F-16 Axis configuration - discussion and questions

[b0bl00i]

Hi,

 

I've been flying the Viper since initial release so I'm quite experienced in how it flies in the simulator.

However, going between different modules, the VIper feels very sluggish in roll and pitch, and as many other have said, setting a negative roll of around -30 makes the jet feel more nimble. Going over to the Hornet though, the roll rate is a lot quicker and the jet feels much more responsive.

 

One other issue of setting a negative -30 for roll is that Air to air refueling becomes tricky.. How is this intended to work since the majority of people flying it does not have a force sensing stick. The stick I'm flying with is a Virpil T-50 Mongoose and VKB Gladiator MK2 with MCG. No matter the stick, I don't get that direct feeling I get in other jets. Doing quick snap rolls just takes too much stick moment and time.

 

I know that the F-16 FCLS works in combination with the force sensing stick but that does seem to not really translate that well over to regular joysticks and the simulator as such. By design or can it be improved?

 

Will all of this be solved by the updates to the flight model?

 

What are your thoughts on the topic?

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by b0bl00i

[PLUTON]

+1

[Nealius]

I'm having trouble with setting up the axes as well. I run a 20cm extension which, for all other modules (I have everything except the C-101, I-16, and Dora) I leave curves at 0 and the planes handle with amazing precision.

 

The Viper, on the other hand, is sluggish and imprecise. I set -20 on roll and -30 on pitch to get something usable, but it's very....weird. In refueling gains, landing gains, and CATIII it is a total pig. Minor corrections require gross movement of the stick. In CATI, roll is great, but pitch has this weird delay where I pull the stick, pitch starts slowly moving, then suddenly accelerates to 2.5~3G. It's hard to do anything precise. 

Edited July 14, 2021 by Nealius

[Durkin]

I'm just setting up my new virpil controls for the F16 which is also new to me so I would like to get this right to begin with. 

[SCPanda]

I use no curves or deadzones with my Thrustmaster Warthog (side stick setup). I have been doing this since the F-16's release, I have gotten quite used to it (and I only fly the F-16 now because I love this jet). 

 

I don't think it's sluggish. In fact, I think it's pretty responsive and accurate when doing things like dogfighting and formation flying. You have to think F-16's feel as there is a built in curve from the FLCS. People coming form jets like the Hornet and Eagle might need some time to get used to it. But keep in mind Hornet and Eagle have center stick, and Viper has side force sensing stick (and it's the only side stick jet in DCS). Center sticks are longer than side stick so I guess that's why their default curve(0 curve) tend to be more responsive/sensitive, because longer stick IRL means you can get more precise control with it. It's like the Xbox controller joystick extension some players use to get more precise controls for FPS games, because default length is too sensitive and hard to fine tune your aim. When I fly the Hornet and Eagle, I usually use 20-30 curve to tune down the sensitivity since I don't use a extension with my Warthog. 

On 7/14/2021 at 4:35 PM, Nealius said:

I run a 20cm extension which, for all other modules (I have everything except the C-101, I-16, and Dora) I leave curves at 0 and the planes handle with amazing precision.

Maybe try flying the Viper with out 20cm extension and move your joystick to the side stick setup. 

 

Again, curve and joystick setup is a very personal thing. I can understand that some people might think F-16's default sensitivity is a little low compare to other jets, especially those who are new to the F-16. But F-16's stick is pretty unique, and I think ED did a good job with it.

 

If you want to dedicate yourself to the F-16, I would recommend go for a side stick setup with no curves and deadzone(for warthog yes, since you can turn on hardware deadzone in Target, for other sticks you might need a little deadzone). Get used to it and you will love it. For others who only fly the F-16 occasionally and come from jets like the Hornet (or use extensions), maybe some negative curve would be your best choice. 

 

When I save enough money, I will buy a FSSB force sensing base to get a even more authentic feel of the Viper.

Edited July 30, 2021 by SCPanda

[Nealius]

Side vs Center does nothing for respsonsiveness, and is 100% user preference. 

