Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your latest experiences with the updated F16s dogfighting potential

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • glide
    replied
    There is I believe an issue with acceleration with the Viper. I can be nose down with full AB and I'm not picking up speed, yet I still get the buffeting affect from approaching the flight limits of the aircraft. I suspect there's a fix for this in the works.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hummingbird
    replied
    ED probably have more data on the F/A-18 than we have, but are unable to share it. The obvious problem with this is that checking wether they followed what'ever data they have with precision isn't possible for us, hence we're forced to accept how the F/A18 currently performs and hope they got it right. We do however know that the possibility of them getting it wrong in certain areas is there, and we know this since there are inconsistencies with some of their other aircraft modules where we CAN check for inconsistencies, like for example the F-16 where sustained & instantaneous turn performance is lacking compared with the available RL EM diagrams.

    Leave a comment:


  • darkman222
    replied
    If there is no real charts for the F18 what does ED base their FM on then? I tought it was EDs policy just to model aircraft when all necessary data is publicly available.

    Leave a comment:


  • Noctrach
    replied
    AI uses a different flight model unfortunately, so comparing with it is very pointless.

    I think it's also kinda pointless to compare Viper against Hornet for any reasonable discussion on the FM regardless, as there's no charts for the Hornet, nor does it really matter how they stack up.
    It's an F-18A/DCS at the end of the day.

    Plenty good info on the F-16 to do standalone comparisons.

    Leave a comment:


  • glide
    replied
    Yes, but the AI never tire of practicing.

    Leave a comment:


  • darkman222
    replied
    I think you cant compare yourself against AI, or AI vs AI. The AI is stupid and maybe it even cheats some real world foces apply to you as player but not to the AI. At least I heard about it for WW2 AI aircraft. You need an F18 player who does not use g-limiter override and who does not crank the Hornet stick like crazy so that the Hornets G Limiter can catch up. I tried the cut circle method which was discussed in the first pages of the thread. But as long as the F16 pilot cant sustain a full 180 degree turn around with 9 G the F16 cant be flown as it was designed for.

    Leave a comment:


  • glide
    replied
    I put the two jets into the mission as Ace AI's and rode along in chase view. Better than netflix. They did not use guns, and after a number of passes they collided. They stayed in AB for almost the entire fight, but the Viper did more braking and less AB time than the hornet. Second flight the Hornet scored on its first trigger pull, but it took 6 mins of turning. Tons of fun!

    Leave a comment:


  • glide
    replied
    Originally posted by Spurts View Post
    I only use speed as my primary "hold this until I can afford to dump it" attribute in the Viper and the Eagle. In the Hornet and Tomcat I use AoA as a "Hold this until I can afford to rip it"
    I found that in the Viper I can get inside on the Hornet, but I have no energy left to complete the attack or I blackout and have to ease up. Flying these two jets against each other is a lot of fun, and very instructional. This and river racing in the Mustang are regular shifts on my calendar now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spurts
    replied
    Originally posted by glide View Post
    The hornet can hold 550 kts in a turn like no tomorrow, and I don't find blackouts to be so frequent in the hornet. The Viper beat me handily both times.
    Sounds like you were fighting the Vipers fight. A 7.5G limit means blackouts almost never happen in the Hornet. In the Hornet you need to use your tighter radius to cut inside the Vipers corners. I am NOT saying to just pull the stick in your lap. When I fly the Hornet I keep AoA around 15-20 during the "sustained" portion then give hard pulls for 1-3 seconds max to cut a hard turn during a cross. I do this when it will force an overshoot OR put me into the 6'oclock control zone.

    I only use speed as my primary "hold this until I can afford to dump it" attribute in the Viper and the Eagle. In the Hornet and Tomcat I use AoA as a "Hold this until I can afford to rip it"

    Leave a comment:


  • 13WELT_JankeS
    replied
    I am waiting patiently for corrections to the flight model. Every time an update comes out, I hope they will improve something related to the flight model. I try not to train dog fight because I don't want to get into bad habits.

    Leave a comment:


  • glide
    replied
    I flipped seats and tried the Hornet in a dogfight (first time). The hornet can hold 550 kts in a turn like no tomorrow, and I don't find blackouts to be so frequent in the hornet. The Viper beat me handily both times. The Viper is much harder to keep in the envelope. I did notice that the Hornet can turn a 360 while stalled. The Viper becomes unmanageable in a stall.

    Leave a comment:


  • glide
    replied
    So I set up a dogfight with the Hornet v my Viper, and it was the best dogfight yet! The Hornet can out turn the Viper every time. I find the Immelman turn works well when he gets on your tail. I'll let you know when I beat him.

