Jump to content

3Sqn_Dubb

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 3Sqn_Dubb

  1. @ A.S. Apology accepted... pffft, whatever man... Just to make it clear to everyone on these forums, this example has clearly shown that A.S. is not the authority he claims to be on these matters. Don't take any statements as a given until you've checked things out yourself. As for his attitude, I think Tom Ace said it all... @ Yo-Yo, don't apologise, ofcourse there's always some ironing out of slight errors with every new simulation, in fact I think I speak for all of 3Sqn when I say a wholehearted thankyou for fixing this issue in the up-coming patch. In fact it's actions like these which the community very much appreciates and will be the reason why we keep coming back! Most of us will always prefer the Developer to provide patching and fixes which we can trust, as opposed to 3rd party software which always raises a host of questions, and in most cases, rightly so. Thankyou for responding to the communities concerns, 3Sqn_Dubb
  2. A.S. - A sustained turn, with constant G with the loadout specified, provided the curve that I produced at Sea Level 1000ft. I used increments of 10KIAS. Dude, it is what it is. The data was collected several times per speed at sea level. The variance or precision in my turns was at most +/- 50feet each turn. You don't have to take my word for it, and if this is your attitude, then I won't post the rest of the results. This wasn't as bad a result in 1.12 when the data was collected.
  3. You're kidding me right? You think I'm that stupid? My technique is simple and reliable, but requires 7 measurements per data point to ensure good statistics, increased degrees of freedom and greater confidence in the numbers.
  4. Fair point on the configurations mate, however, I'd have to see some data before I am convinced that these are accurate. My plan with each aircraft is to conduct sustained turn rates at the following profiles: 1. 1kft 2. 10kft 3. 25kft With those profiles, the turn radius, G-load, mach number and turn rate (dps) will be captured and plotted for sustained turns. Note: it takes about 4 hours to complete the tests, per altitude profile. Combine this with 6 available fighters, and it's a fair amount of work. So please be patient.
  5. We will see if I get around to posting this info. But fundamentally the following comments can be stated: 1. The flanker still has the best instantaneous pitch rate with roughtly 30+ degrees alpha instantaneous which is expected. 2. The MiG-29A/G/S still have solid climb rates as expected. The MiG also struggles the most at low speed and performs best at higher speed, as expected. 3. The F-15 has the least accurate turn rates, relative to observed tables, and really does require re-modelling. I fly the F-15 usually online, so it doesn't affect me too much, but I would prefer the F-15 to fly at least somewhat more realistically in terms of it's best rate of turn. With all my collected data, all configurations are 50% fuel, full missile loadout (all aspect BVR and WVR) and all at 1000ft as a standard so as not to confuse different weights etc... and to record 'typical' loadout configurations. I have deliberately chosen not to produce these curves with a 'clean' configuration. One particular fix which could address some of the issues people have raised is the following: If flaps or gear is deployed for more than say 5secs under a G-load of say 3G for example, the aircraft becomes damaged and unusable. Just a suggestion.
  6. Yep thanks AS, noted the explanation of flaps reduced AoA. However, this doesn't really explain anything to do with the form of the results of my test. Even if you exclude the data point I collected at 170KIAS with flaps down, the rest of the data which is flaps up still appears as the inverse of the 'actual' data charts you've provided in your posts. I'm in the process of collecting the data from all of the aircraft in the game. At this stage, it is only the F-15 which seems to be way off the mark.
  7. Here's the result of my test. This is almost the opposite of what it is supposed to be. This is a standard setup - 50% fuel, 1000ft, 8 missiles. The flaps down performance at low speed is ridiculous, and the supposedly 350KIAS corner speed turns out to be one of the slowest. Who was the Beta Tester for flight dynamics? These are all sustained turns. On page 235 of the FC2 Flight Manual ENG is a diagram of the typical flight dynamics used, however, this has not been the case for the F-15 after these tests. The F-15 is basically a raptor with flaps down... it would be wonderul if ED could invert this graph.
×
×
  • Create New...