 

Constantly swapping between 20cm extension, unbolting the base, then doing the same in reverse whenever I fly something else is an unreasonable pain in the ass. 

Edited July 30, 2021 by Nealius

[SCPanda]

On 7/30/2021 at 6:48 PM, Nealius said:

Side vs Center does nothing for respsonsiveness, and is 100% user preference. 

 

Constantly swapping between 20cm extension, unbolting the base, then doing the same in reverse whenever I fly something else is an unreasonable pain in the ass. 

 

I don't think you understood my post. Yes, it's true that Side vs Center do not affect responsiveness in game. But IRL, center stick is longer than side stick, which means center stick offers more precise control IRL (). Therefore ED made the default curve of center stick jets in game more responsive, but F-16 with side force sensing stick, they made it less responsive, and this is suppose to give you the most realistic feel of the jet when you play DCS. This is what I meant. 

 

You can do whatever you want and whatever works for you. Center vs side, extension vs no extension, 0 curve vs negative curve, that's your decision to make. Like when I fly the Hornet, I still use a side stick setup with no extension, however, in game I have to add curve to tune down the responsiveness. But flying the Viper with a side stick setup with no extension would be the best option, because that's how the jet is in IRL. 

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by SCPanda

[Nealius]

So to get a flyable jet, the onus is on the user to either have two flight sticks or constantly disassemble their extension (and risk breaking the Warthog gimball)? There should be a menu item enabling side-stick curves vs. normal curves.

[SCPanda]

7 minutes ago, Nealius said:

So to get a flyable jet, the onus is on the user to either have two flight sticks or constantly disassemble their extension (and risk breaking the Warthog gimball)? There should be a menu item enabling side-stick curves vs. normal curves.

I agree. Make it more user friendly. Also F-16 is supposed to be a very responsive jet according to real pilots. But that's in the case of having a force sensing stick, but not every DCS player can afford a FSSB-R3 Lighting... 

Edited August 2, 2021 by SCPanda

[foxit]

On 8/2/2021 at 8:23 PM, SCPanda said:

I agree. Make it more user friendly. Also F-16 is supposed to be a very responsive jet according to real pilots. But that's in the case of having a force sensing stick, but not every DCS player can afford a FSSB-R3 Lighting... 

 

I agree Panda, no curve!!! But don't get too excited about the fssb, the difference is negligible. Cheers

[sungho4022]

 

On 8/2/2021 at 6:15 PM, SCPanda said:

I don't think you understood my post. Yes, it's true that Side vs Center do not affect responsiveness in game. But IRL, center stick is longer than side stick, which means center stick offers more precise control IRL (). Therefore ED made the default curve of center stick jets in game more responsive, but F-16 with side force sensing stick, they made it less responsive, and this is suppose to give you the most realistic feel of the jet when you play DCS. This is what I meant. 

 

You can do whatever you want and whatever works for you. Center vs side, extension vs no extension, 0 curve vs negative curve, that's your decision to make. Like when I fly the Hornet, I still use a side stick setup with no extension, however, in game I have to add curve to tune down the responsiveness. But flying the Viper with a side stick setup with no extension would be the best option, because that's how the jet is in IRL. 

 

 

 

Center stick planes feels more responsive, Not because ED deliberately did it but because they use mechanical linkage that directly translate stick movements to the flight surfaces.  Therefore, planes with no FLCS get more responsiveness whereas planes like F-18 / Mirage 2000 / JF17 (those are the planes with advanced FLCS in real) feels different (less responsive) in DCS. Because FLCS translates pilot's input command and calculate it based on it before it finally sends signals to the flight surfaces.  

 

F-16C has advanced FLCS and the way of it's Side stick control input works is quite different to other airplanes.  Most planes with the center stick have almost directly linked to the flight surfaces. The more you deflect your stick,  the more surfaces move.  The F-16C's Side stick is more of a G commander.  The amount of pull is translated to the willingness of how much G the pilot wants.  and it is the FLight Control Systems that actually decide how much AOA that plane can get to achieve desired G that pilot wants.  Let's say you are turning sea level with two tanks, making right circle with full afterburner and barely making 3G's (230 knots let's say) ,  If you want max AOA in that speed range, pulling 25 lb of pull (which is the maximum force range of F-16 Side stick in real) get the same result of pulling 7 lb of pull whereas planes with direct linkage don't.

