Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#2499829 - 04/23/08 04:35 AM F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED"  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S: BALANCED


Theres been some recent debates about this particular scenario purely in F4:AF. Since its common knowledge that the MiG isnt modeled as detailed as the Viper, we leave most real world reports out of this dialogue, although occasional references are made where SIM and RL coalesce.

This particular scenario and debate surfaces often because its a common problem to the new Falconeer that is delving into the world of BFM after that first Campaign WVR meeting with a MiG and gets handled.

Against the AI there have been numerous posts, ACMIs, analysis, and tactical discussions that explain how to defeat the MiG. However, it is often been questioned whether the modeling inaccuracies within the MiG are enough to make it an all around superior BFM platform by comparison to the Viper in F4:AF. This is taking the pilot skill factor out of the equation and look at the scenario just purely from a statistical paper performance aspect. The only portion where pilot skill is present is the proficiency at which the tests were conducted in the ACMIs included with this report, and the calculations of his findings from aforementioned tests.

Its been our conclusion that the aircraft performance comparisons are of such a balanced nature within their respective envelopes, the outcome of a DACT BFM engagement could only be decided by the skill of the individual pilots. This is also weighing the advantages and disadvantages each aircraft has on paper. The weight factor was taken from historical BFM accounts where the DACT similarities are consistent with our current tests.

Since RL comparisons to this DACT scenario could be argued, weve also taken the liberty to record live head to head ACMI footage between pilots of relatively equal skill, and each had them fly vs the other taking turns with the MiG and Viper. This simulates, or highlights the points at which each aircraft can capitalize on one or more of their advantages. Basically, it gives a live picture of the statistical data is executed from the perspective of two pilots, both having the opportunity to fly both aircraft in DACT head to head. This portion of the report can be made available upon request. While related and is an excellent demonstration of what is seen here on paper, it still maintains the arguable piloting skill factor.

Included at the bottom of this work are the ACMIs and datasheet of most of the recorded tests. Any requests, questions, or concerns regarding the film and datasheet, or a desire for more info; by all means ask.

Therefore, Ill get into the individual short reports of the specific performance areas covered.


Sustained Turn Rate: MiG-29S

From 15,000 to Sea Level both at Max Clean Gross Weight (MCGW) and under Bingo Fuel the MiG enjoys a better turn rate of an average of 2 degrees per second more (DPS). It also enjoys a tighter radius, therefore making it a slightly faster and tighter turning aircraft. The MiGs preferred corner speeds from 15,000 to SL are just below the F-16s, and is more pronounced below 330 knots where the MiG benefits from high AoA maneuvers without the penalty of accurate drag modeling. This also matches real world reports where the MiG enjoys tighter turning, and nose pointing authority below the F-16s lower corner speeds.

However, as a result of cornering at lower speeds, the MiG gives up vertical generalship because of the speed difference of Viper and MiG cornering in their respective envelopes. Weve also discovered as the MiG draws closer to the cornering speeds of the Viper, the MiG pilot suffers higher g-loading longer than the Viper. Considering all pilots g-loading tolerance in Falcon are equal, longer, higher g-loading causes pilot fatigue sooner. Obviously, this forces an extension, speed and G reduction, or unloading to reduce fatigue therefore reducing turn effectiveness.

So while the MiG enjoys slightly better turning, it doesnt come without cost. This is an excellent DACT balance.

Max Instantaneous Turn Rate: MiG-29S

From 15,000 to Sea Level both at MCGW and under Bingo Fuel the MiG enjoys a faster MITR and tighter radius downhill. Its radius advantage is not as prevalent here, but the rate advantage downhill is near 3 DPS faster. This makes it a dangerous opponent when armed with all aspect IR, and HMS across a two circle merge.

Thrust to Weight Comparisons: Balanced

In vertical climb tests between the two aircraft, it has been determined that the performance is so close, that only piloting skill can make the difference. Executing 4G climb outs to 90 vertical produced very close numbers on max altitude reached.

Due to the closeness of the tests, vertical maneuvering while at similar energy states is balanced and can only be separated by piloting skill.

Roll Rate and Maneuverability: F-16C-52

Roll rate tests were confirmed to be roughly equal once the aircraft started actual movement. However, we also noticed that the Vipers response time to stick inputs is faster than the MiGs. This gives the Viper superior maneuverability in changing angle of bank for desired plane of motion. It should also be mentioned that the MiG also suffers from over-roll inertia by comparison to the Viper putting it at another time disadvantage for precise angle of bank choices prior to moving in a particular plane of motion.

Deceleration: F-16C-52

From 15,000 to Sea Level the Viper enjoys about equal to the MiG from its upper to lower corner speeds in both planes of motion. However, as the fight proceeds below the Vipers corner speeds (such as entering a rolling scissors, downhill leafing fights, or other slower types of BFM maneuvers) the F-16 slows down considerably faster.

Like in many RL HUD tapes we see, this is consistent with engagements that go from hard cornering to geometric advantage at slower speeds for the kill. This is also consistent in F4:AF whether fighting the AI, or another human opponent.

It should also be mentioned that straight and level flight deceleration favors the MiG of course due to its less aerodynamic design and heavier weight. The reason the Viper enjoys maneuvering deceleration advantage is due to its AoA+drag modeling, obviously as AoA increases so does the surface area to the wind causing more drag. The MiG doesnt have as many breakpoints modeled as the Viper, which is also why we see the MiG's superior turn rates from slower speeds when the Viper is in mid to upper corner.

Acceleration: F-16C-52

From 15,000 to Sea Level the Viper enjoys greater acceleration. There is one place at SL where the MiG accelerates faster from 700 to 800 knots but that is due to its faster top speed at SL.

It should be noted that from Sea Level to 15,000 the Vipers acceleration advantage increases and has a higher top speed than the MiG at 15,000.

This acceleration advantage enables allows the Viper greater ease of engaging and disengaging from the ability to accelerate far enough from the MiG to ensure a new neutral merge, full escape, or making it more difficult for the MiG to escape should he disengage. This also allows for the Viper to regain energy faster in unloaded situations, effectively allowing it to counter the turn fighting MiG with an angle fight of its own.

Top Speed: F-16C-52

While at Sea Level the MiG enjoys a faster top speed by .4 MACH, or approximately 40 knots, the Viper dominates as you increase altitude all the way up to 15,000. At this altitude the Viper simply walks away from the MiG. This allows the Viper from altitude to simply, escape, horizontally or vertically extend and reenter the fight at its leisure.



Dive: Balanced

In dive tests from 30,000 and 20,000 down to an altitude of 10,000 the Vipers small increase in performance isnt enough to make much of a difference. This was only tested at a 50deg dive angle.

Armament: F-16C-52

This is comparing the Gsh-30-1 and M61 A1 guns in F4AF. The Viper enjoys an advantage here simply to rate of fire, and amount of projectiles in the air during a short burst by comparison to the MiG. More projectiles in the air increase hit percentage. Although the HUD symbology for both aircraft is the same, the MiG suffers from the pipper not lining up with a kill gun solution of pipper on target. Due to the aligning of the gun one must be forced to guestimate further and aim a bit left of the target to increase probability of a hit.

It should be noted that the 30mm damage effects from the MiG are worrisome and is indeed modeled. However, this isnt enough to make up for its non-calibrated aiming system, and slower rate of fire.

Finally, surface area to shoot at (hit box) compared to number of projectiles fired goes definitely in the Vipers advantage. The MiG has a larger hit box, and more rounds on target from a Viper kill shot. Unfortunately range and ballistic effects to 20mm vs 30mm, bullet dispersion at increasing ranges beyond 3000 etc are not modeled.

Conclusion:

Its been our conclusion before this report, and remains afterwards that in F4:AF the differences in DACT BFM performance are not enough to declare one aircraft superior over the other, but that piloting ability decides the outcome.

The weight of the individual advantages and disadvantages are at margins that do not allow for commanding control over a DACT BFM engagement.

On a final note, please be advised that all of our live combat testing between humans taking turns flying each aircraft, has been consistent with our findings during pre-flight analysis. All pilots flying both sides are of relatively similar skill levels, although this is subjective, it balances during the aircraft exchange and secondary hop.

Thanks for reading,
The Aggressor Order

<click below>
ACMIs and DATA SHEET

EDIT: ACMI Database Directory

ACMI Database

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#2500382 - 04/23/08 08:46 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 20
Wildcat_338TH Offline
Junior Member
Wildcat_338TH  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 20
az
LOL KV, the debate seems a bit less lively here!!!!!!!

Wildcat \:D

#2500552 - 04/23/08 11:41 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 751
RedTiger Offline
Member
RedTiger  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 751
Hey KidVicious, that was an interesting read! Helpful too! The Falcon community really seems to be lacking in this kind of discussion since everyone just flies the same Viper in the end (no Red planes officially modeled to compare to and fly against). Nobody seems to care about the technical stuff like real life radar performance, black-out model, missiles, etc, etc beyond all the button pushing and avionics as modeled in the Viper. Everyone just shoots the breeze about the campaign, no real meat to dig into. Nice to see this type of meat brought to the table!

How did you test out the MiG-29? Did you enable it as a playable plane? If so, were you using the F-16's cockpit and HUD or something else? Its interesting how the Fulcrum is modeled less extensively but still suffers from some of the same issues it does in real life, like over-roll inertia.


"By the way, even though I know its based on accurate data, it still pisses me off too when I'm about to gun someone and my screen starts to go black. I guess its only natural." - Pete Bonanni
#2500612 - 04/24/08 01:15 AM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: RedTiger]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
Hi RedTiger,

Thanks! Yes, we enabled it to be flown through the teplanes.lst file in the respective campaign folder. Unfortunately, you still have all the F-16's cockpit graphically when flying different aircraft, but the performance of the different systems are modeled, same with the flight model etc.

Indeed, it is interesting that many of the real world comparisons between these aircraft (historical training hops), are also observed in F4:AF. We've always maintained that this engagement scenario is balanced even in light of less detailed modelling that gives the MiG greater performance than real world reports. On the other hand, the DACT BFM scenario is pretty consistent with how the F-16 tries to defeat the MiG, and the same in reverse. It's nice to simulate real world tactics and see them to fruition in the sim :).


