 developer team, I hope he is not the one doing the flight modelling, at least not with that approach.

 

Edited June 25, 2024 by Snappy

[wilbur81]

You called?

 

For anyone who might be interested, below is a PM conversation I had that alluded to some real world information sent to me by one of our many faithful forum buddies. (I've not included his name here as he sent this to me via private message) - Thought many might find his buddy's findings interesting. Enjoy: 

I wanted to tell you about a conversation I had at an unclassed level with a friend of mine in the fighter community. He went to the vault and looked at the lot 20 EM diagrams (402 engine) and compared them to the F-16CM block 50 F-16 with the engines we have in game -- his findings were pretty cool. He couldn't tell me numbers, to keep it at an unclassed level, but he said the difference was pylons. With pylons on the wing, the hornet will be out-rated by a clean viper. With pylons on the Viper and a clean hornet, the Hornet will out-rate the viper. Both Clean wing, and they are virtually the same with a slight advantage to the F-16.

The caveat here is that the lot 20 is still G limited to 7.5Gs --  so it's engine and airframe are just generating that higher turn rate at a much slower speed -- I think around 380-ish. If the hornet gets above 400, it begins to arc, because it can't tighten down more than 7.5Gs, and the turn circle just gets really really big.

This friend also told me that the hornet is playing from a very different set of rules than the F-16, and the F-16 employment manuals don't actually cover how to combat the hornet trickery. The USAF is all about aligning turn circles to kill, and you can do that pretty well against non-high-AOA fighters. But a high AOA fighter (and the navy in general) strive to have misaligned turn circles both offensive and defensively -- which allows them to change the plane of motion in ways that the opponent can't follow without overshooting. This is the classic hornet ditch -- but that ditch needs to be executed when there are misaligned turn circles, and the cue for that is seeing aspect angle out of synch with angle off nose or tail.  I think this is stuff that's a bit over the nugget of most DCS players, and if they are operating from IFF manuals or the korean 3-3 viper manual -- it's just not covered in there. A lot of people's complains with flight models in BFM probably stem from this.

Anyway -- bottom line is that the big engine hornet can in fact rate as well as a clean viper, but 99-100% of the time the navy is leaving 4 pylons on the hornet, where the viper maybe has 2 -- and so the advantage goes to the viper in BFM. Clean vs clean, and we just have a very small advantage in the F-16.

Cheers

Edited June 25, 2024 by wilbur81

[darkman222]

Where is the performance data from the 9,5 G regime when pulling the paddle coming from?

[HWasp]

27 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

For anyone who might be interested, below is a PM conversation I had that alluded to some real world information sent to me by one of our many faithful forum buddies. (I've not included his name here as he sent this to me via private message) - Thought many might find his buddy's findings interesting. Enjoy: 

I wanted to tell you about a conversation I had at an unclassed level with a friend of mine in the fighter community. He went to the vault and looked at the lot 20 EM diagrams (402 engine) and compared them to the F-16CM block 50 F-16 with the engines we have in game -- his findings were pretty cool. He couldn't tell me numbers, to keep it at an unclassed level, but he said the difference was pylons. With pylons on the wing, the hornet will be out-rated by a clean viper. With pylons on the Viper and a clean hornet, the Hornet will out-rate the viper. Both Clean wing, and they are virtually the same with a slight advantage to the F-16.

The caveat here is that the lot 20 is still G limited to 7.5Gs --  so it's engine and airframe are just generating that higher turn rate at a much slower speed -- I think around 380-ish. If the hornet gets above 400, it begins to arc, because it can't tighten down more than 7.5Gs, and the turn circle just gets really really big.

