First impressions of the Viper EA

[ShalashakaDS]

Launching an F-16 C without A-G radar or mavs is like launching the A-10 without...mavs. Kinda feel like I got a prototype here.

 

Thats funny, i may be wrong here, but IIRC, they actualy released the beta a-10c without mavs :D, also, i dont see how anyone would be surprised since the last ED module released was the F-18, and that was by far the most barebones of the releases so far, at least the F-16 is on the same level of the F-18 right now, very enjoyable to fly around.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Pros:

 

- Fuel consumption is very good

- Incredible maneuverability. Make turns that Hornet can only dream of.

 

Cons:

 

- Where is the speed (engine power) ? Very disappointed. Hornet fly faster.

- Bubble canopy is very confusing

- Radar is mediocre

 

Conclusion:

 

- Need a lot of 'get used to'

 

The fuel burn seems to be way off, at present. It should be quite a bit greater.

 

As for speed, what altitudes and configuration are you using? That greatly impacts speed.

[Hummingbird]

Guys I can't show exactly what is off due to forum rule 1.13, however I can tell you that the Viper should be outturning the F-15C at any speed up until the 9 G limit is reached, and by a noticable margin (both aircraft clean btw), however ingame the reverse is true.

 

To give you an example at a random speed, at SL the real life clean Blk.50 Viper will sustain a load factor of ~7.5 G's @ 0.6 Mach where'as the clean F-15C will sustain ~6.9 G's at the same speed. That's a difference of over half a G in sustainable load factor at that particular speed, a difference which from the cockpit would manifest itself as very noticable in a turning fight between these two aircraft, i.e. you'd quickly be seeing yourself gaining on an opponent with such a difference.

 

Yet ingame the F-16 is thuroughly trashed by the F-15 in any form of ACM, infact it's thuroughly thrashed by every single of the other teen fighters as well as the Mirage, MiG29 & Su27, we tested them all. Quite a shocker when according to the real life perfoemance charts it (F16) should be the one doing the thrashing.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Hummingbird

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Really? I thought the F-16 had quite better range than the F/A-18C?

 

Oh, this isn't in comparison to the F/A-18C, this is going off of the F-16's burn charts.

 

Thread about it here https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251035

 

Of course, I could be reading this wrong, I've got little experience with such high performance aircraft IRL.

Edited October 4, 2019 by NineLine
Removed 1.16

[NineLine]

Viper is being outrated by the F-18 and the F-14 at the moment (which it certainly would not be in real life). If you want it I can produce as many trackfiles as you like which prove that. Maybe the F-16s flight model is spot on. If that is the case the F-18 and the F-14 are in a desperate need for a FM rework. Also the drag feels like it is way too small (as in the F-18 ). Im sure in real life a 9G 550kts IAS turn on the deck would slow down the plane a lot more than it currently does.

 

Of course, if you feel there is an issue, you should report in the bug section with all the required information. We can't speak much for the F-14, but if you have the info to support what you are saying, and fly good tracks we can have a look.

[Sceptre]

I am loving it so far! I had an audible "wow" when I first flew, and it can only get better from here

[aileron]

Wonderful. Thanks ED. :)

 

[MAXsenna]

I've tried it out for 5 hours so far and I like it!

 

 

 

Cockpit and external model looks really good and it seems like it has a lot more range than the F/A-18C.

 

 

 

I hope we get external lights soon, so we can use it at night though.

 

 

 

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the title music either, I really like it.

LOL! Will have to turn music on then. Didn't know different modules had different music.

Well, you learn something every day.

Thanks!

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[Emmy]

Never thought I’d get to fly a Viper in the DCS environment.

 

Thank You ED for proving me wrong.

[Hummingbird]

Of course, if you feel there is an issue, you should report in the bug section with all the required information. We can't speak much for the F-14, but if you have the info to support what you are saying, and fly good tracks we can have a look.

 

The other modules are performing as they should in accordance with available EM charts (-14,-15, Su27, Mirage etc) , checked and double checked that (it's what I mainly concern myself with in DCS, flight testing, I'd say 50% of the time), so the problem lies with the DCS F-16.

