=========================================================================== =========================================================================== COMPLEX/HIFI FAQ FOR FALCON 3.0x Compiled by Daniel Hyams dgh1@ra.msstate.edu =========================================================================== =========================================================================== My original intention in conducting this little information gathering "survey" was to provide a quick database where avid Falcon3 pilots could go to make a decision on their flight model, and to (hopefully) point out that one was definitely preferable over the other. Well, the more I read, the more I realized that, as in the words of Greg Cisko, "Different strokes for different folks." The intent of this booklet is now to simply provide everyone's opinion along with the facts, and to let you make you own decision. Because of the obvious fact that neither model even comes close to simulating the F-16's flight characteristics, I really hope that we will all put pressure on SH to revamp the COMPLEX flight model. Why not make the selections SIMPLIFIED-COMPLEX-REALISTIC-HIFI, where REALISTIC is the F-16 accurate flight model (in the footsteps of Mig-29 and Hornet) and they still have their selling point of the HIFI model? I realize that SH will not be too willing to totally revamp Falcon3's flight model and release it as a patch, but here's hoping! Really, I think it would be a good idea to work hard to get it right in Falcon3 and test it with the customers, and then implement the same realistic flight model in Falcon4. SURVEY RESULTS: COMPLEX --------> 9 HIFI --------> 9 I, to stay in good graces with everyone, choose to abstain ;-) This booklet is divided into three parts: General Info, Complex and HiFi. General Info, of course, simply has info pertaining to Complex/HiFi models that has been received or extracted from another source. The last two sections have the responses that I received (some very slightly edited). My comments, when made, are enclosed in brackets. I would like to thank everyone who participated and hope that many will find some valuable info in this faq, worthy for archiving on your hard drive! Special thanks to Greg Cisko and Stuart Butts for their very helpful comments and suggestions. =========================================================================== GENERAL INFORMATION =========================================================================== David A. Masten [Here, I am not sure of which version David is dealing with, but the curious can find this posting on the wais service and note the date. I meant to save that, somehow was deleted.] Results of some more "flight" tests. I think you'll find some interesting, so bear with me :-) The objective was to explore the behavior of the complex and hifi models with load effects. I looked at climb and acceleration rates. Here, loaded includes 10 mk82's, 6 agm65's, 2 9P's. Total weight is about 31000, near the max of the actual F16A. Unloaded is no weapons. Climb Test: Elapsed time from 1000 to 21000 ft starting at 500 kts level flight, 45 degree climb (60 degree gave slightly faster rates), AB5. hifi loaded 41 sec hifi empty 34 sec complex loaded stalls! (but about 45 sec) empty 29 sec I don't know the actual numbers, but the above correspond to about 40000 ft/min for unloaded, which sounds reasonable. Note SC numbers are close to F3's. F3's complex mode allows large vertical climb acceleration when unloaded. I got up to 60K ft in 60 seconds! Hifi allows slight acceleration, at low altitude. If I recall correctly, SC's vertical climb behavior is closer to hifi's. Acceleration Test: Elapsed time from 0.5M to 0.9M (330-595 kts) from low level flight (1K) hifi loaded AB5 22.0 sec hifi loaded mil 56.0 sec hifi empty AB5 14.8 sec hifi empty mil 38.0 sec complex 7.5 sec for ALL except loaded, full mil power! Obviously complex's acceleration is way out of line. For comparison, "Modern Air Combat" lists the F4 doing the above in 22 seconds in AB and 54 seconds mil power. So I guess the hifi numbers above are reasonable. What happened in complex for loaded/mil power? It topped out at about 476 knots. As I fired off each weapon, the cruise speed increased. Yes, F3 now models weight/drag effects in complex! But it's pretty bogus as the speeds rapidly accelerated to the terminal value, than stopped on a dime. Hifi still showed no cruise speed correlation to weight/drag. So it looks like SH keeps tweaking the flight models as I'm pretty sure the complex drag effects are new, and so are the fuel consumption vs altitude noted before. But it still accelerates like it has a second, massless, Pratt and Whitney strapped on! .......................................................................... Falcon3 FAQ Comments [This text was extracted from the Falcon3 FAQ on onion.rain.com] The high-fidelity flight model in Falcon 3.0 was originally developed for ASAT, or Advanced Situational Awareness Trainer, which was an air intercept trainer for the USAF. Its inclusion in Falcon 3.0 has generated many questions as to how it behaves. The following remarks are applicable to the high-fidelity flight model in all versions of