[Final Thoughts]

Well it is back to the drawing board as I have took a long look through the .air files and the aerodynamic equations that MS use's for thier flight modeling is laughable. No one in thier right mind ever uses a graph plot with Mach being a secondary or primary grid layout. Of course I do understand that mach is invovled and have seen data curves that have them. But the way MS has it is far from realistic. I could simply plug in numbers as what the data shows but they made it to were you couldnt as to make the Mach a primary grid layer to base you aerodynamic data on which is strange to say the least. CL0 has never been ploted aginst Mach number, well for what I have studied anyway, it has always been against time in seconds. and from what I have seen Aerosoft might want to go back and change thier base CD0, as what I have gathered it is in the realm of .07xx not 0.00976 as what they have. but it isnt my place to say what is right and what is wrong in the .air files as they are not real Equations for proper aerodynamic modeling. They maybe proper for the sorce coding of the game but not in real life. There for I must regretfully say the only way the CFG will make any difference is if the .air file can be changed as well. Otherwise you will only be guessing even if you put real world data into the .cfg. I honestly hope that MS or anyother developer out there doesnt keep making the mistake of pleasing the eye candy crowd, although I hear X-Plane is preety realistic with the equations. There again I just know what I have read I do not own X-Plane so I wouldnt know if it is better for someone that is into more of simulation and not pretend.

Again I think Aerosofts F-16 is awsome just cant really get past that barrier with default not being able to perform snap manuvers. This isnt an add-on issue its a MS coding issue.

UPDATE: To show you what I mean by this is you have to come up with some weird math to find the values for the .air file compaired to real world data referenced in the following link

LINK: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800005879_1980005879.pdf

This also shows that Aerosoft themselves had to use false MoI's as this documment shows the exact MoI's except for a 20500 LB aircraft empty weight instead of the actual empty weight of 15306 LBS, Which is why I think MSFSX is totally a game for eye candy and not realisim. that is ofcourse if some one from Aerosoft would like to shed light on the subject or use the link givin to imlement the data (which I think is impossible because of fudge factors use by MS themselves) they are more than welcome to try.

[Final Thoughts]

Guten Tag FALL3N

I just roughly compared your attachment Aircraft .txt (20.43K) against the original aircraft.cfg Lockheed Martin F-16A NSAWC Blue Camo

Ok about your mods in [WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE]

However the last parameter in YOUR attachement is

InitialPbh =31.0, 0.0,0.0

The original aircraft .cfg contains 5 more parameters in [Reference Speeds] section.

Is this difference intended?

Regards Günter

InitialPbh =31.0, 0.0,0.0 is the camera properties and I didnt mess with camera definitions at all. as with the specific aircraft.cfg files go to the Aerosoft F-16A 9 folder thatis the cfg that needs replacing not the one you are putting it against and the .cfg for the reference plane you mentioned is added information to coiencied with that aircraft vrs the real world. I havent gone through and done every .cfg yet for each plane. The cfg I have up there is a base cfg just like the default Aerosoft F-16A 9 is to your reference plane. Basically put the Lockheed Martin F-16A NSAWC Blue Camo default is different than the default Aerosoft F-16A 9. I will work on all cfg's over time and all params of each plane will match with the exception of the defined numbers if I find them to be different.

[Final Thoughts]

Ok will update in a bit I have found one mistake I have made on my part for not puching those numbers in correctly.

EDIT: Well the numbers are correct just dont have explained varible information contained with in the .air file. I am thinking maybe there is some stuff there also that may not be correct. Not sure though as I havent looked at it in detail against technical data. I will try to do the C and AM models also if I can get the T.O.'s for those two models.

[Final Thoughts]

NOTICE BEFORE DOWNLOADING AND INSERTING THIS CFG MAKE SURE YOU BACK UP YOUR OLD ONE: Change File Extention to Aircraft.cfg instead of Aircraft.txt

NOTE: PLACE THIS CFG INTO YOUR Microsoft Games\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\SimObjects\Airplanes\Aerosoft F-16A 9 FOLDER.

