First impressions of the Viper EA

Very impressed, good job ED!

I know there's a lot of improvements ahead, but for day 1 I'm quite happy with the new toy. Dogfighting seems a lot of fun, been playing the 2v1 IA mission to get a feel for the jet.

Hotas Warthog mapping 'out the box' is pretty good too, only had to make a few minor tweaks so far.

Having been an avid flyer of the 'other' popular Viper sim out there, some obvious things are lacking with the dogfight HUD and ACM radar modes by comparison but hey, it's early days!

Is it me or is there no difference between CAT I and CAT III? Should I not be getting FCLS faults in CAT I with bombs?

I concur she flies nice out of the box and anyone who's flown the other sim transitions over easily.

Good job in early access.

Did my first flights in the Viper today.

I am deeply impressed about the sound fading out when or going for positive or negative g's.

The loss of hearing is truly the best I have ever seen (erm ... heard), and is absolutely realistic.

I can say that following my own experiences, since I have many aerobatic flights and there flying in high g's, and the loss of hearing is a fact!

I am also impressed about the flight characteristics of the F-16.

It is a long time ago I have flown Falcon BMS, but it took just an hour to "feel home" again.

DAMN, this module is pulling me to my computer like a monster magnet ...

Ok, that kills the rest of my social life now. Good bye people, hello bits & bytes. :cry:

First impressions, well the cockpit and external modelling is excellent, so that's good.

As for the flight model, well.... let me put it like this: Atm the F-16 is 100% outclassed by the F-14, F/A-18 & F-15 in a dogfight in DCS. It isn't even a competition at this point, the three other teen fighter completely trash it.

This is a far cry from what the EM charts tell us, so on that note the module has disappointed me so far. BUT this is early access open alpha, so a lot can and probably will change.

What does worry me though, and this is something I just now learned about, is what was said in this podcast from 19:00 min:

If it's true that the FM's of these birds are purposefully fudged in order to "keep the real pilots safe", well then for me it defeats the purpose of the sim as a whole, and right now I'm just hoping it really isn't the case.

First impressions, well the cockpit and external modelling is excellent, so that's good.

 

As for the flight model, well.... let me put it like this: Atm the F-16 is 100% outclassed by the F-14, F/A-18 & F-15 in a dogfight in DCS. It isn't even a competition at this point, the three other teen fighter completely trash it.

 

This is a far cry from what the EM charts tell us, so on that note the module has disappointed me so far. BUT this is early access open alpha, so a lot can and probably will change.

 

What does worry me though, and this is something I just now learned about, is what was said in this podcast from 19:00 min:

 

If it's true that the FM's of these birds are purposefully fudged in order to "keep the real pilots safe", well then for me it defeats the purpose of the sim as a whole, and right now I'm just hoping it really isn't the case.

That’s researching anything to do with military aviation for you. When it comes to DCS, I settle for very accurate when possible, very convincing when not possible.

That’s researching anything to do with military aviation for you. When it comes to DCS, I settle for very accurate when possible, very convincing when not possible.

Still came as a shock to me as I really can't see how getting the flight model as true to life as possible could ever endanger the real pilots. The weapons systems, sure I can understand if they aren't 100% like the real thing, that makes perfect sense. But fudging how an aircraft designed in the 70's or 80's performs at high AoA or in turns, that just doesn't make any sense, esp. since the information is available to anyone who really wants said information anyway. So it's not like them fudging the FM would be making sure the "KGB" suddenly doesn't know about F-16/18/14 or -15's flight performance - they already know (and did long before us) as the info can be found by anyone.

So yeah, again I'm hoping it isn't actually the case cause then this game just went from sim status to fantasy status, and then there goes the appeal IMO.

Hi Archaic,

 

There are no such faults. It simply changes the AoA and AoA rate limits.

 

Thanks

And Max roll rate by the feel of it? I know roll forces put a lot of load on stores etc

The comments about the FM being adjusted to protect information was for the hornet, not the A-10, not the F-16, both are as accurate as available information will allow.

 

That said, welcome to day 1 of early access of the DCS F:16C Viper... some training is required, some work is still required.

