Your latest experiences with the updated F16s dogfighting potential

@hummingbird: How do you "ban" the paddle on your server? By just advising the people not to use it? Or is there an actual code for that?

Well firstly we rely on honesty and good sportsmanship, if that doesn't work then we're helped by the fact that abuse of the paddle is incredibly obvious.

In our competitions however we go a step further and have a guy monitor the aircraft, looking for large overshoots in G that are sustained. Brief spikes in G I don't call as a breach of rules, since they have no effect on the fight anyway and could easily be due to a lot of other technical reasons.

Crap, are you serious? I can get in trouble for posting random EM diagrams from the internet?:helpsmilie:

Yeah, I've been in trouble quite a few times now because of it, as it's not easy to determine what is allowed and what isn't. I've posted several such charts one day (that are still left standing), only to get warned and my post removed the next for something similar. So to be safe I'd just refrain from posting any charts tbh, that's the conclusion I've come to atleast.

I'm not dogfighting in the Viper until the flight model is fixed & basically finished. Not interested in learning bad habits.

The Hornet modeled in DCS could actually sustain higher turn rates than a Block 50 Viper. This is based on real world flight test. In an old document about the Super Hornet and the -402 motored Hornet you can see the 2 AAM 50% fuel sustained turn rates and when you look at the Hornet vs the HAF Block 50 Viper manual the Hornet does better at low altitude but worse as altitude goes up.

I read this document, and I am pretty sure you mistook something.

A 402 motored hornet C with 60% fuel, 2 amraams and 2 aim9s sustains 19.2deg/sec at sea level. A F-16C-50 with same fuel and with 6 amraams sustains 18.5deg/sec. Considering the the loadout difference, they are basically the same.

A 402 motored hornet C with 60% fuel, 2 amraams and 2 aim9s sustains 12.3deg/sec at 15000 feet, while in DCS it sustains 13deg/sec. I am pretty sure the DCS hornet is overperformming by 8%.

My biggest problem with the Viper right now is that it seems to be very sluggish in roll. Not only the rate is less than I'd expect, but there seems to be a slight delay between stick deflection and the actual roll starting. Is anyone else getting this, too? Other planes, including the friggin' A-10, don't feel like this.

 

The F-16 is a "rate fighter". In DCS this means you need to run away, fly around the entire planet at Mach 1.6, and then reappear behind the bandit when he least expects it. Simple. Elegant.

That would only work as long as there's global coverage in DCS as well as many tankers on the route:smartass:

Just to add something that is tangentially related to what all of you are discussing. In DCS there is (or was, haven't kept very up to date on this stuff) discrepancy between atmospheric pressures in different altitudes compared to the real world pressures. It's a DCS game engine thing, and has been for a long time something that ED haven't been able to fix completely although they have made some adjustments. In fact many of the flight models show a lot of discrepancies at compared to their real world counterparts and their drag coeficients, or engine power etc. needs to be adjusted so they don't underperform or overperform at certain altitudes since that is apparently easier than doing core changes in the DCS engine.

The problem with this is that the different FMs are then never 100% accurate through the whole flight envelope, and that also not all the different FMs are adjusted in the same way, so a lot of discrepancies crop up.

The DCS Viper bleeds off speed in turns more than the other sim. I beleive the DCS version is the one that needs more work to be correct.

Agree, I have the same feeling, too draggy modelled becasuse of alpha maybe?, but definetly is underperformance, she loose speed too fast and cannot sustain in a clean configuration at sea level full AB more than 5g at 350kts a flat turn...that cannot be

My biggest problem with the Viper right now is that it seems to be very sluggish in roll. Not only the rate is less than I'd expect, but there seems to be a slight delay between stick deflection and the actual roll starting. Is anyone else getting this, too? Other planes, including the friggin' A-10, don't feel like this.

The response time is too slow in both axes, pitch and roll (fbw thing). Pretty sure ED is aware and updates are coming. In the future the g onset rate will be faster.

That's good, it should be very responsive, hope it'll get done soon-ish. It'd also make it less prone to PIO during AAR, too, it's currently harder than it should be.

TBH, I don't know if talking about dogfight performance makes sense as it is, roll and G onset rates are extremely important, and Viper should have some advantages there. IRL, it's a very "snappy" fighter, in part thanks to its force sensing stick.

 

I read this document, and I am pretty sure you mistook something.

 

A 402 motored hornet C with 60% fuel, 2 amraams and 2 aim9s sustains 19.2deg/sec at sea level. A F-16C-50 with same fuel and with 6 amraams sustains 18.5deg/sec. Considering the the loadout difference, they are basically the same.

 

A 402 motored hornet C with 60% fuel, 2 amraams and 2 aim9s sustains 12.3deg/sec at 15000 feet, while in DCS it sustains 13deg/sec. I am pretty sure the DCS hornet is overperformming by 8%.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.