To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
#2500619 - 04/24/08 01:18 AM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Wildcat_338TH]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
 Originally Posted By: Wildcat_338TH
LOL KV, the debate seems a bit less lively here!!!!!!!

Wildcat \:D




I couldn't possibly imagine why



To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
#2504084 - 04/28/08 11:08 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,328
Panther Offline
Senior Member
Panther  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,328
This thread needed some glue.


Virtual Thunderbirds, LLC | Sponsored by Thrustmaster

ASUS ROG MAXIMUS VIII HERO, i7 6700k, G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB, 980TI 6GB G1 OC, Obutto oZone, Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog, CH Pro Pedals, NP TrackIR5, ***Soon*** Oculus Rift
#2512173 - 05/11/08 02:38 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Panther]  
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Deadmeat. Offline
Junior Member
Deadmeat.  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Australia
2nd edits in green. Mainly for correcting the horizontal accel error.

KV you sneaky boy. You couldn't maintain your position against an argument so you came here? (CM linked to it from Frugals)
Don't worry, I won't spoil the party; this will be my only post in this thread.


There are some problems with your report:

Sustained Rate:
The Fulcrum has better rate -Correct
The Fulcrum pilot suffers higher g loading -Correct
The Fulcrum gives up vertical superiority -Incorrect, for two reasons: the Fulcrum doesn't have to fly down at it's own best corner speed to out turn the Falcon, it is so badly modelled that it can in fact fly at 440 kias and still enjoy better rate and radius than the Falcon, if desired.
Also the Fulcrum enjoys better vertical climb than the Falcon (see below, your vertical test is VERY badly flawed)

Instantaneous Rate:
The Fulcrum is superior -Correct

Thrust to Weight (vertical climb)
This is the most misleading part of your report, and even worse, you already know the things I am about to write here, but you left them out anyway.
TtW is approx equal -Incorrect: You used a 4g turn up to vertical, max performing the Falcon, which is fine, but then you tested the Fulcrum also at 4g, which is absurd. When the Fulcrum turns up at 4g it's turn radius is much smaller than the Falcon's EDIT:(Approx 2000+ feet smaller radius at 390 kias). The 4g turn in the Fulcrum is much tighter, and so hurts it's vertical climb. In fact the Fulcrum should turn up at a point between 3g and 4g, where it's radius will match the Falcon's, and it's climb will be greater. (Note even if the Fulcrum starts climbing from just 390 kias it will climb higher, and if starting at 440 kias it easily out climbs the Falcon)
EDIT:
Falcon: 2000 feet, heavy, horizontal, at 440 kias pull a 4g (this max performs theFalcon) turn up to vertical, measure height at departure (aircraft horizontal).
Mig-29: 2000 feet, heavy, horizontal, at 390 kias (the speed at which the Mig29 climbed higher in my original Frugals test), pull up at 4g to vertical, then do the same test again but with 3g turn.

Results
Falcon: 31770 (Flown by KV/Fangs~Out)
Mig29@4g: 30770 (radius -2000)
Mig29@3g: 34000 (radius +1500)
Therefore:
Mig29@3.6g: 32600 (radius = Falcon's radius) [Note this point is not actual data, it's just derived from the two actual data points above, using linear approximation]
If the MiG starts at 440 kias the advantage is even greater than shown here.
See acmis in the link at the bottom of this post.


Roll Rate
Falcon superior -Incorrect: tests have shown a very slight advantage to the Fulcrum, although I don't consider it enough to be significant. As for your claims about stick response and roll inertia, I have no data to disprove this, but similarly you have no data to prove it. It's just an arbitrary claim.
I have heard that FM data from the dat files may show that the Falcon actually has a superior roll rate, but you didn't extract any data from the dat files, and inflight tests (your and mine) don't show any advantage.

Deceleration
Falcon superior -Incorrect: At speeds above 330 kias (where the Falcon will be trying to stay) the Fulcrum enjoys a small deceleration advantage both horizontally and vertically. Below 330 the Falcon has a small advantage, but of course here it suffers an even larger turn rate disadvantage than before.

Acceleration
Falcon superior -Incorrect: In horizontal tests at 2000 feet they have equal acceleration, and at 16000 feet the Fulcrum accelerates from 300 kias to 500 kias faster than the Falcon. Did you think superior vertical climb was coincidental?
EDIT: In all four tests here the AB was lit before 300 kias, and both jets were accelerating before they hit 300 kias.
EDIT:
2000 feet
F16: 11.5 sec
MiG: 11.5 sec
EDIT: This was an embarrassing error: I made a glaringly obvious mistake when looking at the times for the Fulcrum at 2k in my acmi, it was NOT 11.0 seconds, but 11.5 seconds. My apologies to anyone who read the incorrect info.
So we can conclude that the MiG has superior acceleration above 2k, and it seems likely that the Falcon will have slightly superior acceleration below 2k (I haven't tested it, but that's what I'd expect). Of course this 2000 foot vertical range (0 to 2k) is not enough to support KV's absolutely ridiculous and untrue claims that the Falcon has superior vertical acceleration. The MiG has superior vertical climb for the very simple reason that it has superior acceleration above 2k.


16000 feet
F16: 20.8 sec
MiG: 20.0 sec
See acmis in the link at the bottom of this post.


Top Speed
My post in Frugals was purely about BFM, top speed is not part of BFM, it's something you use between periods of BFM, but your post is not so specific, so yes, Falcon top speed is faster, but to claim the Falcon will do anything "at it's leisure" against a Fulcrum is ridiculous. Against a Fulcrum with superior rate, radius, vertical climb and acceleration, the chances of top speed ever being significant are extremely remote, at best.

Dive
You haven't posted any details of this test, so I can't comment.

Guns
This was also not part of my BFM thread, it was brought up by Tank and CM when there were no BFM "legs" left to stand on.
You claim "More projectiles in the air increase hit percentage", which, providing the target is not flying between rounds, is completely false. They will have exactly the same hit percentage.
Of course for the same amount of time hitting the target, the MiG will put less rounds on, but like you say, it's rounds do more damage.
The Fulcrum also takes more time to expends it ammunition, something which I quote you as saying is desirable, in the Frugals thread.

Conclusion
Of course the pilot will always remain the most important factor, I've always said that, but the superiority of the Fulcrum at BFM is enough to affect a dogfight. (As one example, take your pal Centermass, a competent pilot who's no doubt shot down many human-flown Falcons, but said in a post just three weeks ago that he's never been able to beat a human Fulcrum. That's not balanced.)

You are biased against the Fulcrum KV, you seem to take it personally anytime anyone says something against the Falcon.

The (AF) MiG is superior at BFM performance (though not as an overall platform), most of the figures to prove that can be seen in KV's acmis here, the rest can be seen here:
Frugals thread with AF Fulcrum Falcon BFM figures + acmi (KV posting under the name Fangs~Out) All relevant acmis are there.
I take no particular pleasure from this being the case, it is simply a fact, nothing more, nothing less.

EDIT: My next tests on this, when I have the time, will be to pull the data directly from the AF dat files, and present it as graphs.
The points of interest will be roll rates, including response time and inertia, and acceleration which will show the MiGs superior acceleration above 2k (and thus in the vertical as a whole), leaving no opportunity for objections from KV.




Last edited by Deadmeat.; 05/23/08 04:08 PM.

AF Mig29 BFM performance: better than the F16.

See AF F16/Mig29 graphs produced directly from FM data files here.
Download F4chart here.
#2512304 - 05/11/08 06:26 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Deadmeat.]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
Thank you!

Each time you post, youre only furthering my position and clearly highlighting my points...

 Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.
Its now a fact: the MiG-29 is better than the F-16 (BFM Performance)


For you to post a thread title such as the one above, one would expect you to have a thorough understanding of DACT BFM.

Its become increasingly clear that throughout this discussion that you are lacking quite a bit in your understanding of the relationship of aircraft performance capabilities and its application to BFM; and even more importantly DACT BFM.

Im not sure why you feel it necessary to take an authoritative and condescending tone in regards to your findings, considering a large amount of it is just simple regurgitations of my comments or another more experienced virtual pilot. Youve even stated yourself that you didnt even know what to test, but you got your ideas, and continued to get your ideas from others or myself (remember, I was your acid test ;). )

So how can you expect for us (the readers of your report) to have confidence in your comments or findings, when its clear you dont have a full understanding of what youre doing in the first place? This isnt an insult mind you, but just stating the obvious from reading your posts.

Now we get into some of the comments that youve posted.


 Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.
KV you sneaky boy. You couldn't maintain your position against an argument so you came here? (CM linked to it from Frugals)
Don't worry, I won't spoil the party; this will be my only post in this thread.


Our position has been maintained well, so Im not sure what youre talking about. No worries, there isnt possibility of spoiling anything. Why post once, I welcome your attendance.

 Quote:

There are some problems with your report:
The Fulcrum gives up vertical superiority -Incorrect, for two reasons: the Fulcrum doesn't have to fly down at it's own best corner speed to out turn the Falcon, it is so badly modelled that it can in fact fly at 440 kias and still enjoy better rate and radius than the Falcon, if desired.
Also the Fulcrum enjoys better vertical climb than the Falcon (see below, your vertical test is VERY badly flawed)

Thrust to Weight (vertical climb)
This is the most misleading part of your report, and even worse, you already know the things I am about to write here, but you left them out anyway.
TtW is approx equal -Incorrect: You used a 4g turn up to vertical, max performing the Falcon, which is fine, but then you tested the Fulcrum also at 4g, which is absurd. When the Fulcrum turns up at 4g it's turn radius is much smaller than the Falcon's (-2000 feet at 390 kias). The 4g turn in the Fulcrum is much tighter, and so hurts it's vertical climb. In fact the Fulcrum should turn up at a point between 3g and 4g, where it's radius will match the Falcon's, and it's climb will be greater. (Note even if the Fulcrum starts climbing from just 390 kias it will climb higher, and if starting at 440 kias it easily out climbs the Falcon)


Ok, so you admit that the MiG has to open its radius when trying to enter the vertical fight with a Viper to keep from getting out-maneuvered from above? Thats not a direct comparison to the Viper, and openly admits a MiG must transition to lag pursuit if entering a vertical fight with the Viper if its below the Vipers upper corner plateau.