Like I said, it's EA open alpha and I'm expecting things to change, I made that clear in my post.

That said, it isn't hard to check up the sustained load factors NineLine, it's just pulling and holding a level turn until speed is stable and then checking the G reading. Not much can go wrong, not much training required. Let's no make things more complicated than they really are.

As for the Hornet's FM, again I don't understand why fudging the FM would ever be necessary. We're talking a 70's design, and you aint hiding it from anyone who really wants the info anyway, they've known for ages.

The weapons systems is another deal entirely ofcourse, and I fully expect these to be partly fantasy as making these "full real" could actually endanger pilots. The FM though, makes no sense.

Hi Archaic,

 

There are no such faults. It simply changes the AoA and AoA rate limits.

 

Thanks

Correct in you won't get FLCS faults but if the Stores Config switch isn't in the correct position for the current aircraft config you WILL get the Stores Config caution light.

Hello, I'm not so sure about that. We have a lot of excellent FM charts/data on the Viper and they all match very, very well. We've also have had multiple F-16 pilots fly our Viper and they felt it be quite accurate. If there is a specific area of the FM that you can point to with evidence of it being off, that would certainly be useful. Such generalizations are not very helpful I'm afraid.

 

Thanks

More testing is required to come with exact figures, but atm a completely clean F-16C is unable to sustain the same load factors as a completely clean F-15C in DCS. Hence the F-15 is beating it with ease in ACM ingame atm.

As pr. the EM charts I'm sure you guys also have available, but that I can't directly reference as pr. forum rules, this really shouldn't be the case. Infact the F-16 should beat the F-15 in sustainable load factor at basically any speed from SL and up to 35 kft.

I'm loving the F-16 so far. Congratulations to ED for producing such a great model in such a short time. Thank you.

HB, We have partnerships we must honor, and if those partnerships require certain systems or FMs be tweaked, then that is what we do, I doubt anyone short of an actual F/A-18 pilot would notice, and in their case, they probably get it. Thanks.

Why an FM would need to be tweaked is what triggers me, as getting an FM right can in no way endanger the real pilots. So if a partnership is truly requiring this then they are honestly being non-sensical.

I mean can you honestly imagine a foreign intelligence service be like: "Oh look the old soon to be retired F/A-18 can fly at 5 degree higher AoA than we expected, this is a game changer!" I can't...

Hi. If you have something from a public source the contricts our FM data, please feel free to PM me. At this point though, I have yet to see anything that does this.

 

Thanks

Ok, will do that.

Loving it and pleasantly surprised at frame rates in VR! Seems like one of the more complete modules on EA launch day. Well done ED!

I've read thousands of FM posts like these over the years. In the end people will end up having brain aneurysms and / or heart attacks trying to make a sim fly how they "think" a sim should fly.

Life is more enjoyable if you just learn to fly the sim (even if the FM changes over time) rather than fight the sim.

Unless you're an actual fighter pilot, you're never going to know the difference anyway.

We don't question what they want to protect and what they don't not our place to tell them what they should and shouldn't worry about. Also on the same point, you probably are not going to notice that 5 degrees when you are enjoying the sim, if your whole time is spent trying to compare them to papers you found on the net, then maybe you will get upset, but in the grand scheme of things, nobody is going to sweat it, if it was too restricted, we wouldnt bother producing a module.

No, and I don't blame you either, you are bound as a company ofcourse, it's just a really shocking thing to learn for a simmer who always believed that atleast the FM was as true to life as possible and that no deliberate fudging with the actual flying characteristics of the aircraft is carried out.

As for what I care most about, it's that the real life performance figures are met, that is acceleration, climb rate, top speed, STR & ITR etc.. If they are all accurate as pr. the available charts, then I'm generally good. So no, 5 deg extra max AoA wouldn't bother me if everything else is correct perhaps, the problem is I DON'T necessarily KNOW what part of the FM is deliberately wrong, and this thought ruins the immersion for me, i.e. I am no longer flying an accurate representation of the real thing, I am instead flying the "safe to know" version, yay how exciting -.-

Again though, not a criticism of you, but instead of your licensee partners.