Temetre

Hm, how to put it... Sure, you might know more than me about the math behind this stuff, but if you put bad numbers into a math equation, then its garbage in, garbage out. If I had to take a guess, the problem is that you try to focus on what you know, rather than ask more about what you dont: So, okay, the numbers in the Aim-54 document dont make sense to you. But from what you posted, they are extremely incomplete in the first place. Its not clear of what circumstances the impulse and thrust describe. Is it theoretical fuel performance under specific circumstances? Is it the maximum performance of the rocket engine at one point? Or is it just generic ballpark numbers? Maybe because the exact numbers are limited to another classified document? Even obfuscation could be an element, after all. Or its just inaccurate, but that doesnt matter much because this isnt an indepths technical document. So we dont know what the document is actually describing, its not necessarily wrong. And if you dont know what the numbers mean, theres no point putting them into a math equation. Then you use the Smerch/Aim-9D as an approximation, but why? Because to you, they seem more believable. And there is reasons why you might believe so, but its still taking a big guess. This is a different A2A missile and a soviet MLRM. Considering you know the Aim-54 documentation doesnt make sense to you, how do you know the documentation of those missiles isnt inaccurate/incomplete as well? Maybe you just dont see the inconsistencies in there because they are less obvious to you. And physics in east and west work the same, but that doesnt mean the documents, estimations and ways of measuring work the same. For all the reasons I wrote, and the idea that documents might be inaccurate, which is literally what you originally wrote about. Thats what Im saying, I dont think you sufficiently put the documents into context. Seeing something that doesnt make sense to you in one document shouldnt just make you go "why is this document wrong", but rather "am i misunderstanding the document" and if so, "am i misunderstanding other documents too?". That stuff is what makes military documents so opaque and hard to understand, you cant just go the easy way and ignore uncomfortable elements and expect a good result. The RD-33 thing is my bias, my sense of skepticism is always skyrocketing when its generalized assumptions like that, and especially when they include western weapons being really bad and russian/soviet weapons being so much better. Usually that skepticism is quite warranted, somehow theres a real pattern in military sim games and soviet weapons being overestimated (and people shocked when it shows they are indeed not super weapons). This is also part of the overly generalized math. Even liquid fuel rockets are not really that simple, but especially solid rocket boosters do not have static thrust, pressure or efficiency. So clearly any single number describing those factors is insufficient information to estimate a rocket engines performance.

From what Ive read, the Aim-54 Flexadyne propellant can have up to a specific impulse of 260, though obviously lower in practice. Seens speculation that the reduced smoke propellant they used in the later american rocket motors might be a tiny bit less efficient. Either way, it seems kinda arbitrary to disregard a document because you think it doesnt make sense, and then just assume the Aim-54 has similar efficiency to Aim-9D or some random russian rocket. You can do as much math as you want, but its not that useful if everything is based on assumptions. And if I understand you right, then on the other hand you chose to believe that the R-33 does have some insane ISP for a limited time? Seems a bit biased frankly.

Yeah this kinda stutter pattern is the biggest performance issue im seeing in DCS, and especially VR.

I see, I wasnt aware the Mirages were doing most of the A2A work, that probably explains why the Israelis didnt see much need to get the Sparrow right anyway. Probably wanted to preserve the limited stock of F-4s for strike missions as well, considering supply was limited. edit: So that would be the Mirage 3? Tbh I wouldve imagined Sparrows would do better than R530s or so^^

As has been talked about before, even in Vietnam, the Sparrow is what won the air war, despite all of its issues. Got as many or more more kills than Sidewinders, despite its early problems and the tendency towards close combat. And Desert Storm was just sparrows downing Iraqi aircraft with high reliability. Tbf maybe the environment in and around Israel was just too different and american equipment wasnt adapted for that? IIRC they eg declined early M16s and FALs as well, because they werent really optimized for sandy environments.

^ Thx. The response was definitely not normal.

I mean if its actually logged then im happy. All I wanted. Well see I guess.