This friend also told me that the hornet is playing from a very different set of rules than the F-16, and the F-16 employment manuals don't actually cover how to combat the hornet trickery. The USAF is all about aligning turn circles to kill, and you can do that pretty well against non-high-AOA fighters. But a high AOA fighter (and the navy in general) strive to have misaligned turn circles both offensive and defensively -- which allows them to change the plane of motion in ways that the opponent can't follow without overshooting. This is the classic hornet ditch -- but that ditch needs to be executed when there are misaligned turn circles, and the cue for that is seeing aspect angle out of synch with angle off nose or tail.  I think this is stuff that's a bit over the nugget of most DCS players, and if they are operating from IFF manuals or the korean 3-3 viper manual -- it's just not covered in there. A lot of people's complains with flight models in BFM probably stem from this.

Anyway -- bottom line is that the big engine hornet can in fact rate as well as a clean viper, but 99-100% of the time the navy is leaving 4 pylons on the hornet, where the viper maybe has 2 -- and so the advantage goes to the viper in BFM. Clean vs clean, and we just have a very small advantage in the F-16.

Cheers

 

This PM, if coming from a valid source clearly indicates that we have a problem.

In DCS clean vs clean the F-18 has a very substantial STR advantage, not even close. If they'd be close as the PM suggests, I think, most would be happy.

[nikoel]

1 hour ago, Snappy said:

I'm all for correcting the F-18 FM , as I personally also think it is overperforming and it is very unfortunate that there is very little officially available turn performance data to check against for the F-18.

However that being said, is GVAD in your conversation seriously suggesting that the available F-5 data is used to extrapolate the F-18 performance, because , quote "the curves are similar" ?!

I hope not, because a) the  only similarities they have is , they are both cropped delta wings and have LEX and trailing edge flaps.

But so have many other planes with  different performance.

b) If thats the same GVAD from the Mig Star Mig-17 developer team, I hope he is not the one doing the flight modelling, at least not with that approach.

 

 

I don't think he is Snappy

I don't want to read too much into what he has said for obvious reasons, but his direct quote was "Partly, some data is but not all, but F-5 data is, curve depends on a wing, 18 and 5 have very simikar curves, we know F-5, adjust for 18 peak about 16.4-16.5. A little flater than F-16 below 350kts since delta has more drag even if 16 has more thrust to weight. Its close to black curve" - to me it reads that he has used data from many places and then he went into more detail about the F5 (which is declassified)

Now, whilst I am dancing around this; you've nailed the nail on the head - I am sure many would love to chime in, and I would love to present more, but the data is classified. All we can do is point to stories and interviews and then point to other aircraft to try to steer the development into the right direction by bringing this topic to the forefront. If this means that some people think I am dumb for posting with no "evidence", so be it

A little off topic, but I am very excited about the Mig 17, the flight dynamics according to one of the videos are complete and it has many ways to depart, which is going to be crucial for a Gen 1 

Edited June 25, 2024 by nikoel

[Hulkbust44]

20 hours ago, nikoel said:

Hey Folks

Thanks for the new flight model. In slower flight envelope the jet feels great, however I do strongly believe that in it's current state the F/A-18 is too dominant in some of the flight characteristics. Here are my main takeaways of the current situation in DCS

1) Viper is a dominant energy fighter with a two circle bias. (Even the brick house that is Block 50)

2) It's widely believed that Viper's flight model is actually following the charts (where they are available) very well. Well done ED

3) In DCS Hornet is better than the Viper in Instantaneous Turn, One Circle, Two Circle. Viper has a minuscule edge in energy retention (if GLOC is managed - a little easier now with the new GLOC mechanic, thank you ED)

I know the flight model is a work in progress, however I understand you need data to do something with it and the tasty parts are classified. Here are a few suggestions:

Below is a chart that was made by GVad. He is a prominent member of the community who focuses heavily on flight model and is on the Mig 17 Team

By the graph below we can see that the Hornet is over 2'/second stronger than the F16 in Rate Performance. That's not a small edge. In a fully balanced rate fight with two aircraft in their best rate speed this would mean that the hornet will have a guns solution in less than 1:30min. We can also see that the Rate speed in DCS for the Hornet is actually 420KIAS instead of the widely recited ~360-380KIAS

What was also mentioned is that 'There's an issue in DCS where planes above mach 0.6 turn better than they should because at above 0.6 wings actually produce less lift'

Why do I think the model need a change? It's undeniable that the F/A-18 is an amazing, but in the end it comes down to the fact that the Hornet is better than the Viper through the entire flight envelope in and in almost all aspects. Viper would not exist and have the reputation it does if this is the case in the real world

For the record, this is how the black F/A-18 "actual" data was derived according to Gvad himself

 

 

>Viper would not exist and have the reputation it does if this is the case in the real world. 