[Grundar]

Ouch $124 AUD. That said, very much looking forward to flying the viper, always loved this aircraft.

 

As for FM performance and what not, there are simply things they cannot put into the game due to contractual obligations. While I'm sure there are many foreign intelligence agencies who would love to spend $100 and get the super accurate low down on the tech and train all their pilots up against it, it's not happening.

 

Didn't Wags used to work for the CIA? I'm pretty sure he knows the value of information, and something seemingly minor can have big consequences.

[Hummingbird]

Ouch $124 AUD. That said, very much looking forward to flying the viper, always loved this aircraft.

 

As for FM performance and what not, there are simply things they cannot put into the game due to contractual obligations. While I'm sure there are many foreign intelligence agencies who would love to spend $100 and get the super accurate low down on the tech and train all their pilots up against it, it's not happening.

 

Didn't Wags used to work for the CIA? I'm pretty sure he knows the value of information, and something seemingly minor can have big consequences.

 

Sorry but anything any even remotely capable foreign intelligence agency would want to know about the flight performance of the teen fighters they would've already known about far before the first manual ever hit the interwebs. Today a bit of google search will reveal original detailed performance charts available for most 4th gen jets, East & West, incl. all the teen fighters. So that theory simply doesn't hold any water.

 

What continues to be classified, and logically so, is some details regarding the weapons systems. But airframe flight characterics & performance is all publically available, so you would achieve absolutely nothing by deliberatly fudging this in your sim.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Hummingbird

[modda]

I did not take the cockpit yet, but it has only 2 Training Missions, Cold Start and Take Off.

I expected at least F-14 first release quality.

Very disappointed.

 

Hi

 

I found the youtube tutorials from Wags along with the Instant Action missions very helpful to get started. If you also own PG and/or NTTR there are even more situations to choose from.

 

PS Loving the new toy, great work ED!

 

Modda

[cronustr75]

I'm in DCS for over 3 years and at this time I'm at maybe 95% of F-18. %100 of F-5E and %30 of F-14B, %70 pf Viggen, %80 of Mirage2K.

 

I also bought F-16 Fighting Falcon, that's what we call it in Turkey.

 

At the last 3-4 weeks I've been flying with F-5E and after switching to F-16. All I can say is that it feels "feellessness", it doesnt feel like this at F-14B or Viggen.

 

Modern jets are like "simulations" :)

 

But I love it all the way, thats "our" jet...

[104th_Money]

Im happy that its been released but after flying it I am not particularly thrilled with the flight model or the G tolerance. Based off hud videos I have watched, the performance is seems somewhat subpar. The correlating g and airspeed do not match in sim. Sustained G and G-tolerance seems almost the same as the Hornet and Tomcat. Airspeed bleed at very low fuel levels

makes me feel like this is a Hornet without the extra AOA. I understand this is EA and what comes with that but I was expecting it to perform a bit better at release.

[cptmrcalm]

Dammit. I was briefly on last night to finally get my VR zoom working!

Must have missed the F16 module. (didn’t look for it - didn’t notice it)

Bought it last week/week before.

I am a loooooooong time BMS flyer of the F16. Was always happy with it over there. Was confident that the team had produced the FM as accurately as they could. (the real pilots inputs and the data being shown on the forums)

Will be great to see how the F16 "feels" with this sim and how it compares. If it "feels" the same as it did with BMS then I am one happy chappy.

(came to DCS for the VR. But the lack of a Dynamic Campaign will keep me in both sims)

I am by no means an expert. Nor have any qualification in advanced physics. But if it "feels" right - then all good for me.

A comment made early in this thread had me thinking about people’s opinions on how it “feels”.

Wonder if its just getting used to the F16 Characteristics?

F16 sustained high speed turns and the ability to pick up speed once you lose it. The f18s slow speed agility but inability to get the speed back up.

One of the things I have learned from the "fighter pilot podcast" (great guys Vincent and sunshine) is that the pilots who fly the F16, Hornet, F14, Typhoon etc - all talk about avoiding flying in the enemy's strengths and keeping to your own.