Falcon 3.0: - Hi-fi flight model does not function at airspeeds under approx 270 knots. Below this, the player's aircraft is controlled by the complex flight model. There is a noticeable transition when this airspeed threshold is crossed. - Hi-fi flight models weight limitations somewhat, in that planes loaded in excess of 32,000 pounds will crash as soon as they exceed 270 knots in a takeoff. - Hi-fi flight model doesn't model G limitations (nor does Complex), so you can pull 9 G's with a full load of fuel and ordnance. However, you'll lose airspeed in the turn, until you cross below the 270 knot threshold and re-enter Complex flight model. If you stay in a turn, you can yo-yo between the two flight models indefinitely. - Hi-fi flight model doesn't model drag effects; you can travel at 450 knots at zero throttle indefinitely. - Hi-fi flight model's airbrakes are dramatically more effective than those in Complex flight model. - Hi-fi flight model causes your F16 to travel at least 40 knots faster Complex flight model at the same throttle settings Note that wingmen, enemies, and your plane in Autopilot always use Complex flight model, not Hi-fi. END OF SECTION============================================================== =========================================================================== COMPLEX =========================================================================== Stuart Butts <71553.356@compuserve.com> COMPLEX -- 3.02.01 The Hi-Fi model more accurately models the energy bleed you will experience during hard maneuvering than the complex model does above 20,000 ft. However, the flying qualities of the Hi-Fi model are completely out to lunch. There appears to me almost no damping in the roll axis, and very little in the pitch axis. Try this test: Level flight, 350 knots, 10,000 ft, put in full lateral stick and hold it until you complete the full 360 degrees, and then let go. What happened? Unless there's something wrong with my machine or I'm going crazy , you continued to roll and ended up on your back. This doesn't happen in the F-16, and this aspect of the Hi-Fi model makes it useless IMHO. The reason highighted what this model was intended for, BVR, is because this is why its flying qualities are messed up. You don't need to accurately model the flying qualities for BVR training, since the pilot will never be in a high gain closed loop task, at least not as far as flying the aircraft is concerned . In the aeronautical engineering community, the study of aircraft flight dynamics is broken into two main subject areas: PERFORMANCE and FLYING QUALITIES. PERFORMANCE basically deals with lift, thrust, and drag. PERFORMANCE data are things like climb rates, cruise range, max speed, ceiling, and energy-maneuverability (turn rate vs airspeed plots that also show how energy bleeds during level turns, note level means constant altitude). FLYING QUALITIES deals with the basic stability and control (S&C) of the aircraft as well as pilot-in- the-loop handling qualities. S&C data are things like control surface power (elevators, ailerons, rudders, etc.), and basic aircraft stability and damping in pitch, roll, and yaw. S&C data also look at the pilots open-loop control capability. Open loop means he just makes an input and watches what happens, he doesn't modify his control inputs based on anything he sees. Handling qualities data are data related to when the pilot is closed-loop, ie, he is trying to accomplish a specific task like landing or guns tracking. The reason I went through this long dissertation, is to explain a little bit about where I'm coming from with my preference of flight model. First lets talk PERFORMANCE. At all altitudes in the HIFI model, thrust produced at low power settings is way to high or the drag produced by the aircraft in cruise is way to low. I have been able to cruise at 450 ktas, 10k ft, with all kinds of bombs (although I don't think they model stores drag/weight effects) at idle power. COMPLEX is closer to reality in this respect. With regards to energy-maneuverability (E-M), which model is closer to reality depends on what altitude you are flying at. At altitudes of 20,000 ft and above, the HIFI model definitely seems more realistic. However, I got the HIFI model (clean configuration) to do a sustained 9 g turn at 700 KTAS/10k ft with full aft stick and MAX AB. This is total BS. The COMPLEX model (again clean configuration) did sustain the 9 g, but did it at 450 KTAS at this altitude will full aft stick, this is still wrong but it is closer. So, depending on where you do your fighting will determine which model gets you the most realism. Personally, I find most of my air combat happens below 15,000 ft, so I think COMPLEX is better. Now lets talk FLYING QUALITIES. In the 300 to 500 KTAS range, the COMPLEX model FLYING QUALITIES are much more realistic than those of the HIFI model. In this airspeed range, the HIFI model appears to lack damping (for lack of a better term since I don't know how the equations of motion look), especially in the roll axis. Try this experiment: stabilize the aircraft at 400 KTAS/10k ft/1 g, apply full lateral stick (either direction) as you roll through 360 deg (ie coming back over the top) center the stick, what happened? I always end up inverted. This doesn't happen in the F-16. In the real aircraft, you might continue to roll 20 deg at the most. This lack of damping is also apparent in the pitch axis, but isn't nearly as bothersome as in roll. This makes the aircraft totally unflyable IMO and is in no way representative of the real aircraft, so I prefer COMPLEX. [General info] The airspeed and altitude range where the F-16 can actually accelerate while climbing straight up is very limited. It's basically at 0.9 Mach number below 10,000 ft. ............................................................................ Chera Bekker COMPLEX - 3.03 I always try to use the most accurate flight model. I was an avid user of HIFI until 3.02. With this patch also came substantial improvements in the complex flight model while the HIFI model stayed the same. I have done some testing and discussing with Stuart Butts and have come to the conclusion that with patch 3.02 the complex flight model should be considered as the most accurate. This has been discussed a while ago in the list, I can't remember all the details, but in general the consensus became that complex has become better than HIFI since 3.02 because: 1) complex models drag much better than HIFI 2) complex takes the weapon load into account 3) in HIFI you can make flat 9 g turns while maintaining airspeed at 450 kts (with AB5). ............................................................................ Derek Coetzee COMPLEX - 3.01.1 The biggest problem with hifi is the bounce between hifi and complex when you hit 300-350kts. I always end up around that speed in a furball, so it keeps bouncing between the models. ........................................................................... William T. Overton COMPLEX - 3.03 1) 386 w/o a co-processor 2) I don't like that the HiFi has had some such very major (reported) flaws, like no drag, or that it transitions below certain airspeeds to a different model. I'm a flight simulation engineer w/ emphasis on flight models for the space shuttle (Shuttle Engineering Simulator), so I'm fairly picky. The complex model doesn't have any real quirks that I've noticed that detract from the mission at hand. ........................................................................... Scott Garee COMPLEX - ??? I use complex mainly because of the peculiarities of Hi-Fi: 1) Speed switch @ 250 kts. 2) Generally invalid flight dynamics. Here's my biggest gripe about the flight models from SH (I don't have either M29 or F18): If I fly straight and level at a low speed (above stall) the plane should lose altitude. It only does this with gear down in Falcon. ............................................................................ Steve Smith COMPLEX - 3.03 (assumed) I use the complex flight model because the HIFI model has some serious reality problems, the biggest being that even with a loaded plane it will accelerate to 500 knots at 66% throttle in level flight. There are other problems. You can lose your engine and glide hundreds of miles. War loads don't seem to affect the flying characteristics at all. I have heard that SH was given permission to use the HIFI flight model by the National Air Guard, or whoever they originally wrote it for, under the proviso that the code not be changed. Since it was originally designed as a Beyond Visual Range combat simulator which wasn't intended to fly at less than 300 knots (in the training version), there are a few major gaps in the flight model. Slower flight speeds were not bothered with and air-to-ground weapon loads were not dealt with (the original assumed an intercept profile load-out). My conviction is that the realistic models in Mig29 and Hornet are much better done ( as well as their instrumentation and cockpit representations). SH has evolved their design approach (experience) since Falcon 3.0 was released 2 years ago, and the F-16 is the oldest aircraft in the series, so this is all understandable. ........................................................................... David Ransier COMPLEX - ???? There is a tremendous amount of confusion and opinions about the Hi-Fi flight model. Bottom line is, ignore it and pretend SH never told you about it. The Hi-Fi flight model was ported from a military flight sim that was created to, specifically, train BVR tactics. The flight model is not complete, nor is it realistic. For example, it does not bleed energy at all. Now, I say this very emphatically, but there is a 300 knot threshhold. (I forget the order, but...) Above 300 knots you're flying Hi-Fi model and below you jump into the complex flight model. (If i'm backwards then swap "above" and "below".) You can easily test this by going to 30,000 take it to 400 knots and shut your engines off. You'll be able to cruise forever, do loops, etc., and never lose speed. In fact, there are those that like to fly Hi-Fi in combat and the only way to slow down, when you need it, is to use the speed brakes. Our local Falcon 3 user group has converted all members away from Hi-Fi Flight model, and fly exclusively Complex. ............................................................................ Gary Cooper COMPLEX - 3.03 I don't have a math coprocessor AND the AI uses the complex model. ............................................................................ Jim Knutson COMPLEX-3.02 for h2h/3.03 for campaigns I used to fly hifi because it modelled the acceleration and drag effects better. However, complex has improved, it doesn't have the flight model transition at 300kts that hifi does, and the computer pilots use it, so I'm flying apples with apples now. I think it's been stated before the that hifi model was used for BVR engagement simulation, and not for a turning dogfight. It suffers from this (no sim <300kts, and acceleration is modelled, but not quite correctly). ........................................................................... END OF SECTION============================================================= ============================================================================ HIGH FIDELITY ============================================================================ Greg Cisko HIFI -- 3.03 The reason I use HiFi, is because I mistakenly thought it was accurate. HA! Hornet's REALISTIC is probably closer to the mark for a flight model. Keep in mind that the F-16 and Hornet were developed at the same time. The reason I don't use COMPLEX, is simply that I see a difference from EASY to COMPLEX. They are both so easy to fly, it is a joke. HiFi with it's multitude of flaws is more challanging. If you want more info just ask. Actually, after talking to Chera Bekker this morning, it seems I need to do more testing. The biggest problem with HiFi is the way that drag is modeled. i.e...With a fully loaded plane you could pull 9 G's; all day or until you black out. With HiFi there is no performance differance with a stripped F-16 vs one that is fully loaded. But, I still used it as I thought COMPLEX to be a cartoonish flightmodel. I thought it gained speed way too quickly. And with COMPLEX you could still fly with more than 32,000 lbs loaded. Is that realistic? Probably not. So people have to pick the better of 2 evils. Until now... As I have said in the digest earlier, I think the REALISTIC model from HORNET is the model of choice. From the description Chera, gave COMPLEX is now modeling weight loading properly (at least better than HiFi). This sounds pretty good to me. So I'll go home & give it a try. With COMPLEX, I think you can still load more than the 32,000 lb. limit. I really wish the flight model would get some attention from SH. I'm not talking about waiting for falcon4 either. If they can alter COMPLEX in a patch, they should/need to be able to do the same with HiFi. The fact that HiFi is based on part of some air national guard simulator, is a nice selling point. But so what.... Anyway, I will give COMPLEX another try. I do think it will be the same as before though. One last thing... I just re-read this. If the F16 will accelerate in a vertical climb, then perhaps COMPLEX is the flightmodel to use. HiFi is supposedly to simulate properly for BVR intercepts. Come to think of it. What good is that? Most of us can handle our F16's just fine for BVR intercepts. The MOST critical aspect of falcons' flightmodel is for BFM. The furball is generaly what most people tend to concentrate on. Yes... I will give COMPLEX another look. HiFi DEFINATELY!!!! I just got done comparing HiFi vs complex. I now have some fresh data. 1) I was able to get 9.9 G turns in COMPLEX. I was only able to get 9.1 in HiFi and the 9.1 was a spike. HiFi stayed mostly at 9.0. 2) I hit AB 5 and went to a 45 degree angle. HiFi dropped speed dramaticly. COMPLEX gained speed dramaticly. No wonder why I couldn't outfly my European friends in IHHD, the last time I tried. I was using HiFi. I learned today that Chera was using COMPLEX. Judging from the difference in performance in the 2 flightmodels, they SHOULD have out flown me. AND SO SHOULD MY SISTER! The last thing that will keep me using HiFi, is the roll inertia. HiFi feels slippery. That is when you re-center the stick, the plane has a tendancy to continue its rolling momentum. With COMPLEX, when you re-center the stick the plane stops it's roll. IMMEDIATELY! This is the cartoonish behavior that I was referring to. Okay so with HiFi you can pull 9 G's fully loaded (all day). With COMPLEX is was pulling 9.9 G's. Is that better? Thank you, I'll stick to HiFi. I'm very happy I did this test. I feel MUCH better about my last IHHD encounter. Thanks for the survey! [The following is written in response to Stuart Butts comments on the "underdamped" rolling present in the HiFi model.] The problem I have with this is that I get 45 degrees of inertial roll at the most. Usually not even that. I think some of this stuff is machine/hardware sensitive. COMPLEX has no inertial roll at all. (I have done quite a bit of COMPLEX & HiFi testing this weekend. So much, that my new high score in FALCON Instant Action is now 135,000+. I even made it to the second level.) [Again, the following is a response to Stuart Butts's comments of "The airspeed and altitude range where the F-16 can actually accelerate while climbing straight up is very limited. It's basically at 0.9 Mach number below 10,000 ft."] This one point is really the one that I'm