DCS: F-16C Viper Roadmap

[feipan]

It's been a rather high priority for two years now

[SCPanda]

On 9/13/2021 at 9:06 PM, Hummingbird said:

Small question: Is the increased G-tolerance afforded by the F-16's seat angle & positive pressure oxygen mask planned to be represented at any point?

 

Noticed it wasn't on the roadmap, so was curious wether you (devs) actually consider it an issue?

 

I hope they can get it right. Right now G-tolerance in DCS is still ridiculously low. Viper pilots also should also be able to sustain more Gs in a longer period of time. 

Edited September 16, 2021 by SCPanda

[Spurts]

On 9/13/2021 at 9:06 AM, Hummingbird said:

Small question: Is the increased G-tolerance afforded by the F-16's seat angle & positive pressure oxygen mask planned to be represented at any point?

 

Noticed it wasn't on the roadmap, so was curious wether you (devs) actually consider it an issue?

 

I opened a thread about that in the Wishlist and the Devs never said anything.  I'm sure the PP O2 mask is not unique to the Viper, but the reclined seat is and it SHOULD be modeled.  The F-16 was the first plane designed from the outset to FIGHT at 9G, not just be capable of it.  

[Hummingbird]

Considering the silence it's probably a no. A shame if the aim is realism. 

[Dannyvandelft]

Just curious how far away the sniper pod is. Two weeks? Or "two weeks"
 
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
 

[Dragon1-1]

Well, we're not getting another update (sans hotfixes) for another month, so more likely the latter, or 3-4 weeks, so to speak.  

[Harry.R]

On 9/15/2021 at 3:55 PM, Spurts said:

I opened a thread about that in the Wishlist and the Devs never said anything.  I'm sure the PP O2 mask is not unique to the Viper, but the reclined seat is and it SHOULD be modeled.  The F-16 was the first plane designed from the outset to FIGHT at 9G, not just be capable of it.  

Problem is the soft squishy human isn't always as G tolerant as the 9G airframe, see F16 GLOC videos. Physiologically the seat angle means the head/legs are closer to the heart, PBG mentioned elsewhere isn't the be all and end all, several F16 operators don't fly PBG/pressure vests.

[Wizard_03]

Certainly shouldn't be able to take 13G excursions like you can in other modules and be fine. The Tomcat driver in this game is apparently an Olympian Astronaut.  

 

IMO G tolerance needs to be reworked for the whole game. 

[SCPanda]

On 9/17/2021 at 11:56 PM, Hummingbird said:

Considering the silence it's probably a no. A shame if the aim is realism. 

Yep, what a shame. 

 

I mean if an C-130 pilot can handle 9Gs for 10 times without GLOC and blacking out, I don't know why our DCS virtual pilot can't? Is ED trying to insult all our armchair pilots lol? Just kidding.

 

Remember the Viper pilot in the front seat did this as well, just in case anyone forgot. Also the Viper pilot sounds super relaxed in the video, he sounds like he was taking a friend in his sports car for a Sunday drive. Meanwhile in DCS, hits 9 G, G-LOC and black out... What a joke...

 

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by SCPanda

[SandMartin]

Okay, what about the sea level speed ?
Why does the F-16 fly faster (850 knots in the game) than the same F-15 (820 knots), although the F-15 has more thrust-to-weight ratio with a minimum amount of fuel? Empty F-15C have 1.70 t/w ratio while empty F-16 blk 50 have 1.56 

After all, all the charts on the Internet say that the F-16 should not fly faster than 795 knots at sea level.

Edited September 23, 2021 by SandMartin

[Snappy]

22 minutes ago, SandMartin said:

Okay, what about the sea level speed ?
Why does the F-16 fly faster (850 knots in the game) than the same F-15 (820 knots), although the F-15 has more thrust-to-weight ratio with a minimum amount of fuel?

 

There might differences in other areas  ,like different drag , different engine  inlet construction etc.. 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Snappy

[TobiasA]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb SandMartin:

Okay, what about the sea level speed ?
Why does the F-16 fly faster (850 knots in the game) than the same F-15 (820 knots), although the F-15 has more thrust-to-weight ratio with a minimum amount of fuel? Empty F-15C have 1.70 t/w ratio while empty F-16 blk 50 have 1.56 

After all, all the charts on the Internet say that the F-16 should not fly faster than 795 knots at sea level.

 

Speed has nothing to do with the T/W ratio, only with drag and thrust curves. 

However the drag is a little off currently as it seems. 

The FM is being worked on, we should wait for the rework. 

[Spurts]

9 hours ago, SandMartin said:

 

After all, all the charts on the Internet say that the F-16 should not fly faster than 795 knots at sea level.

 

You might want to re-read those charts.  a 400fps Ps at 1.2M says otherwise.  800KCAS was a placard limit and a design point, not a thrust-drag limit.