The tests are equal. If both jets start a vertical climb from 2000 feet at 440 knots, both jets climb at 4g, and they both turn at about 6 to 8 DPS at approx 6000 to 7000 foot radius before unloading.

Max altitude reached is about a 400 feet difference at most with the MiG taking the higher altitude at about 32,000 feet. However, it should be noticed that the MiG loses total control at 31,450 at 60kias going straight up and has no roll or pitch authority (it hits 31,450 at 60 kias exactly the same time the Viper does). This is because the MiG doesnt have a deep stall model like the Viper. Once the Viper his 60kias it is automatic nose to tail reversal. The MiG continues to climb a few hundred more feet out of control.

This is entering the vertical at the same speeds, same radius, and same turn rate to 90 degrees. Should the MiG try to enter the vertical at speeds less than the Viper, considering the T+W ratios are so close, it MUST transition to lag pursuit (even by your own admission) to maintain at the least neutrality for max altitude reached. However, the Falcon at this point owns vertical generalship, and can level off and separate for a new merge, or begin turning in the horizontal climb to bleed and hang the MiG-29 from above. Transitioning to lag means you are losing angles because youre unloading and opening the turn radius.

These numbers are so close under controlled tests that it would take piloting skill to separate advantage if both jets are maneuvering at the same speeds above the horizon. If either aircraft is energy deficient at the elbow, it loses vertical generalship. This envelope is balanced.

This is what were all telling you, youre lack of knowledge in BFM/DACT BFM is painfully obvious that you dont even realize it when you post. Ive got two more VC acmis in the same folder listed in my first post, but theyre pretty consistent with what I already have.
 Quote:

Roll Rate
Falcon superior -Incorrect: tests have shown a very slight advantage to the Fulcrum, although I don't consider it enough to be significant. As for your claims about stick response and roll inertia, I have no data to disprove this, but similarly you have no data to prove it. It's just an arbitrary claim.
I have heard that FM data from the dat files may show that the Falcon actually has a superior roll rate, but you didn't extract any data from the dat files, and inflight tests (your and mine) don't show any advantage.


See, this is because you havent tested it. You also dont have enough stick time vs the AI MiG, and definitely not against human controlled MiGs or you would have noticed this.

Perform your tests again. This time dont be silly and accelerate full burner but start the tests at 440 kias and drop the throttle as you start your rolls.

Mark time from the MOMENT your stick hits full deflection, and then stop it the MOMENT the aircraft comes wings level on its 10th roll. You will notice that the Viper is about .3 seconds faster.

Now if you mark time from the moment the actual roll begins, then yeah sure the rollrates are near equivalent. However, marking response time from stick movement to aircraft movement is a significant difference in the Vipers superiority. The Viper also doesnt suffer from over roll inertia and has more precise control of his movements, making it easier to fly. Its only the loading control that makes it more difficult than the MiG, changing directions is OWNED by the Viper.

Now you could counter that the Vipers quicker response time can be countered by the MiGs quicker MITR (max instantaneous turn rate), therefore balancing this advantage, but again pilot skill is the only separating factor.

 Quote:

Deceleration
Falcon superior -Incorrect: At speeds above 330 kias (where the Falcon will be trying to stay) the Fulcrum enjoys a small deceleration advantage both horizontally and vertically. Below 330 the Falcon has a small advantage, but of course here it suffers an even larger turn rate disadvantage than before.


It seems that youre not very aware of different types of scissoring engagements with the MiG-29 at various energy states. I find it interesting that you believe the Viper should never get below 330 kias with a MiG. The MiG enjoys a greater turn rate, but suffers in roll rate/response time. This complements the Vipers below corner deceleration advantage.

Whats even funnier is this is the rookies FIRST observation when learning how to defeat the MiG. They realize that they can slow down faster as a scissors progresses either in the vertical or horizontal plane, and spit the MiG out in front of them. This is also consistent with many RL hud tapes where the Viper is sitting in the saddle with pipper on target and well below 300 kias.

 Quote:

Acceleration
Falcon superior -Incorrect: In horizontal tests at 2000 feet and 16000 feet the Fulcrum accelerates from 300 kias to 500 kias faster than the Falcon. Did you think superior vertical climb was coincidental?


Heh Nice acceleration test there, a 200 knot range to test

The truth of the matter is that at Sea Level, the F-16 accelerates faster from 300 to 600 knots, but the MiG can outrun the F-16 at Sea Level.

However, at 15,000 feet the situation is reversed. The MiG accelerates a bit faster to 600 knots, but the F-16 exceeds its top speed.

This effective allows the F-16 the ability to jump outside its bandits turn radius and re-enter at leisure. Or, if he wanted to call it a day and bug out, the choice is his because hes faster. The MiG doesnt enjoy this luxury, if the MiG pilot has to separate under EXACTLY the same conditions as an F-16, the F-16 can catch him. This has played HUGE roles in historic combat, and jet combat in particular; I fail to see why you dont recognize its importance here.

 Quote:

Top Speed
My post in Frugals was purely about BFM, top speed is not part of BFM, it's something you use between periods of BFM, but your post is not so specific, so yes, Falcon top speed is faster, but to claim the Falcon will do anything "at it's leisure" against a Fulcrum is ridiculous. Against a Fulcrum with superior rate, radius, vertical climb and acceleration, the chances of top speed ever being significant are extremely remote, at best.

Here is a pristine example of what weve been saying all along. Not only did you not test it, but you dont even know its application to BFM. Not surprising though, even considering how far we are into this discussion.

I suppose an aircraft being able to out-distance, escape at leisure, re-enter at leisure from having a greater top speed throughout history was only important to overall platform performance, but didnt have any application to BFM? That is soooo interesting that you would believe that ;).

So youre saying that it doesnt matter that the Viper can simply climb to 15,000 feet and walk away from a MiG-29? Or, thats not important to be measured or weighed in DACT BFM?

Interesting \:\)

 Quote:

Guns
This was also not part of my BFM thread, it was brought up by Tank and CM when there were no BFM "legs" left to stand on.
You claim "More projectiles in the air increase hit percentage", which, providing the target is not flying between rounds, is completely false.


You seem to be having some kind of mental block here. Im sure you know that the aiming symbology is not a laser for air to air gunnery in F4:AF. Pipper on target under a correct gun solution is a probability of a hit. If you go back and read what Ive posted about the 1g pipper, death dot, and 9g pipper youll understand.

Taking that into considerations, a 3 second burst fired from both of these cannons at EXACTLY the same gun solution, the M61 A1 in the Viper wins out. It has far more projectiles in the air to PREVENT bandit from flying between rounds and increases probability of a hit by comparison to its opponents slower rate of fire and far less projectiles in the air.

What is it you dont understand about same gun solution, more projectiles in the air that increases pK? Isnt that the same as the Soviet tactic of ripple firing 2 missiles to increase pK? We do the same thing with the gun by having a higher rate of fire.

 Quote:

They will have exactly the same hit percentage.
Of course for the same amount of time hitting the target, the MiG will put less rounds on, but like you say, it's rounds do more damage.

No, they wont. Youre assuming that the gun solution is a sure hit, and what were telling you is the HUD symbology isnt always a sure hit, and even more difficult in the MiG because the aiming isnt calibrated to the HUD.

Not only that, but the Viper is a smaller target to shoot at by comparison to the MiG which has a much much larger hitbox, therefore INCREASING the probable hit percentage on target with amount of projectiles in the air per burst.
 Quote:

The Fulcrum also takes more time to expends it ammunition, something which I quote you as saying is desirable, in the Frugals thread.

On a post youre quoting that is over 5 years ago, the reason I was asking because I believe at the time the slower rate of fire wasnt modeled, although the 30mm cannon damage modeling was. I wanted the rate of fire accurate because of the limited number of rounds carried by some other aircraft that had it. However, this has nothing to do with the comparisons between each cannons hit percentage per burst. Thats why weve always opted for more projectiles or higher rates of fire by comparison to eastern blocks.

 Quote:

Conclusion
Of course the pilot will always remain the most important factor, I've always said that, but the superiority of the Fulcrum at BFM is enough to affect a dogfight. (As one example, take your pal Centermass, a competent pilot who's no doubt shot down many human-flown Falcons, but said in a post just three weeks ago that he's never been able to beat a human Fulcrum. That's not balanced.)


Its called inexperience, the same thing youre suffering from. Hes since gained knowledge on how to exploit the MiG and try to fight better in his own envelope rather than the MiGs.
 Quote:

You are biased against the Fulcrum KV, you seem to take it personally anytime anyone says something against the Falcon.


I would recommend getting some more flight hours head to head against the MiG-29S in DACT BFM vs the AI, and vs other virtual pilots before you make sweeping generalizations about one particular aircraft being superior to another.

In this way, you will have the experience and knowledge in being able to effectively weigh the differences in each aircrafts advantages and disadvantages. Only after this will your non-erroneous findings in your report posted at Frugals start to make sense in how it applies to DACT BFM in the air.

Im sorry to have to point out the obvious, but as I said its even been stated by you that youre lacking in experience when it comes to BFM and that most of your information has been reading other pilots remarks and regurgitating them, hopefully learning something in the process. Perhaps we should just chalk this up as a learning experience for you?

Last edited by KidVicious; 05/24/08 12:13 AM.

To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
#2512728 - 05/12/08 06:39 AM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Deadmeat.]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
Thrust to Weight and Vertical Maneuvering Discussion

 Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.
EDIT:(Approx 2000+ feet smaller radius at 390 kias). The 4g turn in the Fulcrum is much tighter, and so hurts it's vertical climb. In fact the Fulcrum should turn up at a point between 3g and 4g, where it's radius will match the Falcon's, and it's climb will be greater. (Note even if the Fulcrum starts climbing from just 390 kias it will climb higher, and if starting at 440 kias it easily out climbs the Falcon)
EDIT:
Falcon: 2000 feet, heavy, horizontal, at 440 kias pull a 4g (this max performs theFalcon) turn up to vertical, measure height at departure (aircraft horizontal).
Mig-29: 2000 feet, heavy, horizontal, at 390 kias (the speed at which the Mig29 climbed higher in my original Frugals test), pull up at 4g to vertical, then do the same test again but with 3g turn.

