Giving the F-16 another chance...

the discourse is much more complex, we talk about niche simulation, first of all we have to thank the developers of their work, as a true fan of military flight simulators would have no chance of having what we have with DCS, our task whenever possible is to buy these products in beta, to finance the work of the developers, and have patience and faith until the final release. This is the only possibility that we virtual pilot have, thanks to Wags and all the developers.

Hi Nineline,

With respect, the vast majority of us know what we are signing up for with EA. The big issue for me at least is that the feedback from ED regarding the flight model is that it is accurate and won't be receiving any major improvements to its sustained turn rate performance. As I'm sure you're aware, in its current state, the F-16 is bottom of the pile in terms of its sustained turn performance when compared with the hornet, tomcat and JF-17. Nevermind winning in the 2 circle, it is straight up floundering. I'm fairly certain that most of the feedback from the community is that some tweaks need to be made to the G-induced drag model (i.e. reduce G-induced drag). It just isn't moving the nose like it should compared to the other jets we have in DCS. Nevermind reality. This isn't about what the real jet can do. The main reason I was looking forward to the Viper was for its 2 circle (sustained rate) performance and right now it just isn't there. It simply is not enjoyable to BFM in the viper because it can't do what it is supposed to do (win the rate war).

It's not about EA. We get what EA means. It's about how this aeroplane's FM simply isn't delivering on what the community expects from it. Yes, some people are probably going to say that what the community expects is irrelevant and the SME's word is the final word. But a viper that repeatedly gets beaten by all of its relevant competition in the game in the 2 circle fight just isn't credible.

Again, said with the utmost respect.

LB.

early access is a way to get some funds and to catch more bugs. Nobody is pressing anybody to be part of that process. The only thing I would expect in this regard is to have shorter development cycle, as testing group is much larger as in say, closed beta

What appears to be true is many posting here did not opt in this Early Access to help, but rather to save the $20%. And to get in on the excitement drummed up by their very own desires and hype by the community.

At the purchase page it is clear what we are getting at the EA stage.

From that very page:

“What is DCS World Early Access?

Early Access is an option for you to play this module in an early state, but it will be incomplete with bugs. The time a product remains in Early Access can vary widely based on the scope of the project, technical hurdles, and how complete the module is when it enters Early Access. Eagle Dynamics and all of our third parties strive to make this period as short as possible. An Early Access module can be played on both the Open Beta and Release versions of DCS World. Once the module exits Early Access, you will automatically have the Release version.”

Complaints surrounding every Ea release is getting very old and tedious even though we are all entitled to our opinions regardless of whether they are justified or not.

What we all wish for is not necessarily a valid real world expectation. A “mouthguard” can ease the pain of gnashing and grinding of teeth.

Wow...2 months

Hey everyone...I didn't want this to become an argument about early access.

It's about the F-16 and what it's current status is...I am finding that it is still in a poor state. I see people listing all of the current systems that are implemented, but I am finding that they are all still a WIP or bugged.

As of right now, 2+ months after release, what is actually working? Which systems are 100% accurate and functional. I don't want to learn something only to have to forget everything and relearn it due to it being WIP, incorrect, or bugged.

Hi Nineline,

 

With respect, the vast majority of us know what we are signing up for with EA. The big issue for me at least is that the feedback from ED regarding the flight model is that it is accurate and won't be receiving any major improvements to its sustained turn rate performance. As I'm sure you're aware, in its current state, the F-16 is bottom of the pile in terms of its sustained turn performance when compared with the hornet, tomcat and JF-17. Nevermind winning in the 2 circle, it is straight up floundering. I'm fairly certain that most of the feedback from the community is that some tweaks need to be made to the G-induced drag model (i.e. reduce G-induced drag). It just isn't moving the nose like it should compared to the other jets we have in DCS. Nevermind reality. This isn't about what the real jet can do. The main reason I was looking forward to the Viper was for its 2 circle (sustained rate) performance and right now it just isn't there. It simply is not enjoyable to BFM in the viper because it can't do what it is supposed to do (win the rate war).

