F/A-18 vs F-16 Turn rate?

1 minute ago, karasawa said:

Boy you are focusing on the peak turn rate and ignoring again the turn rate error below mach 0.5...

As I said before, the peak turn rate alone is misleading.

I know. We had that discussion already. I'm kinda tired of re-hashing it. We're on the same page. No need to convince me of anything.

Turn rate, energy bleed, onset and AOA

We only have the discussion here because the F16 and the F18 are the most popular aircraft right now. And because they are still being developed. We could have the same discussion about F15 vs F18.

I like that we have the possibilty to test aircraft in EA before they get pushed to stable version, but I dont like how long it takes to address obvious issues. Until then we just can hope that ED will be annoyed by so many threads talking about the same thing, that they will speed up the development process. But I doubt it

7 часов назад, karasawa сказал:

A quick check on the flight manual:

Condition: 22000lbs total weight (9990kg), clean, speed = 513km/h

Real world F-16C-50 sustains 19.5deg/sec at sea level, and 16.5deg/sec at 5000feet (1524m). By linear interpolation, it should sustain 17.53deg/sec at 1000m.

https://dcs.silver.ru/66-831

However the DCS F-16C sustains only 15.5deg/sec at 1000m.

 

Here data for altitude 50m. For speed 510km/h 18.667 deg/sec

F-16C_50.xlsx

1 hour ago, totmacher said:

Here data for altitude 50m. For speed 510km/h 18.667 deg/sec

 

 

F-16C_50.xlsx 12.83 kB · 1 download

At 620 knots, you're getting 20 degrees per second?  

Also, what is turn time?

9 минут назад, Mover сказал:

At 620 knots, you're getting 20 degrees per second?  

 

Also, what is turn time?

No? at 620 km/h

turn time is time in secound of full circle

Just now, totmacher said:

No? at 620 km/h

 

turn time is time in secound of full circle

Why are you using kilometers for US aircraft?

So, 17,845  = how many seconds?

And where is G on this chart?

11 минут назад, Mover сказал:

 

Why are you using kilometers for US aircraft?

 

So, 17,845  = how many seconds?

And where is G on this chart?

Because data of ALL planes are collect in km/h

So 17,845 equal 17,845 seconds 

27 minutes ago, totmacher said:

Because data of ALL planes are collect in km/h

 

So 17,845 equal 17,845 seconds 

USA uses different number format

, is used to divide triples of digits, and . to divide whole numbers from decimal part.

He probably reads it as 17845 seconds.

5 минут назад, Youda сказал:

USA uses different number format

, is used to divide triples of digits, and . to divide whole numbers from decimal part.

He probably reads it as 17845 seconds.

Opps, sorry . Russian version of Excel used , insted . So turn time at 620km/h of full circle = 17.845 seconds = 360/"turn rate"

1 hour ago, totmacher said:

Because data of ALL planes are collect in km/h

 

So 17,845 equal 17,845 seconds 

Why?

Because then it's easier to compare performance of US and Russian planes.

And European physical units are of course superior to Imperial ones

19 минут назад, Mover сказал:

Why?

Why exactly what?
"Turn data" for All airplanes are collect for site https://dcs.silver.ru/  with many russian planes. On russian planes for measeure speed used only km/h. It's very comfortably

let's see:

car speed: km/h

airplane speed: km/h

space rocket speed: km/h

let's see in USA:

car speed: mph

airplane speed: kts

space rocket speed: km/h

But on site you may select desired speed type kts, mach, km/h

1 minute ago, totmacher said:

Why exactly what?
"Turn data" for All airplanes are collect for site https://dcs.silver.ru/  with many russian planes. On russian planes for measeure speed used only km/h. It's very comfortably

 

let's see:

car speed: km/h

airplane speed: km/h

space rocket speed: km/h

 

let's see in USA:

car speed: mph

airplane speed: kts

space rocket speed: km/h

 

But on site you may select desired speed type kts, mach, km/h

 

Every country in the world except the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans use knots and feet for aviation.  The jets you are comparing use knots and feet.

The info out there to compare to the real world (which is what you're after, right?) are in knots and feet.  If you want to compare apples to apples, use knots and feet as designed.

You also need to know the Gs to accurately assess whether the data is correct.

13 минут назад, Mover сказал:

Every country in the world except the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans use knots and feet for aviation.  The jets you are comparing use knots and feet.

 

The info out there to compare to the real world (which is what you're after, right?) are in knots and feet.  If you want to compare apples to apples, use knots and feet as designed.

I'am from one of these countries and we are use for compare "km/h" and "meters".

16 минут назад, Mover сказал:

You also need to know the Gs to accurately assess whether the data is correct.

G = ny  / cos(aoa)

ny - colum in the table  - shows g in status bar in the game

4 hours ago, totmacher said:

Here data for altitude 50m. For speed 510km/h 18.667 deg/sec

 

 

F-16C_50.xlsx 12.83 kB · 4 downloads

So the DCS viper is still 1deg/sec lower than the manual, at least at this speed.

I wonder if anyone has made the same test at 10000 feet.

5 часов назад, karasawa сказал:

So the DCS viper is still 1deg/sec lower than the manual, at least at this speed.