And that's what this all comes down too, it always does. "Viper best dogfighter because it is" "I was told it's the best turner" "Hornet is WRONG"


Now the chart you present has no helpful data whatsoever, and you go around making statements based on it... 
What was the aircraft stores configuration for these tests? density altitude? Fuel? G loads? Were these even the 402 motors? 

I just did a quick test in DCS and you've been spouting nonsense. 

Clean jets (with pylons)
Caucuses, standard day, deck, ~50-60% fuel
max sustained rates:
Hornet 21dps at @ 360-365 KCAS
Viper 22-23dps @ 440-450 KCAS

Looks like DCS is perfectly in line with wilbur81's information.

 

[nikoel]

2 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

>Viper would not exist and have the reputation it does if this is the case in the real world. 

And that's what this all comes down too, it always does. "Viper best dogfighter because it is" "I was told it's the best turner" "Hornet is WRONG"


Now the chart you present has no helpful data whatsoever, and you go around making statements based on it... 
What was the aircraft stores configuration for these tests? density altitude? Fuel? G loads? Were these even the 402 motors? 

I just did a quick test in DCS and you've been spouting nonsense. 

Clean jets (with pylons)
Caucuses, standard day, deck, ~50-60% fuel
max sustained rates:
Hornet 21dps at @ 360-365 KCAS
Viper 22-23dps @ 440-450 KCAS

Looks like DCS is perfectly in line with wilbur81's information.

 

A few things.

First. We know this is the case because of many interviews/discussions/comments from pilots who flew these planes. But even more hilariously, you yourself used Wilbur's post when you were talking about your "data"

Second. I respect your opinion, but you don't get to have your own facts. Your test method is wrong or you don't know what you're doing. Your post is the one that is sprouting nonsense 

Here are the graphs made by Contact Light with all the extra information you wanted. Notice how Max instant, Max sustained turn, max sustained radius and min Radius have all F-16 dominated

Third. Let's take wilbur81's information above, and we can see that this is not the case for the F16 viper in DCS 

And don't take it from me. You want more in-game data, here is a video. Finally you're most welcome to try to come on the dogfighters server and try to outrate the hornet

 

Edited June 26, 2024 by nikoel

[Figaro9]

Well, these charts by contact light are great and do compare the edf-18 with 53% fuel loading to a edf-16 with 83% filled up thanks since most of the arenas on mobs dogfight server are fuel balanced for a fight of 5ˋ to 6ˋ. The f16 being much thirstier in ab is therefore much heavier. It is clear the hornet has a great advantage then. Right?

It is essentiell to let us know the conditions and config. Would you do us a favor please? Please ask your friend gvad to disclose the test basis of his tests you refer to in post 1, such as:

1. standard atmosphere or deviation from…
2. Fuel loading
3. Aircraft weight
4. Stores (drag index)
5. Test altitude
6. Throttle setting, engine type
7. Where does he have those 16.4 to 16.5 peak dgs from?
8. g-limits

Once we have these informations, we can check.

Thx

[HWasp]

6 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

I just did a quick test in DCS and you've been spouting nonsense. 

Clean jets (with pylons)
Caucuses, standard day, deck, ~50-60% fuel
max sustained rates:
Hornet 21dps at @ 360-365 KCAS
Viper 22-23dps @ 440-450 KCAS

Looks like DCS is perfectly in line with wilbur81's information.

 

You'll need to upload tracks of those quick tests, especially the viper one with 50% fuel doing 23 dps at 450.