 

It's not about EA. We get what EA means. It's about how this aeroplane's FM simply isn't delivering on what the community expects from it. Yes, some people are probably going to say that what the community expects is irrelevant and the SME's word is the final word. But a viper that repeatedly gets beaten by all of its relevant competition in the game in the 2 circle fight just isn't credible.

 

Again, said with the utmost respect.

 

LB.

Sent from my Xiaomi MI8

Whe did ED stated officially that the current performances are definitive and are not gonna be tuned to known values? I was under the impression that FM and engine trust were still WIP. Did I miss something?

 

Sent from my Xiaomi MI8

Depends where you look and who you talk to. Where I've looked and who I've spoken to indicate that ED have no intention of making changes to the sustained turn rate of the viper any time soon. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this. No matter what you look at, this thread exists (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=255421) and ED are yet to acknowledge that the viper's low sustained turn rate when compared with its in-game peers is an issue they intend to address. Hence my concern.

Depends where you look and who you talk to. Where I've looked and who I've spoken to indicate that ED have no intention of making changes to the sustained turn rate of the viper any time soon. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this. No matter what you look at, this thread exists (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=255421) and ED are yet to acknowledge that the viper's low sustained turn rate when compared with its in-game peers is an issue they intend to address. Hence my concern.

I asked if FM and trust were being worked on, and he replied that "the Team will be tweaking the FM as EA progresses".

So if it depends on "who I talk to", I talked to one of the official ED spokepersons.

The fact the the current performances are underwhelming (to say the least) is known, but it's WIP.

I still have faith in the implementation of correct performances, there is no other way around to establish the *new benchmark* in an F-16C simulation.

So unless:

-no action is taken in 2020

Or

-an official statements comes out saying "alright boys and girls, the FM is definitive, we got the right data"

I wouldn't worry too much (for now)

Regards

Sent from my Xiaomi MI8

I thanks ED for allowing me to drive the Viper in VR now and not in 5 years.

I love the Viper, warts and all. My biggest problem is that some things are kinda working and I essentially de-train certain aspects... But I am not a real fighter pilot so it is a nuisance at worst. I bought EA and I got EA. This is the most fun to fly in VR IMO and I'd hate having to wait 2 years.

I enjoy this bird the most when fighting A/A. It has speed and agility like no other jet and the engine is sick fast(should be faster btw). There are two features that I wish the Viper has: 1. AACQ 2. More AMRAAMS.

Reasons I love the f-16:

1-It carries the Aim-9X

2-It carries the Aim-9X

3-It carries the Aim-9X

4-It’s the F-16

I had a quick exchange with Bignewy last Sunday in the official DCS discord.

 

I asked if FM and trust were being worked on, and he replied that "the Team will be tweaking the FM as EA progresses".

 

So if it depends on "who I talk to", I talked to one of the official ED spokepersons.

 

The fact the the current performances are underwhelming (to say the least) is known, but it's WIP.

 

I still have faith in the implementation of correct performances, there is no other way around to establish the *new benchmark* in an F-16C simulation.

 

So unless:

 

-no action is taken in 2020

 

Or

 

-an official statements comes out saying "alright boys and girls, the FM is definitive, we got the right data"

 

I wouldn't worry too much (for now)

 

Regards

 

 

Sent from my Xiaomi MI8

Cheers Rubberduck. From where I sit all it would take is a statement from ED that acknowledges that the sustained turn rate of the viper in its current state is low and that they intend to fix it. Broad sweeping statements that the FM is WIP don't really fill me with confidence in that regard but if that's what you've been told by bignewy then I guess that's more concrete than what I've got atm, so thanks for that.

Hey everyone...I didn't want this to become an argument about early access.

 

It's about the F-16 and what it's current status is...I am finding that it is still in a poor state. I see people listing all of the current systems that are implemented, but I am finding that they are all still a WIP or bugged.