That said – we need people like hummingbird to keep pushing the case to help get it right if that’s what it takes. Even if it results in confirming the f16 is already correct.

After all -we all want the most accurate FM don’t we!

[TomCatGoad]

Sadly it feels with this community you can't win. 50% will moan if you haven't released it yet. 50% will moan if you release and it's not gold plated and perfect. Sadly the loudest 10% want both.

Edited October 4, 2019 by TomCatGoad

[chaos]

The other modules are performing as they should in accordance with available EM charts (-14,-15, Su27, Mirage etc) , checked and double checked that (it's what I mainly concern myself with in DCS, flight testing, I'd say 50% of the time), so the problem lies with the DCS F-16.

 

Ah, right up my alley!. I too like to performance test my modules....

 

Make sure you have all conditions correct including Temp. Press. Drag Index, Altitude, Weight etc.

 

I’ve done 2 quick tests and they line up well with performance data in my manual. I did an acceleration test from 200 to 600 in max AB and a Turn Performance test (all at 5000’ on a standard day). Performance is very close to what I can find in the manual... and this is done quick and dirty. I’m happy with what I’ve found so far.

[Yo-Yo]

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.

 

Yes, KGB knew about it for many-many years ago and what the Soviet guides for pilots says

 

3.2 Сравнительная оценка маневренных возможностей истребителя Су-27 и тактического истребителя F-16 Учитывая, что подход к анализу и расчетам, показанный в разделе 3.1, может быть использован каждым читателем самостоятельно, в дальнейшем изложение пунктов 3.2 и 3.3 ведется более кратко, чем пункта 3.1.1. Сравнение располагаемых нормальных перегрузок nyр. Из графика (рис. 10) следует:– самолет Су-27 на высотах 200–7000 м имеет превосходство над F-16 по величине nyр до 25% при маневрировании с допустимыми углами атаки, что соответствует для Су-27 приборным скоростям 600–300 км/ч. В этом случае nyр= 1.25; – при скоростях по прибору более 700 км/ч на указанных высотах Су-27 и F-16 имеют равные возможности при маневрировании по границе прочности самолетов, так как nэyмакс Су-27 = nэyмакс F-16. Здесь nyр=nэyмакс= 1. Превосходство Су-27 по nyр реализуется, например, в большей угловой скорости форсированного разворота (рис. 17). Так, у земли !фор6=с, а на высоте7000 м !фор24=с.2. Сравнение предельных по тяге нормальных перегрузок nyпр.Из графика (рис. 11) следует:– наибольшие nyпру самолетов Су-27 и F-16 соответствуют на всех высотах истинным скоростям полеты 1000–1100 км/ч (как и у F-15).Однако наибольшие угловые скорости установившихся разворотов и виражей реализуются на скоростях 950–1050 км/ч (рис. 15, 16). Так, на высоте 3000 м они составляют для Су-27 !уст.макс.17=с, а для F-16 !уст.макс.14=с, т.е. !уст= 3=с в пользу Су-27;– во всем диапазоне высот и скоростей полета самолет Су-27 имеет преимущество над F-16 по nyпрдо 20%, т.е.nyпр= 1;2. Это обеспечивает преимущество над F-16 при маневрировании без потери энергии по радиусам, угловым скоростям и времени выполнения маневра.Преимущество по!уст составляет 13=с (см. рис. 17);– на малых и средних высотах ограничения по прочности не позволяют реализовать высокие значения ny при, как следствие, угловых скоростей установившегося разворота самолета Су-27 (рис. 11). Так, на высоте 200 м и скорости 1050 км/ч потенциальные возможности по развороту 22=с, а реализуются только 15=с при nэyмакс= 7;5. Потери F-16 существенно меньше. На высоте 3000 м при той же скорости потенциальные возможности Су-27 примерно 17=с, а реализуются 15=с, что уменьшает !устпо отношению к F-16 с2=с до0;5=с.3.