So responsiveness has nothing to do with center stick or side stick. Speaking of responsiveness please try flying Falcon BMS F-16.  it's way more responsive near the center where F-16 in ED is quite null.   

 

 

 

Coming back to original topic, Yes there are built-in curvatures on the F-16 in DCS right now, and I do think it needs to be re-worked or at least, revised. 
I am an FSSB R3 user for years and all of my friends who use FSSB R3 have trouble flying F-16C in Formation.   Acrobatic flying in formation is virtually impossible with the current F-16 model.  (Trust me,  members of virtual thunderbirds are not gonna perform their shows with the current F-16 model.) 

 

 

Yet I'm guessing it's the built - in curvature that ED deliberately set,  it could be FLCS issues or something else.  but one thing we do know for sure is, (or at least there are many people out there who are going to agree with this) something is wrong with the response of the F-16.

 

 

 

 

 

  

Edited September 9, 2021 by sungho4022

[SCPanda]

2 hours ago, sungho4022 said:

 

 

Center stick planes feels more responsive, Not because ED deliberately did it but because they use mechanical linkage that directly translate stick movements to the flight surfaces.  Therefore, planes with no FLCS get more responsiveness whereas planes like F-18 / Mirage 2000 / JF17 (those are the planes with advanced FLCS in real) feels different (less responsive) in DCS. Because FLCS translates pilot's input command and calculate it based on it before it finally sends signals to the flight surfaces.  

 

F-16C has advanced FLCS and the way of it's Side stick control input works is quite different to other airplanes.  Most planes with the center stick have almost directly linked to the flight surfaces. The more you deflect your stick,  the more surfaces move.  The F-16C's Side stick is more of a G commander.  The amount of pull is translated to the willingness of how much G the pilot wants.  and it is the FLight Control Systems that actually decide how much AOA that plane can get to achieve desired G that pilot wants.  Let's say you are turning sea level with two tanks, making right circle with full afterburner and barely making 3G's (230 knots let's say) ,  If you want max AOA in that speed range, pulling 25 lb of pull (which is the maximum force range of F-16 Side stick in real) get the same result of pulling 7 lb of pull whereas planes with direct linkage don't.

So responsiveness has nothing to do with center stick or side stick. Speaking of responsiveness please try flying Falcon BMS F-16.  it's way more responsive near the center where F-16 in ED is quite null.   

 

 

 

Coming back to original topic, Yes there are built-in curvatures on the F-16 in DCS right now, and I do think it needs to be re-worked or at least, revised. 
I am an FSSB R3 user for years and all of my friends who use FSSB R3 have trouble flying F-16C in Formation.   Acrobatic flying in formation is virtually impossible with the current F-16 model.  (Trust me,  members of virtual thunderbirds are not gonna perform their shows with the current F-16 model.) 

 

 

Yet I'm guessing it's the built - in curvature that ED deliberately set,  it could be FLCS issues or something else.  but one thing we do know for sure is, (or at least there are many people out there who are going to agree with this) something is wrong with the response of the F-16.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Hey Sungho, are you the Sungho that won Folds of Honor? 

 

Also, I have flown BMS, and yes it is more responsive than our DCS F-16, but I can't say which is more realistic, since I have never flown the real jet. 

 

If the responsiveness of our DCS F-16 is wrong and unrealistic, then we probably need to make a bug report regarding this issue. 

[sungho4022]

Hi SCPanda

 

 

57 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

Hey Sungho, are you the Sungho that won Folds of Honor? 

 

Yes that's me   

 

59 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

Also, I have flown BMS, and yes it is more responsive than our DCS F-16, but I can't say which is more realistic, since I have never flown the real jet. 