 

As of right now, 2+ months after release, what is actually working? Which systems are 100% accurate and functional. I don't want to learn something only to have to forget everything and relearn it due to it being WIP, incorrect, or bugged.

If you’re finding that it’s still a WIP and not enjoyable then don’t play it. I think that’s the best answer you’re going to find. I listed earlier a host of features that are working and working quite well but at the end of the day it’s still in EA and still in active production.

If you take the time to learn the Viper right now as is you’ll have a good time. Yes things might change but not so drastically to where it will be like relearning the aircraft all over again.

It would be one thing if this were released as complete but it wasn’t. I get your opinion on the F-16 but I don’t share it as I think the module is quite usable and fun. It actually may benefit you learning the systems currently implemented and then learning each system one by one as more comes online. It would definitely benefit the production of the F-16 having another person play/testing it and finding any bugs.

Overall though I think the F-16 is in a damn good state and ED should be commended for their hard work.

You guys are right...I am being a bit over critical and not fully accepting and understanding the F-16 early access as it is. My apologies to ED.

I am going to take a step back and start from scratch with the F-16 and give it another chance.

I flew it a bit more today and realize the progress that has been made since release and the great potential for it to be something really incredible. Seeing the wing flex video today was very encouraging as well.

After flying 30+ flight hours exclusively in the viper, I picked out the hornet for a mission yesterday, only waiting eagerly to land and hop back in my unfinished f-16. I tried it one more time with the JF-17 and had the same effect.

Maybe it is a question of passion, the Viper is for me the most enjoyable plane yet in DCS. But most likely I would even try to fly this thing without wings. I am more than happy to be able to participate as a test pilot for this model and as a test pilot I won't complain about missing features and bugs. How should I?

However, my only critics might address the priorities. Seeing an F-16 right now in the air which is in specific items (e.g. TWS, LGB) more capable than the F-18 which is out for more than one year looks strange. However, as fan of the F-16 I should not complain too much. This would be my personal top wishlist for fixes:

1. TGP Steerpoint offset / CZ support

2. LGB / TGP INS drift issue

3. adding additional waypoints

4. delivering harms

The first three take away many options in multiplayer environments. I am excited about the new wing flex, looks awesome to me, but I hope that thins like above will not get lost in features like this.

The number of crashes is very low and basically all offered features work with - let's say - an acceptable level of bugs. That is a big achievement when I see at the same time the passion in form of the level of details, the developers put in the simulation.

Weak points in testing are longtime-flights (with refueling and rearming) and "multiplayability". Add this to your test scenarios, it's worth it.

Finally, nevertheless, even with all the limitations, everytime I enter the cockpit I am having the feeling that the plane is far more capable than I am. Please, ED, keep it like that. Don't forget to finish up things. :-)

This would be my personal top wishlist for fixes:

 

1. TGP Steerpoint offset / CZ support

2. LGB / TGP INS drift issue

3. adding additional waypoints

4. delivering harms

/QUOTE]

 

Yup, 1-3 are pretty much essential for online flying and on the top of my wish-list since release. Or some other way like a data cartridge to at least add waypoints.

 

HARMS, yeah I'd be happy with them, but really any sort of standoff weapons (JSOWs, Mav's whatever).

It's about how this aeroplane's FM simply isn't delivering on what the community expects from it. Yes, some people are probably going to say that what the community expects is irrelevant and the SME's word is the final word. But a viper that repeatedly gets beaten by all of its relevant competition in the game in the 2 circle fight just isn't credible.

 

Again, said with the utmost respect.

 

LB.