Results
Falcon: 31770 (Flown by KV/Fangs~Out)
Mig29@4g: 30770 (radius -2000)
Mig29@3g: 34000 (radius +1500)
Therefore:
Mig29@3.?g: [>31770] (radius = Falcon's radius)
If the MiG starts at 440 kias the advantage is even greater than shown here.
See acmis in the link at the bottom of this post.


I guess you're not seeing balanced here. Right here above you're posting a very small difference.

Why is it difficult for you to understand that the MiG will OBVIOUSLY have a smaller radius in a 4G climb with a Viper. You put this pursuit arc next to each other on paper and the MiG would be in pure to lead pursuit of the Viper (I've also tested it in Falcon). For the MiG to continue to climb with the Viper it has to unload to 3G or less (by your OWN admission) and open it's radius moving to lag.

Dude! We're talking about the difference between 1G and a 50 knot elbow entry difference on these two platforms. The MiG has to unload if it enters the elbow at a lesser speed than the Viper. This gives angles, and separation. As the fight proceeds above, or levels off at 15,000 feet the Viper can simply walk away from the MiG.

Here's more acmi's that are pretty much consistent with what's been posted already.

4G climb from 2000'. Two of the F-16 at 440, one of the MiG at 390 and 440. The F-16 tops out above the MiG by 1800' when it tries the same turn rate uphill. The MiG would be forced to lag increasing separation, at which point the Viper can level out and walk away.

And again with both aircraft hitting the elbow at 440 knots the MiG tops above the Viper by about 600 feet.

We're splitting hairs here because the numbers are so close in this envelope only pilot skill can make a decisive difference. It IS clear however, that the MiG MUST enter the elbow at no less than 50 knots of the Viper to engage it successfully in the vertical (390 kias or less and it cannot compete unless it unloads and transitions to lag pursuit opening separation gap). The further the split from the Viper's upper corner plateau and the vertical generalship increases.
This is a far cry from your comment "Fulcrum pilot can reef back on the stick...". Not even close buddy. Keep training against a human opponent in the MiG and you'll eventually see it is balanced, and that what we have here on paper already told you that.

Vertical Climb ACMIs

BALANCED

Acceleration Discussion

 Quote:

Acceleration
EDIT:
2000 feet
F16: 11.5 sec
MiG: 11.0 sec

16000 feet
F16: 20.8 sec
MiG: 20.0 sec
See acmis in the link at the bottom of this post.



I'm gonna have to question your test of the MiG. Not only that, but by marking time from the first point the MiG was at 300 to the first point it was at 500 was 11.51 seconds in your own tape at 2000 feet.

It is OBVIOUS that you're spooling up into burner prior to stabilizing at 300 knots to try and increase the MiG's acceleration on the jump. The MiG spools in about 4 seconds and you're already accelerating sub 300 knots and burner lit. You were accelerating before you hit 300.

Also, <chuckles>, why do you believe acceleration stops at 500 kias? I guess there are some hidden universal BFM rules out there that says you must not accelerate past 500 kias? ;\)

My post above concerning the acceleration between the two aircraft are correct. The Viper enjoys a jumpstart at sea level, but gets outran; and the MiG enjoys a jumpstart at 15,000 but gets outran.

Which advantage would you rather have, potential energy WHILE extending from a bandit at altitude, or being outran at sea level? I think I'd opt to go for altitude ;).

This coupled with the Viper's greater top speed at 15,000 enables it to exit and re-enter the fight at his leisure \:\)

F-16C-52

I still notice you haven't:

1) Tested response time to roll inputs

2) Top Speed

3) Cannons

I guess you've conceded these arguments.

This is looking balanced more and more \:\) thanks ;\)











Last edited by KidVicious; 05/12/08 07:13 AM.

To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
#2516096 - 05/17/08 02:29 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,290
WWSandMan Offline
WW: Online Since 1992
WWSandMan  Offline
WW: Online Since 1992
Member

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,290
N. Mankato, Minnesota, U.S.A.
Wow. A lot of thought from both sides...

Last edited by WWSandMan; 05/17/08 02:30 PM. Reason: took out non-sense
#2519813 - 05/23/08 03:59 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: WWSandMan]  
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Deadmeat. Offline
Junior Member
Deadmeat.  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Australia
I just logged onto Frugals and saw that someone pointed out my 2k horizontal accel error, so I thought I'd come and fix it here too. Now I'm going to sucumb to temptation and reply to KV:

 Quote:
a MiG must transition to lag pursuit if entering a vertical fight with the Viper if its below the Vipers upper corner plateau.

??? Transition to lag? If it wasn't in lag beforehand, it's going to be shooting the Falcon.
The situation is exactly the same for either jet, if they aren't able to fire, and follow the bandit into a vertical climb, of course they'll be in lag, but the MiG will do it with superior climb.
No-one when flying the Fulcrum against a Falcon, and following the Falcon up into a vertical climb, will intentionally match the Falcons gs instead of it's radius. It would be stupid. They'll match radius, and outclimb the Falcon.

 Quote:
they both turn at about 6 to 8 DPS

We already know the Fulcrum has superior rate and radius, you've said so yourself more than once.
From my acmis, very clearly:
The Falcon at 440, 4g turns up 6dps
The Fulcrum at 390, 3g turns up 5dps
The Fulcrum at 390, 4g turns up 7dpi


 Quote:
This time dont be silly and accelerate full burner but start the tests at 440 kias and drop the throttle as you start your rolls.

I beg your pardon? AB for roll rate is silly?
If you can get a difference in favour of the Falcon by cutting the throttle, it's because the Fulcrum is decelerating faster, but you knew that already.
Are you seriously trying to claim a 3 second difference from stick response? A Fulcrum would be unflyable if that were true. It isn't true, the lower speed from higher deceleration is slowing the roll rate.


 Quote:
Nice acceleration test there, a 200 knot range to test

A lot better than yours.


 Quote:
the Viper can simply climb to 15,000 feet and walk away from a MiG-29?

You cannot be serious. The MiG has better acceleration (and therefore also climb), the Falcon won't be doing any "walking". I would dearly love to see an acmi of the Falcon using it's top speed in BFM.


 Quote:
What is it you dont understand about same gun solution, more projectiles in the air that increases pK? Isnt that the same as the Soviet tactic of ripple firing 2 missiles to increase pK? We do the same thing with the gun by having a higher rate of fire.

No, it isn't the same at all. Think about it.
Let me point out that I'm not trying to claim the Fulcrum has a superior gun, just that the Falcon's gun isn't enough to make up for it's inferior BFM performance, which is what Tank and CM claimed.
Take a Falcon gun at a point in time and space, and a bandit at another point in space at the same time, fire the gun.
Now go back in time but this time replace the gun with a Fulcrum's gun, fire it.
The hit percentages will be the same, providing, of course (as I've said all along) that the bandit isn't flying between rounds.


 Quote:
It is OBVIOUS that you're spooling up into burner prior to stabilizing at 300

Yes I am, I did it for all four tests, Falcon and Fulcrum.


 Quote:
why do you believe acceleration stops at 500 kias?

You've already pointed out in this thread that the MiG has better acceleration above 600. Do you think the Falcon accelerates better from 500 to 600? I doubt it.


 Quote:
My post above concerning the acceleration between the two aircraft are correct. The Viper enjoys a jumpstart at sea level, but gets outran; and the MiG enjoys a jumpstart at 15,000 but gets outran.

The Falcon has superior acceleration below 2000 feet, the rest belongs to the Fulcrum. For the Falcon to run away at 15k, and, similarly, for the Fulcrum to run away at sea level they'd need a combination of better speed AND acceleration. Neither is likely to ever be able to "walk away" because the acceleration of the bandit would get them before they were able to do so.


 Quote:
I still notice you haven't:

1) Tested response time to roll inputs

2) Top Speed

3) Cannons

I guess you've conceded these arguments.

1. I notice you haven't either.
2. There's no disagreement on top speed.
3. What do you want to test? The only disagreement is your understanding of the term "hit percentage".


This time, I really am done with this thread. I'm not going to be responsible for helping turn this thread into the quagmire that the Frugals thread became.
Next time I'll be posting data pulled directly from the dat files. I'll enjoy watching you try to argue with that.

Last edited by Deadmeat.; 05/23/08 04:05 PM.

AF Mig29 BFM performance: better than the F16.

See AF F16/Mig29 graphs produced directly from FM data files here.
Download F4chart here.
#2520069 - 05/24/08 12:05 AM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Deadmeat.]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
 Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.
I just logged onto Frugals and saw that someone pointed out my 2k horizontal accel error, so I thought I'd come and fix it here too. Now I'm going to sucumb to temptation and reply to KV:


I already told you here it that your calculations were incorrect. Hatchet just happened to find the same thing. I'm not sure why you're hesitant to post, other than for obvious reasons. If you want to discuss this then great, discuss it...no one needs a reminder that you don't want to post ;\)

Vertical Maneuvering Discussion
 Quote:

??? Transition to lag? If it wasn't in lag beforehand, it's going to be shooting the Falcon.
The situation is exactly the same for either jet, if they aren't able to fire, and follow the bandit into a vertical climb, of course they'll be in lag, but the MiG will do it with superior climb.
No-one when flying the Fulcrum against a Falcon, and following the Falcon up into a vertical climb, will intentionally match the Falcons gs instead of it's radius. It would be stupid. They'll match radius, and outclimb the Falcon.

Let's continue your education here a bit. Anytime in a neutral BFM engagement between these two platforms, should the Viper load above the horizon, the MiG cannot enter the vertical without unloading first. I really don't know how many times I have to say it, or explain it for you to understand, and I'm trying really hard.

Your own report and discussion at Frugalsworld states that a Fulcrum pilot can just "reef back on the stick" and doesn't have to exercise any discipline prior to hitting the vertical elbow, either in plane or out of plane. We've already established this is incorrect, yet you still maintain that line of thinking and haven't edited it yet. You clearly have admitted here on several occasions now that the Fulcrum pilot cannot just yank on the stick at similar energy states and expect to be able to maneuver with the Viper above the horizon.