 

If the responsiveness of our DCS F-16 is wrong and unrealistic, then we probably need to make a bug report regarding this issue. 

 

This is what the Viper developer have said  (quoting roadmap released by ED Aug.14 2020)

 

"

Following your feedback and careful consideration we are working on the F-16C Viper development roadmap. We continue our push to fix engine and module bugs in addition to core performance improvement measures.

The Viper targeting pod has received many enhancements including cursor zero, improved HOTAS commands and air-to-air mode. Check out the DCS: Viper and Hornet TGP Update.

New features for DCS: F-16C Viper include but are not limited to;

1. Complete the Litening targeting pod

2. AGM-65D/G/H/K/L Maverick

3. Flight model and FLCS tuning

4. HARM Targeting System (HTS)

5. AGM-88C HARM POS and HAS modes

6. Complete Air-to-Air Radar: DTT SAM mode, bullseye, intercept steering cue, ACM Slew, Velocity Search with Range,

7. Landing and takeoff handling tuning

8. Integration of the JHMCS with the HARM Targeting System (HTS), Link 16, AG Mode, and AIFF

9. Sniper XR Targeting Pod

 

 

Judging by the fact that they have said FM and FLCS tuning is on the list,  there is a chance that we might have something that need to be fixed. 

 

I do hope ED soon be working on it.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SCPanda]

22 minutes ago, sungho4022 said:

Hi SCPanda

 

 

 

Yes that's me   

 

 

This is what the Viper developer have said  (quoting roadmap released by ED Aug.14 2020)

 

"

Following your feedback and careful consideration we are working on the F-16C Viper development roadmap. We continue our push to fix engine and module bugs in addition to core performance improvement measures.

 

The Viper targeting pod has received many enhancements including cursor zero, improved HOTAS commands and air-to-air mode. Check out the DCS: Viper and Hornet TGP Update.

 

New features for DCS: F-16C Viper include but are not limited to;

 

1. Complete the Litening targeting pod

2. AGM-65D/G/H/K/L Maverick

3. Flight model and FLCS tuning

4. HARM Targeting System (HTS)

5. AGM-88C HARM POS and HAS modes

6. Complete Air-to-Air Radar: DTT SAM mode, bullseye, intercept steering cue, ACM Slew, Velocity Search with Range,

7. Landing and takeoff handling tuning

8. Integration of the JHMCS with the HARM Targeting System (HTS), Link 16, AG Mode, and AIFF

9. Sniper XR Targeting Pod

 

 

Judging by the fact that they have said FM and FLCS tuning is on the list,  there is a chance that we might have something that need to be fixed. 

 

I do hope ED soon be working on it.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice! 

 

BTW, great flying winning the tournament and beating the AI! You are a legend! 

[SCPanda]

On 8/2/2021 at 6:19 PM, Nealius said:

So to get a flyable jet, the onus is on the user to either have two flight sticks or constantly disassemble their extension (and risk breaking the Warthog gimball)? There should be a menu item enabling side-stick curves vs. normal curves.

 

On 9/1/2021 at 8:09 AM, foxit said:

I agree Panda, no curve!!! But don't get too excited about the fssb, the difference is negligible. Cheers

 

On 7/9/2021 at 3:07 PM, b0bl00i said:

Hi,

 

I've been flying the Viper since initial release so I'm quite experienced in how it flies in the simulator.

However, going between different modules, the VIper feels very sluggish in roll and pitch, and as many other have said, setting a negative roll of around -30 makes the jet feel more nimble. Going over to the Hornet though, the roll rate is a lot quicker and the jet feels much more responsive.

 

One other issue of setting a negative -30 for roll is that Air to air refueling becomes tricky.. How is this intended to work since the majority of people flying it does not have a force sensing stick. The stick I'm flying with is a Virpil T-50 Mongoose and VKB Gladiator MK2 with MCG. No matter the stick, I don't get that direct feeling I get in other jets. Doing quick snap rolls just takes too much stick moment and time.