    Leave a comment:


  • 000rick000
    replied
    Originally posted by Noctrach View Post

    Cut the snark, what Dragon 1-1 means has nothing to do with input latency. If you compare the F-16s FLCS response with that of the Hornet or that of the non-FBW modules, your control inputs result in motion at an order of magnitude faster in the latter. The Viper's roll axis is particularly affected by this. "The other sim" doesn't have it to nearly this extent, which one is correct is not for me to guess, but there's definitely a difference.
    With the Warthog stick it isnt as noticeable because the spring forces are so heavy by default. Using a lighter stick you can throw it all the way to the side and back to centre before the Viper's FLCS starts moving.
    Try something like this in the F/A-18 or the Tomcat and you will get complaints from the passengers that the luggage has exited the overhead compartiments at breakneck speeds.

    If this is a real feature of the bird, it's a real feature of the bird. If it's there because of some weird input profile exclusively suited for force-sensing sticks, it's a poor example of forgetting 99% of your userbase.
    Setting negative curves seems fine to reduce the effect but results in extreme non-linear responses to input which is not great for formation flying and refueling.

    Either case, it's definitely there and unique to the F-16 in DCS.
    Peace.. I think you're interpreting friendly sense of humor as something else. There are in fact nice people out there. As far the the lag goes, CAT I and CAT III appear to be modeled differently. CAT III IRL, should limit AoA (among other things). Right now it seems like it's changing control input response as well as limiting AoA. So, if the issue is with CAT III response, then that is another problem which is also there. All I'm saying is that I've found a balance with a mechanical stick. So when they address it, it will be good thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Syndrome
    replied
    Originally posted by 000rick000 View Post

    Well, you must have some really impressive temporal sensory perception! Yes there's always input latency with any device. However, when I had the the curves set to <=-15 the response was essentially instantaneous. BUT, provided too small a region of command input to be effective. However, I too have experienced the PIO when in AAR. I definitely think that you can find a good balance as it is now, but that the FLCS needs some work for sure. As does the FM.
    It's not device "input latency". Or monitor monitor latency. It's a delay of the jet's control surfaces via the FCS. You can hit RCtrl+Enter to see the actual input registered by the game and compare that to the F-16's lagging control surface response. It's like the stabilators and flaperons are moving through turbulent molasses.

    Leave a comment:


  • 104th_Money
    replied
    Originally posted by Spurts View Post

    Just going to point out what you are saying. 19.2 and 18.5 is a 0.7 difference and are "basically the same" (yes I have done a detailed look at this one, interpolating between the 0DI and 50DI viper plots and adjusting the weight for each to mimic 60% fuel and 4 AAMs, the Hornet still pulls a hair faster), but the DCS F/A-18 holding 13 vs 12.3, another difference of 0.7, is unacceptable? Either way, this is largely academic. I feel anything within 1.5-2dps is effectively close enough that actual geometry will matter more than rate differentials.

    My time flying BOTH planes I find that even in full burner it takes no time at all to drop from 350ish KIAS to 100ish KIAS at sea level in the Hornet. And then it takes forever to get back to 350. In the Viper, I can't hardly get it below 150 and I can hold a 3G turn while accelerating as quickly as the Hornet does at 1G.

    The FMs are not perfect, I won't argue that, but even in the current state I find that using Viper tactics in the Viper works just fine. Keep speed around 400-450KIAS until you need to cut a tight corner then pull to 350, only go slower to avoid overshoot. In the Hornet, keep speed around 350KIAS unless you are going to overshoot or are in a position where you need a nose position and can afford to lose the speed such as crossing the bogeys tail at high aspect where the hard pull puts him off your nose and the speed loss eliminates the chance of overshoot.
    Spurts

    There is nothing academic about a 0.7 degree per second advantage in turn rate. Especially when that advantage goes to the Hornet.

    That 0.7 degrees per second translates into 84 degrees after 120 seconds which is roughly 6 full 360 degree turns. When you include the fact that the Hornet can get to maximum G much quicker than the Viper, the Hornet gets about a 15 degree advantage immediately with an equal merge.

    84+15=99 degree advantage after 6 turns leaving 81 degrees to make up for a firing solution. Since we are talking about the Hornet with no alpha limiter, the Hornet could either spend all of his energy for a possible shot or cut across the circle and gain another 45-60 degrees, now leaving between 21-36 degrees to go when he gets his energy back and re-enters the circle. That is definitely within pulling lead for a shot and more often than not by the time you get down to that angle, the Viper is already squirming around trying to get off Hornets lift vector by maneuvering out of plane and the writing is on the wall that this fight is about to be over.