I find it interesting that you speak for everyone. You're saying you can read bandit G and radius how? How is it possible to receive enemy aircraft Load Factor and Radius after acquiring a radar lock. I wasn't aware that this was possible in F4:AF.

Ohhhh! So you mean you have to guage it by your eyes in sim?!? That would mean pilot skill comes into play in determining LOS rate, energy prior to vertical maneuvering (hopefully with a radar lock), and totally negates your argument.

So it remains balanced of course. For the MiG to have any semblance of being able to compete with the Viper while maneuvering above the horizon, it MUST be within 50 knots of the Viper at a bare minimum to even try to hold its own. We're talking about 50 knots here <chuckles>, even with my experience it is difficult to make that call on an aircraft without a radar lock, and with your experience I'm absolutely certain your accuracy at judging bandit energy state without a lock is significantly less savory...but I digress...

 Quote:

We already know the Fulcrum has superior rate and radius, you've said so yourself more than once.
From my acmis, very clearly:
The Falcon at 440, 4g turns up 6dps
The Fulcrum at 390, 3g turns up 5dps
The Fulcrum at 390, 4g turns up 7dpi


This has nothing to do with what I've posted, it appears to be another attempt to redirect the focus from what is obvious to the readers. Can you see the numbers you've posted above? Do you realize how close they are? Even if your stick control were proficient it wouldn't make much of a difference. My stick control is indeed more proficient, hence the more accurate performance numbers.

It will take you some time I'm sure, don't fret, but eventually you'll see what it means in regards to "balanced"...


Rollrate Discussion
 Quote:

I beg your pardon? AB for roll rate is silly?

Of course it is. Why would you want to increase the variables on a static test? It's obvious the airspeeds stay very close to the same at the beginning, and at the end of the maneuvers.

 Quote:

If you can get a difference in favour of the Falcon by cutting the throttle, it's because the Fulcrum is decelerating faster, but you knew that already.

<chuckles>
Well looky here, apparently you're not viewing acmis or even reading, but just fly by posting. If you'll take the time like I did to review your footage, and give me the same courtesy you'll notice what an error you made here lol.

Why on earth would you believe that starting a rollrate test within each aircraft's maneuvering zone would cause each aircraft to decelerate LOL! Dude, just check the acmis first before you post and we won't be wasting each other's, or other readers' time. Both aircraft start and end very close to 440 kias with the throttle to idle in this test.

 Quote:

Are you seriously trying to claim a 3 second difference from stick response? A Fulcrum would be unflyable if that were true. It isn't true, the lower speed from higher deceleration is slowing the roll rate.


It's a .3 seconds at a minimum (that's near half a second response time difference when rolling, which is a pretty big difference in regards to changing AOB, or POM [angle of bank, plane of motion]. Perform the tests like I stated and both ways you'll see that stick response gives the Viper a superior rollrate.

Acceleration Discussion
 Quote:

A lot better than yours.

I'm sure the readers will believe that considering your flight hours and experience (that's totally not even taking your posts into account) \:\)

 Quote:

You cannot be serious. The MiG has better acceleration (and therefore also climb), the Falcon won't be doing any "walking". I would dearly love to see an acmi of the Falcon using it's top speed in BFM.

We've already established that the Falcon has superior acceleration and a greater top speed at altitude. The MiG only enjoys a slight plus at SL getting to 800 kias, and near equivalent acceleration at 15,000 to 600 kias...although the F-16 has greater top speed at 15,000 which is also faster than the MiGs top speed at SL, by a considerable margin...therefore making it much more difficult for a MiG to separate or escape from the engagement.

Yet another example of little experience in DACT BFM both vs the AI and vs human opponents flying the Fulcrum. I'll get you the acmi :), although I'd rather you get the experience yourself.

 Quote:

Yes I am, I did it for all four tests, Falcon and Fulcrum.

No you didn't. There's already been about 5 sets of eyes that have identified your skewed testing procedures to make up for lack of argument.

 Quote:

You've already pointed out in this thread that the MiG has better acceleration above 600. Do you think the Falcon accelerates better from 500 to 600? I doubt it.

.......

Dude, please read first. The Viper DOES accelerate faster to 600 kias at SL than the MiG. You even quoted what I said below and have access to the tapes, or to do some yourself (instead of a 200 knot range to test lol ).

And keep in mind, it's not your place to doubt, but to verify before posting.

 Quote:
My post above concerning the acceleration between the two aircraft are correct. The Viper enjoys a jumpstart at sea level, but gets outran; and the MiG enjoys a jumpstart at 15,000 but gets outran.

 Quote:

The Falcon has superior acceleration below 2000 feet, the rest belongs to the Fulcrum. For the Falcon to run away at 15k, and, similarly, for the Fulcrum to run away at sea level they'd need a combination of better speed AND acceleration. Neither is likely to ever be able to "walk away" because the acceleration of the bandit would get them before they were able to do so.


Now you're starting to get it (except the F-16 is faster to 800 kias at altitude, the MiG barely get 800 kias at 15,000).

It's simple, the Viper can walk away from the MiG at 15,000 feet and re-enter an engagement at his leisure. The MiG doesn't enjoy this luxury and can be caught.

Cannon Probable Hit Per Burst Discussion
 Quote:

No, it isn't the same at all. Think about it.
Let me point out that I'm not trying to claim the Fulcrum has a superior gun, just that the Falcon's gun isn't enough to make up for it's inferior BFM performance, which is what Tank and CM claimed.

All I can say is LOL. Backpeddling now won't do you any good. The F-16 BFM armament is an advantage both in rate of fire, and probable hit per burst due to amount of projectiles in the air effectively making it impossible to fly between rounds on a killing solution. The same cannot be said for the MiG (not even counting its bigger surface to shoot at, and non-calibrated aiming symbology.)

 Quote:

Take a Falcon gun at a point in time and space, and a bandit at another point in space at the same time, fire the gun.
Now go back in time but this time replace the gun with a Fulcrum's gun, fire it.
The hit percentages will be the same, providing, of course (as I've said all along) that the bandit isn't flying between rounds.


It seems you're still stumbling against a killing solution via the HUD symbology is only "probable" Considering that, I think we can all agree that we'd much rather have the higher rate of fire and wall of lead bearing down on the target.

Top Speed Advantage: F-16C-52

 Quote:

This time, I really am done with this thread. I'm not going to be responsible for helping turn this thread into the quagmire that the Frugals thread became.
Next time I'll be posting data pulled directly from the dat files. I'll enjoy watching you try to argue with that.


I don't see anything of the sort from happening...oh and don't forget

Also, let me know if you need any help with the dat files, I've got the information here. You seem to be forgetting that others and myself were the main virtual test pilots for all the F-16 flight model blocks in Falcon 4 for over 7 years. I know what data LP used to interpolate to F4:AF because Sappy and I tested it for them after it was done.

Cheers to your future enjoyment! \:\) i'm enjoying the fact that the further this discussion proceeds the more you're learning in regards to this being a balanced BFM scenario and that only pilot skill can make a difference.

Acmi's are uploaded to the same place, you know where to find them.

Last edited by KidVicious; 05/24/08 12:26 AM.

To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
#2520286 - 05/24/08 03:55 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Deadmeat. Offline
Junior Member
Deadmeat.  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Australia
Man, I really am a sucker, answering AGAIN. I've got to get out more, I must have too much time on my hands this weekend. I wouldn't have written this reply, except for this line: "We've already established that the Falcon has superior acceleration and a greater top speed at altitude."
I can handle the twisting, and "creative" interpretation, but not this claim which is opposite to everything I've said.

The Falcon does NOT have superior acceleration above 2000 feet (although it does have higher top speed at 16k), the Fulcrum does.

For anyone not sure, please see the horizontal acceleration tests at 2000 feet and 16000 feet, or the vertical climb tests, in the link at the bottom of this post.
KV, take a physics class: the Fulcrum would not have it's superior vertical climb without better acceleration at most altitudes.

Now, for the last time (I mean it, honest), I'm not going to keep feeding him after this post, I swear. No matter what he says.


 Originally Posted By: KidVicious
I already told you here it that your calculations were incorrect.

I read(past tense) Frugals, not this. No calculations there, a counting error.


 Quote:
Let's continue your education here a bit. Anytime in a neutral BFM engagement between these two platforms, should the Viper load above the horizon, the MiG cannot enter the vertical without unloading first. I really don't know how many times I have to say it, or explain it for you to understand, and I'm trying really hard.

Oh, poor MiG. So what? The MiG can follow the Falcon to the elbow and outclimb it. That's right, read it, absorb it, accept it: the Fulcrum can outclimb the Falcon, even with a 50 knot deficit.


 Quote:
We're talking about 50 knots here <chuckles>, even with my experience it is difficult to make that call on an aircraft without a radar lock, and with your experience I'm absolutely certain your accuracy at judging bandit energy state without a lock is significantly less savory...but I digress...

If you find a 50 knot difference hard to judge, are you saying the Falcon's top speed advantage at 15k of 40 knots isn't going to mean much then?


I was wrong about the 3 second roll rate stuff, I misread it. I didn't see the "." in front of the 3. A "0" would have been good.
Your test may perhaps be correct, generally, but I'd question it's accuracy. The dat files will eventually give an accurate picture.


 Quote:

No you didn't. There's already been about 5 sets of eyes that have identified your skewed testing procedures to make up for lack of argument.

Yes, I did.
I'm sorry that I can't say more on that, there isn't anything else to say.


 Quote:
The Viper DOES accelerate faster to 600 kias at SL than the MiG. You even quoted what I said below and have access to the tapes, or to do some yourself (instead of a 200 knot range to test lol ).

Are you saying at SL the MiG accelerates faster than the Falcon above 600? Good to know: so the Fulcrum has superior acceleration above 2000 feet, and below that at 600+ kias, right?.
My test from 300 to 500 was far more useful than your 500+ test.


 Quote:
And keep in mind, it's not your place to doubt, but to verify before posting.