interested in. I flew at 10,000 at 450knts, went to AB5 pointed the nose at 45 degrees & climbed (for each flight model). HiFi lost speed DRAMATICALLY, while COMPLEX gained speed and accelerated. So much, that I have doubts as to its realism. While I can't comment as to the realism of the models, I can guarentee that COMPLEX clearly out-performs HiFi. (Proof was my last IHHD encounter with my European friends. I found out in the last week that they changed to COMPLEX, while I was using HiFi. I couldn't understand why I couldn't manouver better. I do now..) My tests (each point was performed at 10,000 and 450knts) showed that COMPLEX will out G HiFi. I got 9.9 G's with COMPLEX and 9.1 (spike) with HiFi. COMPLEX can also gain speed and altitude (energy) at will. This last point is the BIGGIE. Neither flightmodel handles a loaded aircraft all that well. You can still pull maximum G's with a fully loaded craft in both models. Taking off with 32,000 Lbs??? You can with COMPLEX, you crash & burn in HiFi. (Which I have a problem with since HiFi uses COMPLEX below 300knts. So why do we crash & burn?) You would think HiFi would then model weight/load properly. Well, COMPLEX is really the flight model where I noticed a speed increase as I would release bombs. Since the aircraft is lighter I would expect this. I didn't notice much change in speed or performance as I released bombs in HiFi. So COMPLEX would seem to handle that part better. I really believe that both flightmodels do model different aspects of flight properly. THey both have problems. Two things are certain... 1) COMPLEX will out perform HiFi. 2) Different strokes for different folks. ........................................................................... Jason Montgomery HIFI - ???? The main reason that I use it is that it just feels better. Just flying around practicing for the Thunderbirds:) the Hi-Fi model lets you do more weird manuvers ie. Spinning a falcon on its tail. ........................................................................... Steven Tarry HIFI -- 3.03 I use the HiFi flight model simply because it is s'posed to be the most realistic of them all. Not having flown an F-16 for real I have to take SH's word for it. ........................................................................... Mark Doran HIFI -- 3.02 I try to use the tactics outlined in the Shaw bible but leaning heavily on angles tactics per the lag turn method shown in the FACT video. There is no question that HiFi gives you more ability to rate the nose than anything else in a level turn so as long as you keep smash above 300kts you will get behind the bogey. Now if only those Mig 29's would stop going vertical...! ;-) ........................................................................... Korhonen Tommi HIFI -- ??? I like to make it as complicated and real as possible (hifi is 'compatible' with the other planes' realistic mode) and because it gives me better frame rates on 386+Franke, amazing ........................................................................... Beau Mersereau HIFI -- 3.03 Seems smoother on a 386sx-16 w/math/co [I can attest to the greater frame rate -- my only guess is that the math co-pro takes care of all the flight model, so the main thing left to compute is the outside animation.] ........................................................................... James Sterrett HIFI -- 3.03 IMHO, the plane handles better - more responsive. I admit this has become less of an advantage as SH has toned down the responsiveness for those who complained that it was uncontrollable.... I still mourn for the initial roll rate (made scissors a wonderful maneuver H2H, especially with a MiG-29 pilot silly enough to try to match it! 8) ........................................................................... John Hiett HIFI -- 3.00 I use ver 3.0 flat and fly HiFi all difficulty on. Instant Action only. I plan to go to .02 (have the updates) or ..03 when the bugs are out. I will get Hornet soon too. Stuart Butts is THE expert on modes here. He stated that complex is the most realistic mode, and that the Air Force paid for HiFi module & that is why SH hasn't and can't mees with it much to make its performance more realistic. Stuart is an Air Force Capt. at Wright Pat AFB...into the relationship between pilots & simulators. ............................................................................ Tim Rule HIFI -- 3.03 I use hifi mode as it has fast reaction to user input and seems realistic but one fault is the throttle setting when cruising, regardless of weapons load ie. drag coeff i need only about 20 - 40 % throttle to fly at 450 Knots, in complex mode the throttle is around 60%. i use complex mode the other day to help compare for this response and it handled real slow in turns and rolls so i like hifi mode for its twitchiness (if thata a word)!! one last thing, just updated to 3.03 and found the new redout/blackout options confusing, which option did the previous version (pre option) use? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF SECTION=============================================================== END OF FAQ===================================================================