https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xAqMnIaFlDt8
And according to the dev response here that unachievable high AoA isn’t a bug
This is exactly what i said but somehow you still got it wrong.
As i said before f-16 can surpress those limits in this game by using full real control and plus some special adjustments.
Sure Gaijin claims there is no official FLCS limits on f-16 in this game but somehow they managed to limit its pull ability in simple control system by just making plane compressing at certain speeds, which is basically equals to flcs treatment.
İf you wanna talk about real life issues that can cause when you pass certain limits, many planes should have to suffer from similiar issues, but somehow they dont even tho they surprass those limits.
So yea in my and many people’s book this is a double standart from gaijin and you, you can deny it of course but nobody will believe since everyone can see whats going with their eyes.
2 Likes
I’m curious, do you genuinely believe an F-16 in real life would stiffen at high speed even with the FLCS G-limiter disabled?
1 Like
I have already explained to you that the MiG-29 does not yet perform as it should, it is still underperforming in nose authority and post-stall and critical AoA regions.
The F-16 vastly overperforms in this area, quit making stuff up. I’ve provided proof for what I’ve said already. Community Bug Reporting System
1 Like
You did not read properly the response;
While FLCS is not fully implemented (we have stabilizing G via IAS and M, some sort of stabilization and damping short period oscillations, but no good AoA limiters and 1G autotrimming) F-16 has higher stability than expected.
Developers don’t want to make these planes suffer from really high amount of instability while FCLS is not implemented, it not only affect full control mode but also brick mouse aiming a lot. The real plane is not allowed to achieve high AoA and prevents all tries to do this, and so this would be not right to allow this in game too.
This report will be closed until FLCS is properly implemented in the future.
1 Like
Yes… the F-16 would limit itself to 20 degrees of AoA pulling > 7G to avoid rapid and unplanned departure from controlled flight. This was established.
1 Like
Thats for the missing FLCS bug, as far as over-performing AoA given the lack of FLCS they said
“full loss of tail control” is not mentioned in the source. It has negative Cnbeta slope (this is right for block 5, other F-16 such as Block 15/20 have increased tailplane area, but this not mean “full loss of tail control”. In game it was made as close as it possible according report
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/570937-f-16a-should-not-be-deflecting-its-stabilator-to-any-significant-amount-when-turning-at-low-speeds/
Not a bug
Also all these bug reports seem to come from you, given that the F-16 cannot be fully accurate due to lack of FLCS any other issues with the FM should be taken in the context that the F-16 in it’s current state shouldn’t be able to even stay in the air.
So with the fact that the FM is pure fiction anyway why does the Block 15 and 20 suffer from control stiffening when compared to the Block 10 in mouse control mode?
Or do you suggest we just wait for FLCS to be implemented for the F-16 FM to be “fixed” and until then this strange bug should be left in?
2 Likes
Again you are trying to say something that the responses do not.
Regarding the report you linked discussing the elevators pitching or not pitching, it was wrong. He didn’t fully understand what he was trying to bug report, my report is more comprehensive;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PUOYcHgEVO9p
The F-16 in war thunder is wrong for a number of reasons, but in comparison to what the real aircraft is capable of (even with relaxed fly-by-wire limits) it exceeds it in almost all areas. You yhave yet to show that it is underperforming in a given area.
You assume that larger elevators mean it can turn harder, this is not necessarily the case. In relaxed static stability designs the elevators can become sources of lift rather than just drag from trim counteracting the pull of gravity on static designs. The larger elevators thus move the center of lift further back, stiffening the maneuvering performance in comparison to the block 10. This is not a bug.
Ok, even assuming the F-16 is over-performing, you have to put that into the context that aircraft and pilots in WT don’t have to worry about 9G+ manoeuvres incapacitating the pilot and damaging the airframe apart from instances of G overload wing ripping.
IRL a MiG-29 would not pull more than 9G except in extreme situations as the aircraft would not necessarily be flight worthy afterwards.
The F-16 was built with the idea in mind that 9G+ manoeuvres are a non factor because if there was a chance IRL that it would be facing opponents capable of 12G manoeuvres it would have been designed differently,
This leaves us with 2 reasonable options in War Thunder:
Realistic mechanical and human limitations are implemented, ie structural damage from heavy manoeuvres and true blackouts / pilot fatigue
Or
We take every aircraft and assume it was built without those mechanical and human limits as concerns, ie higher overall AoA and G limits
As it currently stands implementing a FLCS on the F-16 is pointless as the aircraft doesn’t suffer from any of the problems the FLCS is designed to fix
Introducing realistic relaxed static stability and then realistic FLCS would also be strange as that instability was specifically to make the F-16 more manoeuvrable than an equivalent stable aircraft would have been however with that implementation the F-16 would be significantly less manoeuvrable that it’s counterparts negating the entire design philosophy behind the F-16.
There is a huge disconnect between the real world and War Thunder which makes these issues far from clear cut like you keep saying they are.
3 Likes
We have established that the F-16’s stability far exceeds that of the real life counterpart.
Yet, it also is statically stable in the game. This is not something that can be fixed with the current game mechanics and flight models without breaking mouse aim (according to Gaijin).
Instead what we have is a compromise that Gaijin thinks strikes a balance.