I'll just let you guess what I think of this. Take your own advice.


 Quote:
All I can say is LOL. Backpeddling now won't do you any good. The F-16 BFM armament is an advantage both in rate of fire, and probable hit per burst due to amount of projectiles in the air effectively making it impossible to fly between rounds on a killing solution. The same cannot be said for the MiG (not even counting its bigger surface to shoot at, and non-calibrated aiming symbology.)

Backpeddle? I started this stuff in Frugals with a post that made absolutely no mention of guns at all, because that wasn't what I was posting about.
[Still assuming the bandit is not flying between rounds - ie not a low percentage shot]: you apparently don't understand the concept of probability. Under these conditions the number of rounds is NOT related to hit probability. One round would be the same as a million (strictly for probability).


 Quote:
I don't see anything of the sort from happening...

I know. Everyone who has any experience with you knows you're blind to that.


 Quote:
Also, let me know if you need any help with the dat files, I've got the information here. You seem to be forgetting that others and myself were the main virtual test pilots for all the F-16 flight model blocks in Falcon 4 for over 7 years. I know what data LP used to interpolate to F4:AF because Sappy and I tested it for them after it was done.

You? Help me with the dat files? LOL. You're kidding, right?
I think I might just manage to do a little better without you.

Frugals thread on this topic


Last edited by Deadmeat.; 05/24/08 04:28 PM.

AF Mig29 BFM performance: better than the F16.

See AF F16/Mig29 graphs produced directly from FM data files here.
Download F4chart here.
#2520469 - 05/24/08 10:21 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Deadmeat.]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
 Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.
Man, I really am a sucker, answering AGAIN. I've got to get out more, I must have too much time on my hands this weekend.


Why the reluctance? I only see good things resulting from the discussion.

 Quote:

I wouldn't have written this reply, except for this line: "We've already established that the Falcon has superior acceleration and a greater top speed at altitude."
I can handle the twisting, and "creative" interpretation, but not this claim which is opposite to everything I've said.

It does have greater acceleration to 800 kias at 15,000, 825kias or so actually when separating. The MiG is lucky to get 796 kias. Less than a 2 min extention would allow for a re-entry at leisure...It all depends on the escape velocity the F-16 has. However, if the MiG tries to separate at altitude, he has to dive for the deck cause the F-16 can catch him. So the F-16 catches the bandit anyway but sustaining a high six and then diving on the MiG closing off the window. The MiG can also get enough separation for a re-entry, but it's not nearly as easy.

 Quote:

The Falcon does NOT have superior acceleration above 2000 feet (although it does have higher top speed at 16k), the Fulcrum does.

Yes it does. It accelerates faster from 600 to 800 kias above 2000 feet. I've had others check it as well, and it's in my acmis. It's exactly as I've told you the whole time, if you would have watched the tapes. The F-16 has greater acceleration at SL to 600 kias, but then the MiG outdistances it to 800 kias. At 15,000 feet the MiG is alittle quicker to 600 kias, but the F-16 accelerates faster to 800 kias. You see this range? These are heavy separating speeds allowing for quick re-enties if the geometry doesn't look good. A fighter unloads and accelerates till he's approx 2nm before turning back in.

Please, fly some head to head engagements in the F-16 against someone in the MiG and test it yourself. You'll see what I'm talking about and confirms the acmi footage.

 Quote:

For anyone not sure, please see the horizontal acceleration tests at 2000 feet and 16000 feet, or the vertical climb tests, in the link at the bottom of this post.
KV, take a physics class: the Fulcrum would not have it's superior vertical climb without better acceleration at most altitudes.


I think we've got you to understand what I've been saying the whole time...finally.

SL- F-16 faster to 600 kias, MiG faster to 800 kias and higher top speed at SL

15K MiG faster to 600 kias (by much smaller margin), but F-16 faster to 800 kias and beyond. This means, if the Viper EVER needs or finds an escape window, he max climb to 15,000 feet (if not already there) and simply separate from the MiG and burn off, then return at his leisure for a new merge. It's apparent of course that any escape window is exactly that, a high angle off extention from a turn fight.

 Quote:


Now, for the last time (I mean it, honest), I'm not going to keep feeding him after this post, I swear. No matter what he says.

Such drama...

 Quote:

 Originally Posted By: KidVicious
I already told you here it that your calculations were incorrect.

I read(past tense) Frugals, not this. No calculations there, a counting error.


I guess counting isn't a form of calculation anymore


 Quote:

Oh, poor MiG. So what? The MiG can follow the Falcon to the elbow and outclimb it. That's right, read it, absorb it, accept it: the Fulcrum can outclimb the Falcon, even with a 50 knot deficit.


Here's another example of "balanced" for ya..hehe. Put the F-16 in the saddle at 390, and the MiG at 440 and have the MiG 4G climb above the horizon, and then allow the F-16 to 3g unload to the elbow and see what happens...lol. You're not thinking from both perspectives. This envelope is so close, that 50 knots energy difference between aircraft is not enough if either bandit is lag in the saddle prior to going above the horizon.

It's possible for the F-16 to lag entry and kill the MiG over the top, or visa versa. However, if the MiG decides to unload over the top or max climb, the F-16 can of course lag entry and follow the MiG up just as easily. This is maneuvering uphill as well, not just the flat vertical climb tests we've done. 50 knots +/- cannot make a commanding advantage either way.


 Quote:


 Quote:
We're talking about 50 knots here <chuckles>, even with my experience it is difficult to make that call on an aircraft without a radar lock, and with your experience I'm absolutely certain your accuracy at judging bandit energy state without a lock is significantly less savory...but I digress...

If you find a 50 knot difference hard to judge, are you saying the Falcon's top speed advantage at 15k of 40 knots isn't going to mean much then?

I'm talking about a neutral geometry where neither bandit has a lock, the ability to judge his airspeed without a radar lock. Especially useful at knowing what speed before loading above the horizon after your bandit does.

See, this is that pilot skill stuff again having to separate the difference.

 Quote:

I was wrong about the 3 second roll rate stuff, I misread it. I didn't see the "." in front of the 3. A "0" would have been good.
Your test may perhaps be correct, generally, but I'd question it's accuracy. The dat files will eventually give an accurate picture.


Here, let me help you:

F-16C Block 52

# ROLL DATA
#
#
# ALPHA BREAKPOINTS
7 # Num ALPHA
-10 0 10 20 25 30 90
#
# DYNAMIC PRESSURE BREAKPOINTS
#
7 # Num QBAR
0 100 200 300 400 500
2000
#
# RCMDMX - PEAK ROLL RATE
#
1 # Table Multiplier
#
# ALPHA -10
0 171.82 243.41 257.73 257.73 257.73 229.09
#
# ALPHA 0
0 214.77 286.36 300.68 315 315 286.36
#
# ALPHA 10
0 171.82 243.41 257.73 257.73 257.73 229.09
#
# ALPHA 20
0 71.59 143.18 157.5 157.5 157.5 128.86
#
# ALPHA 25
0 60.0 93.07 107.39 107.39 107.39 107.39
#
# ALPHA 30
0 30.0 42.95 57.27 57.27 57.27 28.64
#
# ALPHA 90

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
#
# End Of Roll Data


MiG-29S

# RCMDMX - PEAK ROLL RATE
#
1 # Table Multiplier
#
# ALPHA -10
0 142.86 200 214.29 242.86 242.86 228.57
#
# ALPHA 0
0 200 257.14 271.43 300 300 285.71
#
# ALPHA 10
0 142.86 200 214.29 242.86 242.86 228.57
#
# ALPHA 20
0 71.43 128.57 142.86 157.14 157.14 142.86
#
# ALPHA 30
0 7.14 64.29 78.57 107.14 107.14 92.86
#
# ALPHA 60
0 0 7.14 21.43 50 50 35.71
#
# ALPHA 90

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
#
# End Of Roll Data


That should help ;\)

 Quote:

 Quote:
The Viper DOES accelerate faster to 600 kias at SL than the MiG. You even quoted what I said below and have access to the tapes, or to do some yourself (instead of a 200 knot range to test lol ).

Are you saying at SL the MiG accelerates faster than the Falcon above 600? Good to know: so the Fulcrum has superior acceleration above 2000 feet, and below that at 600+ kias, right?.
My test from 300 to 500 was far more useful than your 500+ test.


Only at SL (for the 5th+time) does the MiG accelerate faster from 600 to 800 kias. At 15,000 the Viper owns this envelope (explained above). As for useful, <chuckles>, with your lack of experience in this scenario I wouldn't suggest what you think is more useful, as we've evidently discovered above in regards to ability to separate or not lol.

 Quote:

 Quote:
All I can say is LOL. Backpeddling now won't do you any good. The F-16 BFM armament is an advantage both in rate of fire, and probable hit per burst due to amount of projectiles in the air effectively making it impossible to fly between rounds on a killing solution. The same cannot be said for the MiG (not even counting its bigger surface to shoot at, and non-calibrated aiming symbology.)

Backpeddle? I started this stuff in Frugals with a post that made absolutely no mention of guns at all, because that wasn't what I was posting about.
[Still assuming the bandit is not flying between rounds - ie not a low percentage shot]: you apparently don't understand the concept of probability. Under these conditions the number of rounds is NOT related to hit probability. One round would be the same as a million (strictly for probability).




Why are you making assumptions about bandits flying through rounds? Flying through rounds isn't an option when the F-16 blasts its shotgun out in front of its flight path. Please just accept that hud symbology is "probable" for a first burst hit and that's it. You cannot ensure your first burst will hit but only by guestimation. Accuracy comes from experience, but that's not the point. The point is that in one single burst the F-16 has more projectiles in the air at point of intercept and has a higher probability of a hit as a result because more lead is flying at the target (just like soviet tactics of ripple firing two missiles).

The MiG has a slower rate of fire ALLOWING the possibility of flying between rounds, and not nearly as much projectiles in the air during a burst. Not only that, we're sticking purely to F4:AF here, and the F-16 is a smaller target making it even less probable of a hit. Combine that with the skewed aiming system in the MiG's HUD symbology and it's no contest...hell if you put the death dot on target when flying the MiG you won't even score a hit because of this. The Viper wins hands down in BFM armament.