    Leave a comment:


  • gavagai
    replied
    The DCS F16 will see that control input latency reduced in a future patch. There is supposed to be some latency, just not that much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Noctrach
    replied
    Originally posted by 000rick000 View Post

    Well, you must have some really impressive temporal sensory perception! Yes there's always input latency with any device. However, when I had the the curves set to <=-15 the response was essentially instantaneous. BUT, provided too small a region of command input to be effective. However, I too have experienced the PIO when in AAR. I definitely think that you can find a good balance as it is now, but that the FLCS needs some work for sure. As does the FM.
    Cut the snark, what Dragon 1-1 means has nothing to do with input latency. If you compare the F-16s FLCS response with that of the Hornet or that of the non-FBW modules, your control inputs result in motion at an order of magnitude faster in the latter. The Viper's roll axis is particularly affected by this. "The other sim" doesn't have it to nearly this extent, which one is correct is not for me to guess, but there's definitely a difference.
    With the Warthog stick it isnt as noticeable because the spring forces are so heavy by default. Using a lighter stick you can throw it all the way to the side and back to centre before the Viper's FLCS starts moving.
    Try something like this in the F/A-18 or the Tomcat and you will get complaints from the passengers that the luggage has exited the overhead compartiments at breakneck speeds.

    If this is a real feature of the bird, it's a real feature of the bird. If it's there because of some weird input profile exclusively suited for force-sensing sticks, it's a poor example of forgetting 99% of your userbase.
    Setting negative curves seems fine to reduce the effect but results in extreme non-linear responses to input which is not great for formation flying and refueling.

    Either case, it's definitely there and unique to the F-16 in DCS.

    Leave a comment:


  • 000rick000
    replied
    Originally posted by Dragon1-1 View Post

    Not true. I can move the physical stick much quicker than it responds. I literally saw it - I move the stick, and then there's a short pause, and it starts rolling. I'll try negative curves (currently have them set to zero), but I suspect the issue is different. The current state is actually really bad for formation flying, as mentioned I had problems trying to AAR with it, and it's PIO-prone because of the control lag.

    People with force-sensing sticks may have a snappier response, but I don't know. I suspected it's a problem with FLCS, as mentioned above.
    Well, you must have some really impressive temporal sensory perception! Yes there's always input latency with any device. However, when I had the the curves set to <=-15 the response was essentially instantaneous. BUT, provided too small a region of command input to be effective. However, I too have experienced the PIO when in AAR. I definitely think that you can find a good balance as it is now, but that the FLCS needs some work for sure. As does the FM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dragon1-1
    replied
    Originally posted by 000rick000 View Post
    The Viper is slow to respond likely because your joystick curves are set to provide a comfortable range of motion and a controllability. you need to physically move your stick to a position that corresponds to a desired control output Flaperon or Elevon deflection. You can get very quick response time to control surface inputs if you set the curves much lower into the negative. The issue with this becomes with things like formation flying or trying to execute a limiter pull. The inputs for a mechanical joystick with a cam become too small to be effectively used (at least for me) and for being able to effectively hit the limiter pull without over pulling in the heat of the fight. The tolerances are just too small to effectively mechanically translate into precise movement. So that "snappy" feel is balanced by the requirement to be able to control the aircraft correctly. I don't think any of the guys I know who use a Force Sensing Stick have any complaints - and I think it's likely due to the nature of the way the inputs are processed by the FBW system. It just physically takes more time for anyone with a physically moving stick to get it to the desired position and out of the desired position once there (for that snappy crisp roll stop for example). Because your stick is registering the control input all the way there and all the way back. A force sensing stick is registering the input only until it's gone - as I understand it. So there's not return force other than that which occurs for the time it takes the surface returns to neutral.
    Not true. I can move the physical stick much quicker than it responds. I literally saw it - I move the stick, and then there's a short pause, and it starts rolling. I'll try negative curves (currently have them set to zero), but I suspect the issue is different. The current state is actually really bad for formation flying, as mentioned I had problems trying to AAR with it, and it's PIO-prone because of the control lag.

    People with force-sensing sticks may have a snappier response, but I don't know. I suspected it's a problem with FLCS, as mentioned above.

    Leave a comment:


  • oldtimesake
    replied
    A lot of us have tested the DCS viper, and we know there is a problem from day 1 on release: It turns1 deg /sec lower than the HAF manual below Mach 0.4, both inst. and sustained.

    Anyone can verify this by loading a 26000 lbs viper with 6 amraams and check with the HAF manual.

    https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...es-str-testing

    It seems the devs have been totally lazy or ignorant and won't respond to this problem. Anytime you post this on this forum your will be warned by rule 1.16.

    I am also pretty sure the lift curve slope in its FM is broken and posted my proof. The moderator simply labels it "reported earlier" and no updates since then:

    https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...than-real-life
    Last edited 10-23-2020, 08:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X