I've seen some really bad stuff posted here before, so I'd like to see, how those turns actually looked like.

[Cab]

6 hours ago, nikoel said:

A few 

That’s very, very good performance.

Now ask him to do it without the paddle.

[BIGNEWY]

please always include track replays from your tests. 

thank you 

[nikoel]

13 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

please always include track replays from your tests. 

thank you 

Hi Newy.

Here is some unclassified data for an F/A-18-C maximum rate and bleed with F404-GE-402 (the same engine as we have in DCS)

Turn to page 30 for consolidated performance figures, page 74, 75 for graphs

Are you able to pass this on to the team. Here is the page so you can see that the graphs are not classified. I'm hoping that they will help with the development of FM

https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad-96-98

[nikoel]

36 minutes ago, Cab said:

That’s very, very good performance.

Now ask him to do it without the paddle.

Interesting question. Interesting because the chart does show this. All you have to do is run up to the 7.5G line. I have done this for you here:

Edited June 26, 2024 by nikoel

[Cab]

I'd still like to see him run the test without the paddle. I'm not convinced pulling the paddle doesn't also affect turn performance below 7.5g. After all, it is just code and not a real-life jet.

The thing to keep in mind is that when ED defends their FM they are almost certainly saying without the paddle.

Edited June 26, 2024 by Cab

[HWasp]

31 minutes ago, Cab said:

I'd still like to see him run the test without the paddle. I'm not convinced pulling the paddle doesn't also affect turn performance below 7.5g. After all, it is just code and not a real-life jet.

The thing to keep in mind is that when ED defends their FM they are almost certainly saying without the paddle.

 

Please, don't start this nonsense about the paddle, it changes the G-limit, and that's it.

It can be accounted for by drawing the 7.5G limit on the chart, as shown before, that's it, no magic involved.

That being said, I'll probably end up uploading some tracks during the weekend, and I'll.do it without the paddle.

I'm much more interested if that 23 dps for the 50% fuel F-16 claim by Hulkbust44 will hold up or is it complete bs...

[Cab]

30 minutes ago, HWasp said:

Please, don't start this nonsense about the paddle, it changes the G-limit, and that's it.

It can be accounted for by drawing the 7.5G limit on the chart, as shown before, that's it, no magic involved.

That being said, I'll probably end up uploading some tracks during the weekend, and I'll.do it without the paddle.

I'm much more interested if that 23 dps for the 50% fuel F-16 claim by Hulkbust44 will hold up or is it complete bs...

I would love to be proven wrong. But just saying the words is nonsense.

If you can point to someone demonstrating a 21 dps turn with no paddle I will be satisfied. Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it.

Look at it this way. If the DCS F-18 is going to be compared it to the RL jet, it should be flown the same way. Frankly, I doubt ED even tests the flight model with the paddle pulled.

 

Edited June 26, 2024 by Cab

[HWasp]

1 hour ago, Cab said:

I would love to be proven wrong. But just saying the words is nonsense.

If you can point to someone demonstrating a 21 dps turn with no paddle I will be satisfied. Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it.

Look at it this way. If the DCS F-18 is going to be compared it to the RL jet, it should be flown the same way. Frankly, I doubt ED even tests the flight model with the paddle pulled.

 

 

I'll do a test on friday, when I get home, so we'll see.

ED should model and test the whole flight envelope correctly, because it's a sim, and is meant to go beyond normal ops. 

That said, there are no separate flight models for this, it's the same flight model with different G limits. 

The Hornet already changes it's normal G limit depending on weight, this is not different to that, and it does not make diagrams magically invalid.

What might be a problem, is that the diagram shown here is from 2022, but we'll see.

[HWasp]

On 2/25/2024 at 3:54 AM, Chaffee said:

Overlapped (old model is faded)

Here is the 2024 one.

At 7.5g approx 20.5 dps

[Cab]

20 minutes ago, HWasp said:

I'll do a test on friday, when I get home, so we'll see.

Excellent, thank you.