 Quote:

 Quote:
Also, let me know if you need any help with the dat files, I've got the information here. You seem to be forgetting that others and myself were the main virtual test pilots for all the F-16 flight model blocks in Falcon 4 for over 7 years. I know what data LP used to interpolate to F4:AF because Sappy and I tested it for them after it was done.

You? Help me with the dat files? LOL. You're kidding, right?
I think I might just manage to do a little better without you.


See above in regards to the roll data. Go ahead and tell me what the value of the table multipliers means in relation to the alpha breakpoints?

Good luck in continuing your research on what you consider as "superior" in all respects (which by of course now the reader can accurately determine is not the case, but more of a balanced scenario).



Last edited by KidVicious; 05/24/08 10:25 PM.

To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
#2641251 - 12/26/08 04:21 AM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Deadmeat. Offline
Junior Member
Deadmeat.  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Australia
Here is the proof: graphs drawn directly from flight model files.
The following is a copy of this post: Frugals post

First some caveats, mostly cut and pasted from my previous Frugals thread on this subject:
This whole post is about AF, it may or may not apply to OF and RV, it doesn't apply to real life.
Im not claiming the Mig-29 is a superior platform to the F-16 in general, its not; the F-16 is superior.
Im talking only about BFM.
Im also not claiming that the AI Mig-29 cant be beaten in a gunzo dogfight, it can, I usually beat it myself with a small amount of effort (and it certainly never kills me).
A badly flown Mig-29 can be made to look quite pathetic by an excellent pilot in an F-16, but we shouldnt be complimenting the Falcon for these victories,
we should be complimenting the pilot flying the Falcon.
The Mig-29 is not a magic bullet that will allow a significantly inferior pilot to beat a superior pilot.
The most important factor in human F16 vs human Mig-29 dogfights is likely to be the pilots relative skill levels.


The reason I am interested in Fulcrum vs Falcon is that I notice the difference in performance when flying one then the other.
I was told that the Fulcrum did NOT have superior performance, but it is quite obvious to anyone flying it that it does, so I decided to prove it.

If you would like to see for yourself, fly an F16 block 52 against an Ace AI Mig29s, then fly a Mig29s against an Ace AI Mig29s.
Beginner or expert, you will notice the difference, and find the second dogfight easier.

If you don't know how to read an energy-maneuverabilty chart, read these articles:
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html
http://www.combatsim.com/htm/nov98/energy-man1.htm
http://www.combatsim.com/htm/nov98/energy-man2.htm

Here are the charts:
(clean jet, max AB)
EM

Ktas vs dps.
Radius lines are 1000 to 4000 in 500ft steps.
G lines are 2 to 10 in 2g stps.
The Mig29 is superior except at very high speeds.

ACCELERATION (HORIZONTAL)

Ktas vs feet/sec^2.
Horizontal flight.
The Mig29 is superior except at very high speeds.


ACCELERATION (VERTICAL)


Ktas vs feet/sec^2.
Vertical flight.
Grey line is 0 feet/sec^2.
The Mig29 is superior except at very high speeds.


DECCELERATION

Ktas vs feet/sec^2.
Hardest possible horizontal turn, throttle at idle.
This is without airbrakes extended.
The F16 is superior except at very high speeds.


PEAK ROLL RATE

Ktas vs dps.
Red and blue horizontal lines are the (mis-labeled?) "rollMomentum" values, multiplied by 100 for easier comparison.
This is incomplete. (Will later hopefully show "Time to Roll 180deg")
Only one graph shown because incomplete and the other altitudes are virtually identical.
The F16 is superior.




The only areas that the F16 has superiority in are decceleration
(which is only to be expected after you've seen the sustained turn rate curves: it bleeds speed too easily)
and roll rate,
by FAR the least two important graphs of the five.

At many altitudes the F16 does become superior at high speeds, but only at speeds that are unlikely to be reached in a dogfight, and only by diving.

ENVELOPE COMPARISON

The red area shows at which speeds and altitudes the Mig29 is superior, the blue shows where the Falcon is superior.
The purple area is where it is not immediately clear which is superior.

Most dogfights are unlikely to leave the red envelope, let alone enter the blue.

The above was for 100% fuel. At 700lb fuel for both jets the differences in performance become less,
but both still retain their performance advantages at the same speeds and altitudes; the Envelope Comparison chart shown here remains correct.


So...the AF Fulcrum BFM perfomance is superior. 'Nuff said.


F4chart is available here: F4chart

Last edited by Deadmeat.; 12/28/08 11:12 PM.

AF Mig29 BFM performance: better than the F16.

See AF F16/Mig29 graphs produced directly from FM data files here.
Download F4chart here.
#2641784 - 12/27/08 08:15 AM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Deadmeat.]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

The most important factor in human F16 vs human Mig-29 dogfights is likely to be the pilots relative skill levels.


Exactly, as has been stated many times both in reference to RL reports, and in F4AF; because the advantages both aircraft hold allow for a balanced engagement in BFM head to head.

Quote:

If you would like to see for yourself, fly an F16 block 52 against an Ace AI Mig29s, then fly a Mig29s against an Ace AI Mig29s.
Beginner or expert, you will notice the difference, and find the second dogfight easier.

Also, as has already been stated, a test against the AI in a DACT scenario is invalid because the AI flies each aircraft the same way. It does not take advantage of difference performance envelopes but only flies by the same set of parameters which is very limited. The AI does not know how to max perform the F-16. Due to the limited data modeled into the Fulcrum, drag is much more prevalent in the F-16 and the AI doesn't know how to handle this properly being that it primarily fights by radius control.

So given incomplete drag data for the MiG, it gives the AI a cushion for sloppiness that is not present in a true BFM head to head engagement, where both vpilots are capable of max performing the airframes.

I also question your acceleration data because it is not consistent with performance in the sim, nor from the FM data. Your charts are very crude, so it's hard to determine explicit differences between the two aircraft (which is necessary is such a balanced comparison). Although it's really not necessary because my report above already shows the accurate data.

Quote:

The only areas that the F16 has superiority in are decceleration(which is only to be expected after you've seen the sustained turn rate curves: it bleeds speed too easily)
and roll rate, by FAR the least two important graphs of the five.

Inaccurate but I'll indulge just discussing the latter two points. Could you elaborate on the above marked in bold? smile What makes them the least important when it comes to a DACT BFM engagement between two pilots that can max performe each airframe? Clearly to make such a statement you should undoubtedly have enough experience and or footage that would backup such a claim.

Quote:

Most dogfights are unlikely to leave the red envelope, let alone enter the blue.


Again, the chart above is very crude and doesn't do much to show differences or quantify any of the data that's made available. In regards to where and how what envelopes will look to be exploited in DACT BFM, you'll have to elaborate or at least try to quantify application of aircraft performance head to head...which is exactly what BFM is, head to head manuevering.

After 7 months of absence I'm pleased to see you're still working on this topic. With a bit more work, accuracy, and detail to your EM diagrams and some of the other charts it should make for a decent reference on paper for anyone that wants to look at the minute differences of these airframes in BFM when going up head to head, although it's already been defined in my initial report, more graphical representations makes things a bit easier to digest; as long as the data is accurate of course wink.


To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
#2641826 - 12/27/08 12:04 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Deadmeat. Offline
Junior Member
Deadmeat.  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Australia
Originally Posted By: KidVicious

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

If you would like to see for yourself, fly an F16 block 52 against an Ace AI Mig29s, then fly a Mig29s against an Ace AI Mig29s.
Beginner or expert, you will notice the difference, and find the second dogfight easier.

Also, as has already been stated, a test against the AI in a DACT scenario is invalid because the AI flies each aircraft the same way. It does not take advantage of difference performance envelopes but only flies by the same set of parameters which is very limited. The AI does not know how to max perform the F-16. Due to the limited data modeled into the Fulcrum, drag is much more prevalent in the F-16 and the AI doesn't know how to handle this properly being that it primarily fights by radius control.
So given incomplete drag data for the MiG, it gives the AI a cushion for sloppiness that is not present in a true BFM head to head engagement, where both vpilots are capable of max performing the airframes.

If you take a second look you will see I am suggesting flying against an AI Mig both times, thus there will be no difference due to the AI. Any difference noticed will be purely due to the aircraft you are flying.



Quote:
I also question your acceleration data because it is not consistent with performance in the sim, nor from the FM data. Your charts are very crude, so it's hard to determine explicit differences between the two aircraft (which is necessary is such a balanced comparison). Although it's really not necessary because my report above already shows the accurate data.

The chart is accurate, and it cannot be inconsistent with data from the FM because it IS the data from the FM. Feel free to point out any differences between the graphs and the FM files, LOL!
Crude? Are you suggesting perhaps that more markings on the x axis, and maybe some horizontal guide lines would be good? I'm open to constructive suggestions for improvement.
If you download the program, you can run it and click on a point in the graph to see it's coordinates.



Quote:
After 7 months of absence I'm pleased to see you're still working on this topic.

Except for completing the roll rate and adding the airbrake to the decceleration(and maybe a few suggestions to make the program easier to use), I am now no longer working on this topic. There is nothing left to do, it cannot be taken any further than the data from the FM files.

Last edited by Deadmeat.; 12/27/08 12:08 PM.

AF Mig29 BFM performance: better than the F16.

See AF F16/Mig29 graphs produced directly from FM data files here.
Download F4chart here.
#2641945 - 12/27/08 04:39 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Deadmeat.]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

If you take a second look you will see I am suggesting flying against an AI Mig both times, thus there will be no difference due to the AI. Any difference noticed will be purely due to the aircraft you are flying.


I don't understand what you're trying to say here? Of course there will be no difference flying against the AI because they don't max perform any aircraft, but fly within specific parameters. There is no "DACT" type of engagement vs the AI because they cannot take advantage of their desired performance envelopes, particularly when they are piloting the F-16. Again, the MiG performs better in the AI's hands (or a rookie virtual stick) because it doesn't bleed energy during the AIs protocol for fighting by radius control. Skillful manipulation of the stick is REQUIRED piloting the F-16 because of it's attention to detail in modeling....something the AI is not capable of doing.