Yup this is my biggest concern with the current implementation of the Viper. It has more wing area, a bigger TWR, and a stronger air frame that was built for 9g turns, and yet is being vastly out performed by a budget rate version that is weaker on all of these stats that are critical to turn rate, namely the JF-17. They should be at least roughly on par if not with slightly better speed sustain and acceleration on the Viper, and slightly better BVR capability on the JF-17. And on top of this the F-16 input lags making controlled and precise maneuvers feel like molasses compared to either the Hornet or the JF-17, so it's nothing to do with mass. Low alt building dodging slaloms is effortless and responsive in the JF-17 or Hornet, but very delayed with no ability to last second adjustments in the Viper. I have zero time in a real Viper cockpit, but it just feels wrong by comparison. Weighing only slightly more than a JF-17 and having more thrust and lift authority, it should perform at least somewhere BETWEEN a JF-17 and a Hornet in terms of responsiveness to sudden vector changes.

If you’re finding that it’s still a WIP and not enjoyable then don’t play it. I think that’s the best answer you’re going to find. I listed earlier a host of features that are working and working quite well but at the end of the day it’s still in EA and still in active production.

 

If you take the time to learn the Viper right now as is you’ll have a good time. Yes things might change but not so drastically to where it will be like relearning the aircraft all over again.

 

It would be one thing if this were released as complete but it wasn’t. I get your opinion on the F-16 but I don’t share it as I think the module is quite usable and fun. It actually may benefit you learning the systems currently implemented and then learning each system one by one as more comes online. It would definitely benefit the production of the F-16 having another person play/testing it and finding any bugs.

 

Overall though I think the F-16 is in a damn good state and ED should be commended for their hard work.

First off, I should offer a clear disclaimer so that I am not misunderstood. I totally understand that the F-16 module is not only early access but VERY early access. I also understand and absolutely believe that ED will continue to work on it and will complete its various systems and features as time goes on. I bought the F-16 module knowing not only that it is early access but also what early access means in a DCS World context.

That being said, I do gotta say that there is a flaw in the whole "learn the systems as they come online" approach. This was something that was started (more or less) with the Hornet's release and while it sounds good on paper, it kinda falls apart in execution. When Matt Wagner talked about how one could learn the Hornet one system at a time when they came out, I think he had a slightly quicker development pace in mind. Unfortunately, the pace for major feature additions turned out to be fairly inconsistent and as a result, one could spend a afternoon learning the systems the Hornet had on release and end up waiting quite a long time before having anything new to learn. One could argue that "it gives you time to practice skills" but even that isn't so time consuming that it really softens the wait.

The F-16 is in a similar place right now. If someone wants to, they could sit down and learn the module's current systems in a handful of hours. If all goes well, some more features will come out on Wednesday and even then, it won't take a month to learn those added systems/features and in all likelihood, we are looking at a month between the upcoming update and the one after it due to the holidays.

After the Hornet, I learned that if one really wants to sink their teeth in and have a long term learning experience, it is better to simply put the aircraft in the virtual hangar and let it sit and develop while one works on learning the more complete modules in DCS right now.

Again. this isn't so much a critique as it is a observation based on my specific way of approaching the learning of a module in DCS. The idea of learning a module as new features are added is good if the pace of feature additions can keep up but if it can't, it may be better to simply wait if you are looking for a deep learning experience where you really get to dig in and explore.

Most of you still don't understand what an early release is. It's not so you can learn the plane easier. You're a beta tester and that's all there is to getting the plane early. You find bugs and report them. You don't report not having certain features. That's just complaining and impatience.

Most of you still don't understand what an early release is. It's not so you can learn the plane easier. You're a beta tester and that's all there is to getting the plane early. You find bugs and report them. You don't report not having certain features. That's just complaining and impatience.

That would be fine for the most part but for the fact that we have been reporting the viper's low sustained turn rate since release and received barely any (read exceptionally vague) feedback from ED regarding any intention on their behalf to remedy this.

The other problem that I have with your statement, "you find bugs and report them", is that we are customers who have paid nearly full whack for a retail product. If you wish to insist that we are now effectively part of the ED testers team (which I can guarantee you we are not - hence why I still enjoy mostly free speech on here) then at the very least when we report a problem we should receive timely acknowledgment that it is or is not on the list of things to fix, especially for a problem as significant as having a lower sustained turn rate than a hornet. The issue is not with finding bugs in an EA product. The issue is with the lack of communication on the part of ED.