[Versor]

Some about 9G in Viper.

 

[Versor]

Gentlemens, watch out for installed mods. A colleague installed a sound mod for the Viper some time ago and it turned out that his Viper does not reach the speed it should. After uninstalling additional mods, everything returned to normal situation.

[Hummingbird]

On 9/24/2021 at 6:37 PM, Versor said:

Some about 9G in Viper.

 

 

9.4 G's... would love it if the DCS F-16 would do that...

 

FLCS logic should allow for 9.3 G sustained, so hopefully this real life capability is reflected with the next update to the ITR & G-onset part of the DCS F-16 FM.

[Delareon]

On 10/6/2021 at 11:21 AM, Hummingbird said:

 

9.4 G's... would love it if the DCS F-16 would do that...

 

FLCS logic should allow for 9.3 G sustained, so hopefully this real life capability is reflected with the next update to the ITR & G-onset part of the DCS F-16 FM.

 

That would be cool if the Pilot doesnt Black out long before that....

[Hummingbird]

2 hours ago, Delareon said:

 

That would be cool if the Pilot doesnt Black out long before that....

 

Indeed it would, ED is being completely silent on the matter though, which if we're being pessimistic could mean they don't intend to model this real life advantage.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Hummingbird

[Steel Jaw]

On 8/12/2021 at 8:00 PM, FoxOne007 said:

This sounds a bit fishy. You can always say/quote the source. 

 

The source is FalconBMS.

[SCPanda]

4 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

 

Indeed it would, ED is being completely silent on the matter though, which if we're being pessimistic could mean they don't intend to model this real life advantage.

 

Yeah, I also don't quite understand their attitude towards the incorrect G effects in DCS. It seems to me it's not that hard to change (I don't know any coding so I could be wrong about this). Are they just not convinced? too lazy? or too difficult to implement? 

 

Except for being unable to sustain 9Gs for longer period of time, another thing wrong about the G effects in DCS is that you can pull 8Gs forever in a rate fight, which is unrealistic. No pilots in the world will be able to sustain 8Gs forever. It's ironic that our DCS virtual pilot is some superhuman that can sustain 8Gs forever but once reaches 9G, he decides to quit. 

 

The correct and realistic G effect should be allowing the pilot to sustain certain amount of Gs for certain amount of time. Like 8Gs for 30 seconds maybe, 9Gs for 15 seconds. 

[Versor]

Someone from ED wrote that we can send some movies with Viper sounds to him, but I forgot who it was. Sounds of the air during the turn are especially great.

 

[irq11]

2 hours ago, Versor said:

Someone from ED wrote that we can send some movies with Viper sounds to him, but I forgot who it was. Sounds of the air during the turn are especially great.

 

it seems to be better in turns performance (ITR) that our F16 of DCS...

[Bricux]

Nice video of Polish F-16 firing Maverick, in case that ED Crew want to upgrade missile backfire

Edited October 11, 2021 by Bricux

[EggReckerBlyat]

On 7/31/2021 at 11:51 PM, Bagpipe said:

Ahh right I see. Yeah looking again at my ultra-accurate official source (Wikipedia again ) about the CCIP program would seem like that is correct though I am now curious about the radar due to this part;

 

" Northrop Grumman was awarded a contract in early 2004 to develop an M5+ upgrade kit to update the AN/APG-68(V)5 radars on the Block 40/42/50/52 Falcons to the AN/APG-68(V)9 standard; upgrading of Block 40/42 aircraft began in 2007 and is to become operational on the Block 50/52 aircraft by 2010."

 

So do we have a 2007 block 50/52 with the CCIP upgrade but awaiting the radar upgrade or do we have a 2010 block 50/52 CCIP? Not sure what differences the newer radar system would make in DCS though? 

 

Also, with the CCIP program standardizing the blocks, did the old 40/42 blocks become known as 50/52's after the upgrade or were they still referred to by their original block numbers?  

 

Also also, it would be good of ED to list it on the modules page exactly what timeframe their modules represent. Just for ease of reference if anything. 

 

Actually the thing is the finances needed for it, some of the CCIP upgraded F-16's have different specifications, most noticably the 2007 USAF and Air National Guard's F-16's (not every one of them but most of those) lack the V (9) radar, which increases the range compared to the V (7). For example the ones that Turkey and Greece purchased has the V (9) version, with some additional changes made in other areas of the aircraft of the Greek version.

[Versor]

Something has to change. The video in 2:30 shows that the F-18 is not as maneuverable at low speeds and cannot turn back on the spot, as it is in the DCS.

The F-16 is not that poorly maneuverable at low speeds. I can't operate my Viper nose like that at low speeds.

Overall, it seems to me that the F-18 too quickly recovering his low speed. The F-16 accelerates from low speeds as if it had half the available thrust.

What you think guys.