Read what you wrote; you told me im splitting hairs and how its unrealistic to spawn the jet midair and whatever, which is just nonsense. It reads just contrarian, trying to fight the relevance of the bug report for some reason. When nobody said that this is a high priority issue anyway. Tbf maybe I shouldnt blame ED for people in the forum being toxic about simple reports. Then again, its weird they call this "not a bug", as if they intentionally set bad settings? I think the damage model of the F-14 is about a million years ahead of F-16/18. And more concerning, the roadmap for those two planes isnt even listing any damage model improvements. Frankly, it sounds like we both want the Viper the best it can be. So why even argue about this? This was supposed to a be a small bug report just to have the issue logged, nothing more.

Well, that mentality is probably why this game is so buggy and unpolished. Something is obviously wrong, sticks out like a sore thumb, and they go "clearly not a bug". Not gonna bother with rebug reports in the future, looks like a waste of time. Ill stick to 3rd party devs who care about polish. But nah, you saying I shouldnt report this issue because you think theres bigger problems was still an really dumb thing to say.

Tbf the F-14 is also naturally a more responsive plane, from what I understand. Cant compare quality of those two tho, dont got the SE.

Also isnt the whole thing with the F-16 that its STR is generally getting worse because of the same wing surface but increase in weight? So idk if being consistent with the F-16A is really making that more believable. T/W didnt make up the loss for the F-16C either. I wouldnt downplay the BMS guys, they do great work. But is that idea of dynamic thrust really just on some simulations those two guys ran? Like, that feels like a ton of datapoints that are half assumptions, half generalizations, but none actually proof those questionable numbers.

Nice! Imo these kinda details really add towards making planes in a game/sim feel likes it as real thing. F-14 is already really good when it comes to 'feel', and thatll add even more.

Frankly, while the developer can always improve, and HB isnt perfect, its 100% your fault that you exaggerated the issue to this level. Communication cant be that bad, considering I know whats going on, and so do many others. There is no radio silence, considering devs talk here or on the discord reguarly. So first of all, lets set the facts straight: 1. A release date can have a lower or higher level of confidence. There is rarely an "exact date", especially when the developer (like HB currently) has the ability to delay the release for a while to maximize quality. Rather than release an unfinished game, like AAA-devs do again and again. 2. So if the developer gives you an internal date, then thats an estimate the dev believes to be workable. The dev doesnt got a hard release date, so he either cant give his honest estimate, or he can say nothing. Its not like the developer lies, its the current target. Its not a promise. 3. Main reason HB is not making a major hype out of it, is because they dont want to start the hype till they are really close to release. Which I think is a really good way to handle things. And frankly, I like developers to be honest and not be afraid to talk about their development, and give out estimates. So I do kinda take offense if you want absolute radio silence till release, just because you feel bad because reasons. Like... im not trying to insult you, but these are purely your feelings that make you feel bad. You cant deal with the excitement, but you surely know that release dates arent set in stone? And despite expecting it, you still take it as a promise and feels like its a betrayal if they are delayed. If you feel bad about something and your solution is "someone else has to change", then youre giving up any personal responsibility. And it wont get better, because you cant change how devs work, nor does everyone agree with your about how they should communicate. The solution is that you learn to deal with your feelings better. I dont wanna make this some dumb overaching social commentary, but its a real tendency that people are less willing to take agency over their feelings, and ask the world around them to change instead. Thats a horrible approach, since you cant control others.

Btw, things that people seem to forget constantly: 1. Both Viper and Hornet damage model are highly incomplete. The current level of G-damage isnt necessarily representative of anything. 2. Our Hornet has an improved engine. Its not the one used in the USN, so all IRL experience cant be directly applied. Idk if anyone even knows whats the difference in performance. 3. F-15C is a simplified module, and therefor cant be used as an "exact" comparision. Its flight model is 'good enough' for what it is. The damage model on FC3 planes is pretty weird (and sometimes buggy) too. ^If theres some issue, it seem like that would be it.