 

Here data for speeds 400km/h to 850km/h. 850kmh is equal ~0.7mach and with~9G

Turn rate on this speed is 21.631 deg/sec

Also attaching TacView file for this speed for check that data is correct.

F-16C_50.xlsx Tacview-F-16C_50.zip.acmi

17 hours ago, totmacher said:

Here data for speeds 400km/h to 850km/h. 850kmh is equal ~0.7mach and with~9G

Turn rate on this speed is 21.631 deg/sec

Also attaching TacView file for this speed for check that data is correct.

 

F-16C_50.xlsx 13.86 kB · 0 downloads Tacview-F-16C_50.zip.acmi 78.29 kB · 0 downloads

Thanks. we can see clearly that below Mach 0.5 there is a 0.5-1deg/sec error compared to the manual. That is a problem since day one on release. I assume that is still an issue in version 2.7 since nothing has been changed.

It feels so strange that ED can just copy-paste published drag polar to achieve identical performance compared to the manual. Either ED is lazy as hell or there's not enough engineers working on this project. Not all users are patient to wait. Some DCS players were young during LOMAC era but they are entering their 30s or even 40s and are busy dealing with work/home affaires/mid-life crisis. The player base is shrinking over time.  

Its a work in progress...been reiterating that for a bit now. The hornets still WIP too, so fairly certain that these tweaks will be implemented fairly soon since the hornet is almost finished.

5 hours ago, karasawa said:

It feels so strange that ED can just copy-paste published drag polar to achieve identical performance compared to the manual. Either ED is lazy as hell or there's not enough engineers working on this project. Not all users are patient to wait. 

 

Food for thoughts:

a) You are asked to provide trackfiles for every defect, cutting down cost on recreating it on ED's side.

b) It is my observation that issues are claimed to be "as intended" or "correct" if they aren't currently on the agenda to be discussed/acknowledged/picked up. Some time later (sometimes years, like with the AIM120) there will be a heureka moment and then everyone was right all along and things move.

You could take advice from the movie Wargames: "The winning move is not to play". But then again, that's missing out on what there is. It is how it is. And if all, that's very poetic for a company with russian developers.

6 hours ago, deadpool said:

b) It is my observation that issues are claimed to be "as intended" or "correct" if they aren't currently on the agenda to be discussed/acknowledged/picked up. Some time later (sometimes years, like with the AIM120) there will be a heureka moment and then everyone was right all along and things move.

Unfortunatelly this seems to be a standard in this industry.

Some time ago i reported a bug regarding F9F-8 Cougar in War Thunder. It was closed with anwer that my claims are unfounded and i'm wrong. 2 years later it was sudenly fixed and rather without even mentioning it in the change log.

6 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Its a work in progress...been reiterating that for a bit now. The hornets still WIP too, so fairly certain that these tweaks will be implemented fairly soon since the hornet is almost finished.

I'm not sure I completely agree. Describing the DCS F-16 as WIP would imply that there's actual progress being made... I have bug reports I posted over a year ago, pretty much just after EA release that would probably take about 92 seconds for an 70 IQ programmer to fix. But ED doesn't care. Instead we get new shiny weapons that are broken beyond comprehension months after their release.  Whoop-diddely-doo.

I have already accept defeat. I gave them my money, and they bamboozled me. I don't even bother reporting bugs anymore, like what's the point? F-16 is basically abandonware and it's not like it's gonna get fixed in the foreseeable future.

6 hours ago, WHOGX5 said:

I'm not sure I completely agree. Describing the DCS F-16 as WIP would imply that there's actual progress being made... I have bug reports I posted over a year ago, pretty much just after EA release that would probably take about 92 seconds for an 70 IQ programmer to fix. But ED doesn't care. Instead we get new shiny weapons that are broken beyond comprehension months after their release.  Whoop-diddely-doo.

 

I have already accept defeat. I gave them my money, and they bamboozled me. I don't even bother reporting bugs anymore, like what's the point? F-16 is basically abandonware and it's not like it's gonna get fixed in the foreseeable future.

I agree, we still have bugs that have been forgotten since LOMAC was a thing. But from what Ive experienced over the last 20 some odd years of playing ED stuff, they take great care with their pet projects with at least 90% of the effort being positive. Be patient.

vor 8 Stunden schrieb WHOGX5:

I'm not sure I completely agree. Describing the DCS F-16 as WIP would imply that there's actual progress being made... I have bug reports I posted over a year ago, pretty much just after EA release that would probably take about 92 seconds for an 70 IQ programmer to fix. But ED doesn't care. Instead we get new shiny weapons that are broken beyond comprehension months after their release.  Whoop-diddely-doo.

 

I have already accept defeat. I gave them my money, and they bamboozled me. I don't even bother reporting bugs anymore, like what's the point? F-16 is basically abandonware and it's not like it's gonna get fixed in the foreseeable future.

I can understand your frustration because I feel the same frustration looking at the progress, but ED commited themselves to the F-16 just a few hours ago in the facebook group. And the development isn't stopped, it is just paused.
I'm pretty sure it is not abandoned, althought it might feel this way right now.