Instead of addressing our concerns re low sustained turn rate and the way the module flies, which is what a lot of us are concerned about, instead we get stuff that doesn't really matter like cosmetics and wing flex. I couldn't give a toss about whether my wings flex or not at this point in time. But I do care if I lose a two circle fight to a hornet because the FM is wrong. I give a toss when we get vague answers from ED regarding their plans for this FM while they are off busying themselves with "nice-to-haves" like wing flex instead of fixing "must-haves" like correct STR. Sure, give us wing flex once the FM is sorted. But right now it just seems like mismanaged priorities and we STILL have no word that ED specifically believe the low STR to be something that, in their opinion, requires a fix. I wouldn't be posting these messages at the rate I am if I had that confirmation.

The viper is around 2 deg per sec down on the hornet in STR. Fix it please.

Hey everyone...I didn't want this to become an argument about early access.

 

It's about the F-16 and what it's current status is...I am finding that it is still in a poor state. I see people listing all of the current systems that are implemented, but I am finding that they are all still a WIP or bugged.

 

As of right now, 2+ months after release, what is actually working? Which systems are 100% accurate and functional. I don't want to learn something only to have to forget everything and relearn it due to it being WIP, incorrect, or bugged.

That's a valid point. It's often difficult to keep up with the status of every update, every WIP, etc. You have to sift through a lot of posts on a constant basis to know what finished and what not.

A thought is to perhaps have a single document as a sticky at the top of each module forum in a table format that lists the current status of each main system and subsystem. For instance, maybe something like a spreadsheet that would list the main systems like flight model, Skins, engine, TPOD, A/A RDR, A/G RDR, weapons, etc.

This way we can have a single one stop status overview place to go. It may stop a lot of the constant questions about where a particular system is. I'm sure the Project managers at ED are working to something like this already. It wouldn't be hard to post a watered down version of the project status. Just a thought

I got 6 kills the other day in the viper to no deaths. I love flying it, dono why this guy thinks is so bad.

I got 6 kills the other day in the viper to no deaths. I love flying it, dono why this guy thinks is so bad.

Fly it against someone in a hornet who knows what they are doing and you will win zero out of six then you will come on here and start posting for FM fixes...I'd be happy to fly a hornet against you to make the point. PM me.

That would be fine for the most part but for the fact that we have been reporting the viper's low sustained turn rate since release and received barely any (read exceptionally vague) feedback from ED regarding any intention on their behalf to remedy this.

 

The other problem that I have with your statement, "you find bugs and report them", is that we are customers who have paid nearly full whack for a retail product. If you wish to insist that we are now effectively part of the ED testers team (which I can guarantee you we are not - hence why I still enjoy mostly free speech on here) then at the very least when we report a problem we should receive timely acknowledgment that it is or is not on the list of things to fix, especially for a problem as significant as having a lower sustained turn rate than a hornet. The issue is not with finding bugs in an EA product. The issue is with the lack of communication on the part of ED.

 

Instead of addressing our concerns re low sustained turn rate and the way the module flies, which is what a lot of us are concerned about, instead we get stuff that doesn't really matter like cosmetics and wing flex. I couldn't give a toss about whether my wings flex or not at this point in time. But I do care if I lose a two circle fight to a hornet because the FM is wrong. I give a toss when we get vague answers from ED regarding their plans for this FM while they are off busying themselves with "nice-to-haves" like wing flex instead of fixing "must-haves" like correct STR. Sure, give us wing flex once the FM is sorted. But right now it just seems like mismanaged priorities and we STILL have no word that ED specifically believe the low STR to be something that, in their opinion, requires a fix. I wouldn't be posting these messages at the rate I am if I had that confirmation.

 

The viper is around 2 deg per sec down on the hornet in STR. Fix it please.

You're a beta tester. Your complaints just make my post the truth.