Clearly, Ciaphas Cain, hero of the Imperium is a quite serious and grounded charachter. I was more thinking of parodies, like Kaldor Draigo.

Apparently that it doesnt dim with the switches, that is a real issue. But I think the gauges should have a red color night mode?

I imagine a lot of the F-4 tech will later also translate to the A-6. Reading up about the F-4E it seems like they put a bit of every bit of technology in there they had at hand at this point. Just more reason why Id expect the F-4 to first get done and finished. Theres also the F-4J, which might take priority. And who knows how difficult the EF is gonna be... Not to mention the F-14 and Viggen arent even done yet. Early and iran F-14A still coming.

The change Im feeling in the F-14B would be most likely coming with the big FM update coming to the B recently? The "F-14 Flight Model Tuning - Part I" text does mention that it affects BFM performance as well, that its gonna be more accurate now. Its just not really telling what changed. Maybe it just something like, theres an increase in drag at low speed/high AoA and that leads to flight surfaces becoming inefficient more quickly? Thats interesting, maybe we should look closer if theres some initial adverse yawing or so? That could explain some loss of control, but if there is, then its so soft its hard to notice. Otherwise the loss of pitch authority/stability at high AoA actually feels a bit as like the pitch SAS becomes less effective at keeping a pitch angle. Tbh im a still bad pilot, so im never quite sure if my observations are correct or affected by other factors. But it seems like theres something quite different at low speed. I wonder if its a follow on effect of the yaw SAS being less effective in a high AoA turn.

I like Jester, because he actually is useful. Vocal RIO feedback is important. Btw you can tell him to stop talking, though that might remove important feedback as well.

Tbf Warhammer is more like a setting. You can use it as well or as badly as you want. The humor is mostly limited to the orks tho. Eg the human Empire is comically dark, if anything^^

If you ever heard "red is faster" on the internet, thats a joke from that. Its not that red is faster, its that they believe red is faster, and thus painting their vehicles red is a legit upgrade...

Flying a bit more, it seems like the more difficult high AoA-handling is directly connected to speed. Maybe not a surprise, considering high AoA are a slow speed (or high altitude?) thing. The plane still seems to rate and control quite effectively, maybe between 400-250 knots or so. Before the F-14 at 250-150 knots felt a bit more like a Hornet; draggy, but you could keep control, even if it was very challenging to do so compared to the F-18. Now its a bit more like an F-16, where you more easily start to slip into a stall at slow speed/high AoAs. But while the F-16s FBW keeps it in a controlled stall of kinds, that seems less possible with the F-14 now. Would be very curious to have some input from more experienced pilots or devs on what changed and how to deal best with the changes now.

Yeah, ive noticed that as well, but wasnt sure about it because im not that experienced. Generally rudder seems to do very little at high AoA, didnt feel like it had much more effect than roll inputs. Above 20 AoA the pitch stability also seems to have suffered greatly, its much harder to keep the right pitch than before. Id be curious, can someone enlighten us what generally changed? I knew there were changes especially around the transonic behaviour, which I do feel as well, it doesnt feel quite as stuck anymore at the Mach 1.2 barrier. But there wasnt really mention of low speed behaviours, I think, and its a pretty substantial difference.

Its true, the F-104s really werent the only aircraft with a bad safety/reliability record. Tho the Meteor is literally a first gen fighter, when Starfighter is Gen3. Compared it to a F-105; that thing had ~62 losses due to aicraft failues in the vietnam war, of 800 created. That was a plane considered unreliable. European F-104s were mostly lost in peacetime, not even in a conflict. Starfighter 100% is a terrible aircraft. Those losses should be unacceptable.

Also im pretty sure if I win a fight spending 6 missiles against an even opponent, then thats a net positive. Its a lot easier to replace missiles than to replace aircraft and pilots. And missiles are there to shoot down enemies. Aircraft arent made to crash. Usually, the jury on the F-104 is still out there (somewhere deep in the ground). *sad USAF vietnam noises*