NOTE: Real world data implemented from T.O. 1F-16A-1 and other F-16 A Block 1-10 T.O.'s

FIXES:

1. Inertia to high on roll, pitch, yaw, and coupled. Reduced inertia varibles as per formulae for each radii of gyration induced by physical weight.

2 Several lines within airplane geometry section were mixed and matched with other Block models of the F-16AM/C. Replaced all data to reflect real world data according to T.O.'s

3. Unrealistic "free rolling" under idle thrust. Fixed N2 RPM as was too high and out of range of real world data.

4. Unrealistic stressed aircraft performing snap combat manuvers resulting in resetting of flight. Replacement of MoI's seemed to correct this issue.

Hopefully the above will help you understand a bit more of what I have done. If I find any unreasonabe manuvers that shouldnt take place on this aircraft while in full realism mode within FSX it will be addressed as long as thier is feed back. However you will have to change the file extention to read .cfg as it would not allow me to attach files of any other sort.

Aircraft.txt

[Final Thoughts]

That would be greatly appreciated and something I would definitely be interested in .

Yes i will attach it to my next post if I can get it to attach, However as I am doing this right now I am seeing thier Manual.pdf file dementions are spot on with maybe a few exceptions and I cant figure out why the CFG does not reflect this data? Instead it is way off dont know why but it is. Also I will go through the B,C models as I have info for them also and make spearate cfg's for them. I am however wonding how to take that pesky free roll from idel thrust out because that is not realistic by all means. I do however wonder what the thrust static @ S.L. with A/B they have in the air files as it will matter in this prospect as some of the thust values I am seeing in the CFG's are either too low or too high. But then again I do not know if the algorythims in the coding (.exe) of FSX is off or not. Just make sure you back up original CFG's before testing the CFG's I put up to make sure there wasnt somekind of fudge factor that Aerosot had to go with because of maybe irronious coding with in FSX.

[Final Thoughts]

After an exauhstive search I have found infomation on the F-16C Block 32 that Aerosoft has modeled and I must say unless all the numbers in each aircraft.cfg is overriden in the .air files then Aerosoft and many others are extreamly way off on thier numbers. Wingspan of the Block 32 F-16-c as described in a technical data is 32.8 Ft and not 30, Area is correct, Thust numbers are 14880 lbf areosoft has 17155 (this is for static thrust @ sea level) I would post the whole thing but instad I can give a link to the PDF that shows these numbers. However these PDF's are not 100% comlete as the information isnt completely declassified.

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/

This link conatins alot of aircraft and some PDF's have the whole Tech manual. On another note I have Scientific data on other planes that give MoI's and the alike if your intrested in this information just ask for it. I would only ask that who ever uses this information to produce a quality plane for realease would do so for free. Again The f-16 as it sits in FSX right now is great but everyone knows it can be better if we all work together.

I, however, will be udating the F-16A Block 9 aircraft.cfg and will put it up for anyone intrested.

[Final Thoughts]

Oh dont get me wrong I do think this plane is exceptional in flight charateristic besides what I had mentioned. the F-16's rudder actually doesnt induce roll just because of what you had stated. Now i do know he F-14 does though as it has no ailerons for roll. Hopefully smeone can try to mesh the VC of IRIS's plane to this one. If your able to do that it will beat any body else out there as IRIS has the best indepth VC and Aerosoft has the best flight charateristics thus far. I would do it but the new file structer of FSX from what I was used to threw me for a loop. If anyone else can get this done let me know the proceedure as I would love to have both intergrated together for a deeper submersion into what is known as the Fighting Falcon.

[Landing lights suck!]

greetz crazyhorseabg

[Final Thoughts]

I couldnt agree more with the exception of the 1.21 update that takes rudder control completely out. I am wondering how many real pilots has AS talked to? In all honesty I was in the USAF and know for a fact they use rudder when comming in on crosswind landings as the wings themselves have a very small crosssection compaired to the fusalage. Also I have looked at other payware F-16's aand must say they have surpassed you by the shear amount of deatil to the VC and rudder control. Now dont get me wrong I think the plane is great for what I paid for it but if your going to try and compete with other payware planes I would suggest doing a whole lot more reasearch into MIL-SPEC aircraft.