Quote:

The chart is accurate, and it cannot be inconsistent with data from the FM because it IS the data from the FM. Feel free to point out any differences between the graphs and the FM files, LOL!

You'll need to explain how your prog extrapolates the data and interpolates it to the charts. I'm just trying to rule out an error in the prog, because some of the data on the charts are NOT consistent with performance output by the airframes in the SIM.

Quote:

Crude? Are you suggesting perhaps that more markings on the x axis, and maybe some horizontal guide lines would be good? I'm open to constructive suggestions for improvement.
If you download the program, you can run it and click on a point in the graph to see it's coordinates.

Yes, more breakpoints on the charts with better labeling would be excellent. Your 'overall envelope' chart is erroneous and doens't show an adequate comparison between the aircraft. All it does is show airspeeds and altitudes without any reference to performance comparisons; which is rudimentary.

Quote:

Except for completing the roll rate and adding the airbrake to the decceleration(and maybe a few suggestions to make the program easier to use), I am now no longer working on this topic. There is nothing left to do, it cannot be taken any further than the data from the FM files.


A readme or explanation of what your prog actually does would be good to allow for improvements or scrutiny that would be able to reduce margin of human error. Why didn't you complete the rollrate data and speedbrake data?

I believe we're still at the same point as we were 7 months ago here; only I disagree with your acceleration findings because they do not match performance in the SIM, so there has to be an error somewhere. In some places they do, but in others they do not, so it draws into question where there may be errors elsewhere too.

We're all still seeing a balanced DACT scenario with the closeness of several performance characteristics, and small advantages in different envelopes by both aircraft. You also forgot to elaborate on what I marked above in bold in regards to:
Quote:

The only areas that the F16 has superiority in are decceleration
(which is only to be expected after you've seen the sustained turn rate curves: it bleeds speed too easily)
and roll rate,
by FAR the least two important graphs of the five.


Also, as listed in my above report, there are several other areas where the F-16 is superior that directly relates to its capabilities in Basic Fighter Manuevers (dogfighting head to head)..although this is a DACT BFM (dissemilar) comparison.

Last edited by KidVicious; 12/27/08 04:39 PM.

To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
#2642121 - 12/27/08 09:42 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Deadmeat. Offline
Junior Member
Deadmeat.  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Australia
Originally Posted By: KidVicious
Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

If you take a second look you will see I am suggesting flying against an AI Mig both times, thus there will be no difference due to the AI. Any difference noticed will be purely due to the aircraft you are flying.


I don't understand what you're trying to say here? Of course there will be no difference flying against the AI because they don't max perform any aircraft, but fly within specific parameters. There is no "DACT" type of engagement vs the AI because they cannot take advantage of their desired performance envelopes, particularly when they are piloting the F-16. Again, the MiG performs better in the AI's hands (or a rookie virtual stick) because it doesn't bleed energy during the AIs protocol for fighting by radius control. Skillful manipulation of the stick is REQUIRED piloting the F-16 because of it's attention to detail in modeling....something the AI is not capable of doing.

I think most other people understand what I'm saying. You will get it eventually.
I'm not talking about the AI flying the F16, you can stop mentioning that whenever you like.

Quote:

You'll need to explain how your prog extrapolates the data and interpolates it to the charts. I'm just trying to rule out an error in the prog, because some of the data on the charts are NOT consistent with performance output by the airframes in the SIM.

Er, no I won't need to; there is only one way to create the graphs from the data. Look it up, or borrow an aerodynamics book from your library. It will tell you exactly how I've done it.

Quote:

Yes, more breakpoints on the charts with better labeling would be excellent. Your 'overall envelope' chart is erroneous and doens't show an adequate comparison between the aircraft. All it does is show airspeeds and altitudes without any reference to performance comparisons; which is rudimentary.

Breakpoints are nothing to do with me. Talk to the FM guys.
My overall envelope chart is not incorrect, and if you look at the 25 charts above it you will find your "adequate comparison between the aircraft"


Quote:
A readme or explanation of what your prog actually does would be good to allow for improvements or scrutiny that would be able to reduce margin of human error. Why didn't you complete the rollrate data and speedbrake data?

Download the program, and read the readme file.


Quote:

I believe we're still at the same point as we were 7 months ago here; only I disagree with your acceleration findings because they do not match performance in the SIM, so there has to be an error somewhere. In some places they do, but in others they do not, so it draws into question where there may be errors elsewhere too.

The acceleration figures are not mine, they are pulled directly from the FM. They are not erroneous. You can try to "disagree" with them if you like, I really don't care. It won't do you any good.
If you would like to provide different acceleration figures calculated directly from the FM data files, either in graph form or otherwise, please do, it would be most interesting hahaha

Last edited by Deadmeat.; 12/27/08 09:48 PM.

AF Mig29 BFM performance: better than the F16.

See AF F16/Mig29 graphs produced directly from FM data files here.
Download F4chart here.
#2642270 - 12/28/08 03:38 AM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Deadmeat.]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

I think most other people understand what I'm saying. You will get it eventually.
I'm not talking about the AI flying the F16, you can stop mentioning that whenever you like.


Well the fact of what I'm saying above stands true. Any comparison utilizing the AI as a base is invalid because they DO NOT max perform the aircraft. The MiG is suited for rookish or sloppy flying (as is demonstrated by the AI). Of course the F-16 requires more skill to be flown to its max potential because of its more detailed modeling; I figured I'd mention it again just for good measure, you'll get it eventually biggrin

Quote:

Er, no I won't need to; there is only one way to create the graphs from the data. Look it up, or borrow an aerodynamics book from your library. It will tell you exactly how I've done it.


If you can't that's ok, I understand. I've worked with every aeronautical engineer and test program since falcon started development post 108i2 executable (from iBeta), and have seen the errors they made in their programs as well. You're not an aeronautical engineer. You're not an experienced BFMer in falcon. You're not above human error that takes place with others far more experienced than you in regards to interpolating data from the FM .dat files and how performance output is guaged in the SIM. There IS and have been differences to outside calculations to in SIM performance, but I understand you don't know that as is readily noticed from your combative responses. biggrin If it wasn't for your combative attitude, I would have been more than happy to help you and give you additional programs to help in your research instead of the crude, incomplete program and DATA analysis you're using now. (have you forgotten the EXE related FM code??? :D)

Quote:

Breakpoints are nothing to do with me. Talk to the FM guys.

This just goes to show your program is far from complete.
Quote:

My overall envelope chart is not incorrect, and if you look at the 25 charts above it you will find your "adequate comparison between the aircraft"

Actually it IS incorrect. Com'on, 12 degree per second jumps on the X axis for the EM diagrams? Accel numbers that appear to start out of nowhere at random? etc...How about actually using some GRAPH PAPER to show the numerical values in between the only numbers you've provided so someone wouldn't have to try and guess?

Quote:

Download the program, and read the readme file.

I did, it just doesn't really say much; or quantify what the program does. You're expecting others to believe what your program actually does without any proof.

Quote:

The acceleration figures are not mine, they are pulled directly from the FM. They are not erroneous. You can try to "disagree" with them if you like, I really don't care. It won't do you any good. If you would like to provide different acceleration figures calculated directly from the FM data files, either in graph form or otherwise, please do, it would be most interesting

The figures ARE yours and obviously an error within your program AND your methodology. Those figures are not even CLOSE to performance in the SIM. Everyone already has seen that, and it draws question to the validity of the rest of the analysis that you've presented. I'm really sorry to be the one to tell you, but it's just the way it is.

Considering you're not an authority on BFM or flight model data my disagreeing and counter argument is enough in itself. Who you think others are going to believe, an inexperienced individual with a personal vendetta, or one that has been involved with development from the beginning with far more competent individuals and teams? hahaha

I'm sorry, but I only work with aero engineers and qualified individuals when it comes to FMing in falcon 4. You should have beta tested your own program biggrin.

You trying your damndest to stick to performance numbers on paper without any time in the jet only amplifies what I've said earlier in this thread about your lack of experience and understanding at what BFM has to do with the application to ACM. It's weak, and quite obvious that you cannot stand behind your own argument with practical application. A cop-out if you will because your only recourse is to argue on paper. If that's the best you can do, no one is going to take you seriously hahaha

It's obvious to everyone now, especially that you screwed up and have failed TWICE to answer the call to elaborate on your own words in regards to:
Quote:

The only areas that the F16 has superiority in are decceleration
(which is only to be expected after you've seen the sustained turn rate curves: it bleeds speed too easily)
and roll rate,
by FAR the least two important graphs of the five.


We all know that you're trying to talk the talk without being able to understand how to walk the walk. Like how all this is applied to the actual DACT engagement, and how weight of advantages is determined head to head. You can SAY one particular advantage is more important than another, but you can't back it up...nothing changed here.

You should have known better and stuck to "handling characteristics" and not venture into how they're actually weighed and applied in BFM and ACM. Nonetheless, even with your erroneous acceleration data this comparison is still "BALANCED" and the outcome of DACT BFM is FORCED to be decided by piloting skill, which yourself admitted right of the bat...therefore solidifying the fact that neither aircraft has overwhelming superiority over the other in a head to head engagement. That's what my report means by "BALANCED". biggrin

<chuckles> hahaha
It took you over 6 MONTHS to come back after getting thrashed the last time in this discussion, that time in between would have been better spent flying and enjoying yourself rather than holding a personal grudge and doing what you've been doing.

Cheers, and keep up the effort biggrin


To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Shiny American Rocket, cheaper by the dozen
by Nixer. 05/06/21 12:48 AM
House of the Dragon
by PanzerMeyer. 05/05/21 05:45 PM
Some funny Facebook observations
by PanzerMeyer. 05/05/21 11:53 AM
Chinese Rocket
by carrick58. 05/05/21 12:26 AM
Hope everyone is having a good day
by oldgrognard. 05/04/21 02:09 PM
A long strange trip it's been
by rwatson. 05/03/21 04:31 PM
Remember when???
by Bill_Grant. 05/02/21 02:15 PM
Hard day at work
by Chucky. 05/01/21 11:52 PM
The power of lucid dreaming...
by Dart. 05/01/21 02:50 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0