Сравнение по энергетической скороподъемностиVy. Из графиков (рис. 12, 13, 14) следует:– наибольшая энергетическая скороподъемность самолетов Су-27 и F-16 на высотах 200–7000 м соответствует истинным скоростям 1000–1100 км/ч.Так, на высоте 200 м:Vyмакс Су-27= 300м/с (ny= 1), 290 (ny= 3), 260 (ny= 5);Vyмакс F-16= 220м/с (ny= 1), 220 (ny= 3), 180 (ny= 5);Vy= 85м/с (ny= 1), 70 (ny= 3), 80 (ny= 5);– при маневрировании с большими перегрузками (ny= 5) на высотах 7000 м и скоростях менее 900 км/ч оба самолета теряют накопленный уровень энергии (Hэ=H+V22g), так как энергетическая скороподъемность отрицательная. Так, на скорости 850 км/чVyСу-27=15м/с, аVyF-16=110м/с. При этом существенное преимущество имеет Су-27:Vy=15м/с(110м/с) = +95м/с. Это означает, что при маневрировании в течение 5 с в этих условиях преимущество в Hэ составитHэ= Vyt= 955 = 475м.Следовательно, самолет F-16 теряет энергию быстрее, чем Су-27, если маневрирует с такими же перегрузками и скоростями;– практически во всем рассматриваемом диапазоне высот и скоростей полета наибольшее превосходство Су-27 над F-16 по располагаемой продольной перегрузке равно nxр= 0;25(рис. 18)

 

Sorry, it is in Russian... can not help.

 

The source:

http://airwar.ru/other/bibl/su27mh.html

Edited October 4, 2019 by Yo-Yo

[Wizz]

Sorry but anything any even remotely capable foreign intelligence agency would want to know about the flight performance of the teen fighters they would've already known about far before the first manual ever hit the interwebs. Today a bit of google search will reveal original detailed performance charts available for most 4th gen jets, East & West, incl. all the teen fighters. So that theory simply doesn't hold any water.

 

What continues to be classified, and logically so, is some details regarding the weapons systems. But airframe flight characterics & performance is all publically available, so you would achieve absolutely nothing by deliberatly fudging this in your sim.

 

HB, it sounds like you've never worked for an intelligence community, in particular a foreign collector. I wouldn't over estimate the value of tools like these for use in training opposing force elements; whether they have armfuls of published performance data, it's not quite the same as having contemporary aviators comment that everything is 1:1. Of course certain things are going to be restricted - and for very good reason.

 

ED and Wags - all I can say is wow! This thing is a real beauty, and your dedication to bring this to the community at this stage is magnificent. I'm personally loving the CAS instant action mission with its dynamic threat picture.

 

We truly are in a golden age of flight sims!

[Pikey]

Sadly, I'm unlikely to ever get in a flying F-16C, but this thread is about thoughts of the module, so I'll share them from the point of view of someone that sims and reads a lot and played various sims all the way back to the begining. I will also reference other current module experience. I used default mappings to a warthog.

 

 

You only get a first impression once, thereafter, things become normal expectation.

 

I found the nose was happy to point way off the direction of travel/flight path marker, but it was glued to the AoA indexer, which didn't want to catch up. AoA was freewheeling as if air was thin. There was no "bite" and getting any G or turn rate was way beneath my expectations of what has been described in characteristics that I read about. I couldn't get decent turn rates and could rarely feel the in game G effects.

 

Acceleration was beneath my sim expectations. I fly the Tomcat a lot. Unloading worked but was quite underwhelming. The Afterburner effect seemed like I was missing "top gear". Stripped down, there wasn't a sensation of acceleration, just looking at the airspeed. Couldn't get Ground speed to work, calibrated and true were working. The new options on that require some "eye calibration". Difficult to really get a sense of your speed.

 

Climb rate was good, ballpark with Hornet, great interceptor, extremely fast to start and just goes up and up.

 

Low speed handling is not a pleasant experience, the pattern work I immediately start falling out of the sky on base leg, that will take some getting used to. It's easier and faster to get on speed than the Hornet module and iirc it's not as underpowered or draggy as a Hornet in the pattern when that was first released. There's a weird "unpegging" of the AoA when slow that kind of jolts you forward as if your gear came out, but not the gear. Like a bite at a certain AoA. Probably related to the High alpha I seemingly get stuck in.