You provided two options and I do not agree with simplifying it to just two options. That is a silly proposal. Instead, lets look at the way everything is currently implemented and compare / look for discrepancy with how other flight models have been implemented.
Other aircraft are modeled as being able to reach that 1.5x limit as needed, the F-16 should be the same. Other aircraft however, do not exceed the AoA limits that they have in real life. They depart from controlled flight no later than they should according to real life. The F-16 on the flip side, exceeds any reasonable AoA limitation the airframe might have had in real life. It can do all kinds of maneuvers that would throw it into a spin in real life. It’s difficult to even get it to spin with largely asymmetrical loads currently.
Yes, certainly the F-16 may have been able to pull more than 9G and 25 degrees of AoA briefly and it does in-game… but unlike everything else it can also exceed any reasonable amount of stability when exceeding the aerodynamic limitations of the airframe. All I ask is that they fix this. What you are complaining about is a different issue and I think my report may help to fix this… which is stiffness from mouse aim as compared with full real. Community Bug Reporting System
My proposal: Model the FLCS, maneuvering AoA limitations, reduce roll rate above 25 degrees of AoA and model the instability associated… but do not enforce a strict G limiter. I think this would be balanced, follow the trend with other aircraft in the game being able to exceed the airframes longevity limitations without repercussion and also give it a semi-realistic flight model.
1 Like
I can agree with that in theory, the FLCS should be modelled to the extent that roll rate whilst pulling on the stick is limited, in practice implementing the high AoA instability, which would best emulate the F-16s real life characteristics of high turn rate but lower AoA and roll rate during manoeuvres.
Maybe put more simply, if you just pull back on the stick you’ll get the same max of 11-12G but if you try to add roll to that it will limit that so that you don’t then exceed the AoA limits so instead of getting those crazy 15G barrel roll type manoeuvres it will keep at 11-12G by slowing the roll rate, meaning in a one circle fight you may have the same low roll rate problems of something like a MiG-15?
It needs a compromise where it has a G limit more consistent with other aircraft in the game but an AoA limit more in line with real life and an FLCS that keeps it in those limit so that if it were turned off the aircraft could pull manoeuvres that would throw it into an uncontrollable state?
Am I getting that right? I genuinely want to understand your viewpoint as it seemed earlier you wanted a true to life flight model which I hope you can agree doesn’t fit in the game?
Actually he’s right there and it was something I failed to consider, the center of lift moves back increasing stability, what I don’t quite understand is why the Block 15/20 doesn’t then pull more AoA as it should I assume be able to sustain a higher AoA safely and without losing overall stability right? or at the very least the same AoA with a higher degree of stability?
I want true to life flight performance, if they choose to implement it with a G limiter I agree it would be unfair in comparison to other fighters in the game.
As such, if they do not model the FLCS it should throw itself into spins when being flown recklessly like any other aircraft that would do such a thing. If they do model the FLCS to limit the AoA or roll rate when pulling AoA, I would hope they do not model a strict G limiter. (Limit G-force at higher speeds perhaps, so wings don’t rip but relax it to maybe 12G).
There are a number of fixes, none of them involve letting the aircraft have max roll/yaw with no loss of control at all when doing high AoA it would never have been capable of.
I mostly agree, I think until the FLCS is implemented the aircraft should keep it’s higher stability though as removing it would likely be too unforgiving for mouse aim players where keeping below those stability limits would require overly cautions flight, instead it would probably be better to lower the overall roll rate so those manoeuvres become harder to perform or to lower the G overload to 13G as then it would only be triggered by high AoA manoeuvres hopefully without impacting the linear turn performance of the aircraft.
With that said FLCS needs to be a priority for Gaijin as it’s the only solution that would give a reasonable representation of the flight characteristics of the F-16 in relations to the other aircraft in the game, maybe not true to life but at the very least consistent with other flight models in game.
The F-16 was always going to be a challenge to implement as it is the first aircraft in game with a fly-by-wire system and the first designed around the concept of relaxed static stability.
I don’t agree that RB needs true to life flight performance, I feel the mode strikes a good balance between realism and arcade creating a believable but more casually fun ‘flight sim’ experience, however for SB if they could implement a completely accurate FM along with more accurate pilot and mechanical reactions to G loading that would be great, unfortunately I fear SB doesn’t get enough attention from Gaijin for that to be likely.
M2K was the first aircraft with FBW / relaxed stability iirc.
Forgot about that one, don’t have it in game, does it also have similar FM issues?
Sort of, but because it’s a delta it’s not that bad.
No one cares about Simulator F-16 stability.
Everyone cares about Realistic mode piss poor F-16 flight model.
If your replying to this post talking about sim mode…please go to the sim forum with the other 5 people.
2 Likes
Sim was a side point, MiG-23M’s actual proposal if you read it properly should in theory address some of the issues with the F-16 FM without making it a full real interpretation, really in game the Block 10 should have some instability issues, and the block 15/20 should be slightly less manoeuvrable, the way it is implemented is wrong and in theory the changes suggested should make the Block 10 a bit harder to control in a dogfight as it was and should make the Block 15/20 feel less like a brick and able to pull more Gs at high speed (less “compression”) but also less capable of making erratic manoeuvres specifically at low speeds.
1 Like
Say what!?