 

I know that the F-16 FCLS works in combination with the force sensing stick but that does seem to not really translate that well over to regular joysticks and the simulator as such. By design or can it be improved?

 

Will all of this be solved by the updates to the flight model?

 

What are your thoughts on the topic?

 

 

 

 

So an update on this issue. I bought the FSSB R3L force sensing base, and I am using it with the warthog grip. 

 

Even with the force sensing stick, flying with 0 curves, the jet still feels very sluggish in both roll and pitch. Feels like I am flying a 747. I am not even using a high force settings with my FSSB. My max pitch force is 6.25 lbs, and my max roll force is 3.25 lbs (default is 8.5 lbs and 4.33 lbs). In the Mirage however, flying with 0 curves feels much alive. 

 

So I guess this issue is not due to our hardware but how ED simulated F-16's FLCS in DCS. Whether it's correct or not it's debatable. I'm going to try Falcon BMS and see how it feels in the other F-16 sim with a force sensing stick. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

I also recently got myself a FSSB R3L, but I'm using RealSimulator's F-16RH grip since my Warthog (both stick and throttle) died a while back. I  have no problems whatsoever, but it took a lot of tweaking to get the feeling right.

I obviously have less muscle strength than a man, so I spent some time with the force settings to get something that's comfortable for me yet allows me to make small adjustments in different airspeed regions without the jet "jittering" so to speak: I use 6.25 lbs for pitch, 2.95 for roll, with NASA set to 140% for both. I left FSC at the default 4:4 with RCA off.

It allows me to do reasonably accurate 4-point rolls clean, while also being just fine in IFR gain and landing gain.

P.S. I also have a Virpil setup, so yes using both is definitely the way to go if you're serious about flying the F-16 while also wanting to fly other aircraft in DCS. Yes it's expensive, but worth it: flying the F-16 using a centre stick with a 20cm extension is a royal pain in the behind (which it should be if the FM is modelled correctly).

[SCPanda]

On 10/9/2021 at 12:00 AM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

I also recently got myself a FSSB R3L, but I'm using RealSimulator's F-16RH grip since my Warthog (both stick and throttle) died a while back. I  have no problems whatsoever, but it took a lot of tweaking to get the feeling right.

I obviously have less muscle strength than a man, so I spent some time with the force settings to get something that's comfortable for me yet allows me to make small adjustments in different airspeed regions without the jet "jittering" so to speak: I use 6.25 lbs for pitch, 2.95 for roll, with NASA set to 140% for both. I left FSC at the default 4:4 with RCA off.

It allows me to do reasonably accurate 4-point rolls clean, while also being just fine in IFR gain and landing gain.

P.S. I also have a Virpil setup, so yes using both is definitely the way to go if you're serious about flying the F-16 while also wanting to fly other aircraft in DCS. Yes it's expensive, but worth it: flying the F-16 using a centre stick with a 20cm extension is a royal pain in the behind (which it should be if the FM is modelled correctly).

Nice. I downloaded Falcon BMS and tried with the FSSB R3L, there's a big difference in how the jet feels. I can also do accurate 4 point rolls in DCS, but that requires me to input max roll force. In BMS however, the jet feels much alive and I don't need max roll force to fast 4 point rolls. Pitch is also more sensitive in BMS. After all, F-16 feels more like a fighter. In DCS, the jet just feels there's some default curve added to the FLCS, and it's makes the handling of the jet quite bad. 

 

If you have Mirage in DCS, you really should try flying it with your FSSB (no in game curves of course). The handling of the Mirage is just so much better and alive. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

20 hours ago, SCPanda said:

If you have Mirage in DCS, you really should try flying it with your FSSB (no in game curves of course). The handling of the Mirage is just so much better and alive. 

Yes I do, and I already did  It was one of the first things I tried after setting up the R3L. I guess it just comes down to personal preference and what you consider "much better and alive". With abovementioned settings, I find the Mirage too twitchy in roll with the R3L.
The advantage we have in DCS is that we can use the RealSimulator software to adjust force settings if we don't like the default ones.|
I don't have any complaints, with my settings...