 

I couldn't get any rudder authority on aerobraking, probably expected. The brakes are good. The nose is light and picks up on the take off roll, which feels good. The turning circle of the nose gear is good. I couldn't get the module to do a J-turn on the rollout like I can with the Hornet, or blow the tires, which is neither here nor there. I don't recall gear horns or warnings, so the aircraft allowed me to belly land without a noise.

 

There's no damage model, I died twice to a missile and my aircraft remained visibly intact. I'm sure that's just development.

 

I tried air to air, the radar is easy to use but best to wait for some time on that.

 

Comms were odd. Firstly, the squelch is on for the ICS by default so unless you can find that, your ears are blasted. I couldnt get realistic radio working, others have, I suppose im the dumbass there. So no tanking or rearming was attempted other than popping the canopy.

 

 

In VR CV1 Oculus; the radar is ok to see bricks and put "the thing on the thing", but I had to lean in a few times to look at the MFD's. They are clearer right now than the Hornets and a nicer colour and contrast at default but they couldn't be changed in contrast or brightness which is a shame. The background dark blue on the FCR is close to invisible in CV1.

 

Whilst it met my expectations for Day 1 EA DCS module, I was puzzled that the Viper was not some kind of god machine. I don't really like fly by wire, in sims, it's even worse. The way the 'bite' of the AoA is almost ignored means your pitch control is needing to look down to get some kind of feedback. My flight path vector was often sitting below the horizon in order to get the AoA back to something reasonable and I felt oddly disjointed from pitch and AoA in the module, which will take some getting used to. Still much prefer the older flight models with not FBW as they give you more flying hints. I'll be testing this out in ACM soon with direct comparisons.

[Warmbrak]

Ouch $124 AUD. That said, very much looking forward to flying the viper, always loved this aircraft.

 

Fortunately got mine for $ 99.09 AUD :pilotfly:

 

I only tested dogfighting against AI so far: expert SU27, MiG-29 and MiG-21 guns only. SUe was not too bad, 29 was a real hand full, but Fishbed was the worst. For some reason that thing could hold its energy extremely well while I was struggling to get my speed back above 250kts without it getting on my six. I once tried to extend from the outside edge of a level turn and that Fishbed got a pilot kill on me with a short burst less than 15 seconds later.

 

I really need to stick closer to the corner speed! I only wanted to have a quick look at the module, and next thing I know four hours have gone by...

 

Thanks for making such an immersive Viper for us ED - I really look forward to how this one grows!

Edited October 4, 2019 by Warmbrak
Fixed quote bracket

[Dun_Aenghus]

Really enjoyed my first and only flight yesterday and happy to spend a few weeks learning the ropes - radar, TPOD, etc. I'm sure more training missions, content, skins and so on will be added quickly over the next couple of updates. Great job guys, you should be proud of what you've achieved with this given the short development period.

[boedha68]

Thanks ED. I had just one flight, really cutting through the air. Maybe this one can take the mirage out.... :D

[Nightstalker]

Can’t believe people are criticising ED and Wags in particular as soon as the module is released. Look at the quality of scenery we are flying these simulated aircraft in. Who remembers flying in 2 dimensional line drawn simulators and having a blast getting a taste of what the real thing is like. Falcon 3 then falcon 4 took up months of my life and gave me great pleasure. Then along comes DCS and the A10c my god what a transition then the new graphics model gets released. Getting my real world pilots licence was partly due to endless circuits over Bantumi in an A10 not a Cessna 172.it was the real world feel I was getting from a simulator and not paying £200 an hour for the privilege. I’m over the moon I can get my teeth into an F16 which will fly in the DCS world today when I download my pre release copy. Give the guys a break folks, they’ve surpassed themselves getting this module released in the time they’ve had, just like the Hornet is coming along it will only get better. Forget about missions and weapon systems just now let’s just go flying and practising take offs and touch and go landings. I’m a happy customer ED and thanks Wags for the countless academic and enjoyable videos.

 

I second this comment! Well said. I also remember flying my first sims on an Intel 386 and can say without hesitation that I never dreamed we would have what we have now in DCS.