A.S

sooo, are we back at thrust/weight ratios Yoda? :music_whistling: ...or AoA/Drag ..... sustain rate curves have an unique look...at low and high speeds (real).....those have reasons, but what happens in lockon, is to find out.

To be honest, i have no friggn idea, how in the world he ended up with something like that (just a general overlay of his curve) If there are flaws, at low mach speeds or very high mach speeds, then those have also explanations - realistic ones, or due to the sim - but something like that, is just not true.

there we go.... (lol, i havent seen the "dps" b4)

do they match?

Can you quickly compare the rates aswell for same test, if you dont mind=? (2nd pic)

EXACLTY !

Ok, i see. Im gonna test the birds myself now. PS: the G-limiter was something, what threw me also off in my "feeling" at first, but this became explainable so far. One thing i really want to say again here. I know 3Sqn likes to test things with wepaons loaded etc (DONT DO IT), because you do not know if those have correct drag and weigth values, and it does not matter what real pilot training proceedures are. See it from a test pilot perspective. Use the blank jet first, from there move on. That chart is 37000pounds grossweight/Clean config, so stick with it as basis first. There might be +/-3 percent variations (also depending on your stick discipline) but performance characteristics in different regimes should be the same. If not, there must be an explanation aswell. If there are major flaws, overseen somewhere, i will find them.

@ Dubb: here try this Take this (F-15C PW-200 engines (lockon)) Use same config: Clean and same Grossweight and MaX Thrust Let someone read you that picture in TS and fly it same time. start on sea level going higher step by step in alt as pictured (graphs) Look, if you can sustain under same mach speeds, same G loads Then you can go down to second picture and test your sustain rates by using counter or similar under same mach speeds. BUT DO NOT USE FLAPS OR PAYLOAD OR TACVIEW ! (payload not cuz you dont know if drag and weight of those is correct modeled, do you?)

Those were PW-100 engines GG, but have same charts (various configurations, grossweights at diff alt) for PW-200s aswell. A short replication with Yoda showed me, 2.0 is pretty accurate in "middle" areas....deeper tests i still have to do, but looks good so far. PS: @Dubb: i hope you guys are not using tacview telemetries..cuz they are WAAY OFF .... i did similar thing before.....maybe that helps as hint. www.as-private.com/FlightDocs/F-16C-52-Performance-Charts.rar those are 1:1 reflections of ingame wich can be compared with real charts. Its pretty handy though to have a tool, which reads out the 2.0 FM-core datas and converts them right into charts rather then plotting them flight by flight :)

LoL, really? ..nahh, never saw him doing that.....erm does he =? :)

GG ..to those guys you can say with 2.0 and its new performance curves: GOOD LUCK trying to make a burnout with your gears in the sky, it could be something else smoking soon too. :D

Do i? :huh: It does friggn make no sense whatsoever to use gears in a dogfight ( being <250kts is already n critical area, or you might be thinking about wing on wing desc scissors ..more drag bla bla bla ..slower dropping, not even there)....btw what happens with your agility (rollrate, FCS-response change etc etc) in F4 with lowered gears ...ever wondered why?

<250kts and then lower gears in a dogfight ...... :lol::lol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol:

Interesting observation

thx Yoyo ...check PM

Roger, first i have to find out what files can be allowed to be changed (gfx etc etc) and what files cant be touched under any circumstances (FM, weapons, settings etc etc) then i have to upload a tcl-network.cfg on tcl page so everyone is using same gurantee check in competitions.

I think, i can confirm that...its pretty well done.....my sensitive feeling was irritated only due to lockons limiters...supported by the confusion about actual thrust values used along this thread .....that threw me off...like "something unnatural here feeling"...but we found out why. PS: is that the way i have to do it? integrity_check = {"Config/Weapons","Config/Ufos","Config/Grandma"}, << like this? (without Grandma :=)

PS: @yoyo ..i hear you ...but and maybe therefore a proper description of how to use the integrity check under Eagle Dynamics\LockOn Flaming Cliffs 2\Config\network.cfg server = { disable_events = false, client_params = "motd=\"Welcome to Flaming Cliffs 2 server!\";", pause_on_load = true, max_players = 32, name = "FC2", client_outbound_limit = 0, client_inbound_limit = 0, firewall = "upnp", integrity_check = {"Config/Weapons","Config/Ufos","Config/Grandma"}, would be cool, ....or is it already somewhere described and i overlooked it. Im asking for it (as one of the TCL admins) to ensure that everyone uses a proper integrity check setup for online matches in the league. Fair is Fair, cuz right now you can (with standart config) setup your own UFO...

just looked them side by side....220 is higher better

@GG: describing that "phenomon" - all clear now - reason found and selfexplanatory ....its the lockon artificial built in "ingame" G-limiters (AoA and Alt dependend) what threw me off in my "flight pants". at least explanation figured ....:D

i wasnt digging, i was pointed to it :smilewink: I m looking forward for those charts ..... and as i always said to all sim-makers...it would be nice to document the "what is done why" from beginning to avoid all that. (pilots and engineers lovestory?) :D

surely done...even excluded guns (weight) + clean and full internal tanks.

No offense anyways....no worries. Intentionally we wondered about it just by sustaining 4,5Gs to 5.5Gs in a nose above horizont slighty climb under load....we had to thruttle back not to over-exceed our own speed (under that load not to forget)..there we wondered (besided the flaps thing), that this is very optimistic. Cracking it down, we ended up with 1.322 thrust weight ratio in the 15 which explained our expierience, but not what we expected. 1.322 is typical for 229 engines ..and a huuge difference in terms of perfromance compared to 1.1.

i see "how" you guys tried to squeeze the values around in order to come close to the performance curves found in -1 (which i do have also) with yoda matching-graphs. Which i also can see here: -------------------------------------------------------- SFM_engine_table = {} SFM_engine_table[su_27] = { typeng = 1, dcx_eng = 0.0124, hMaxEng = 19.5, dpdh_f = 14500., dpdh_m = 7000., engtab1 = { -- M Pmax Pfor 0.0, 135000., 205000., 0.2, 124000., 175000., 0.4, 114000., 171000., 0.6, 110800., 180000., 0.7, 109900., 192000., 0.8, 109900., 210000., 0.9, 109900., 228000., 1.0, 110800., 240000., 1.1, 113400., 256000., 1.2, 119400., 265000., 1.3, 134100., 279000., 1.5, 155000., 300000., 1.8, 165000., 331000., 2.0, 165000., 356000., 2.2, 165000., 375000., 2.5, 165000., 386000., 3.9, 165000., 270476. } } -------------------------------------------------------- SFM_engine_table[f_15] = { typeng = 1, dcx_eng = 0.0124, hMaxEng = 19.5, dpdh_f = 14000., dpdh_m = 6000., engtab1 = { -- M Pmax Pfor 0.0, 115000., 212000., 0.2, 94000., 200000., 0.4, 92000., 205000., 0.6, 103000., 207000., 0.7, 105000., 210000., 0.8, 105000., 220000., 0.9, 105000., 235000., 1.0, 107000., 250000., 1.1, 103000., 258000., 1.2, 94000., 268000., 1.3, 84000., 285000., 1.4, 71000., 300000., 1.6, 34000., 318000., 1.8, 19000., 337000., 2.2, 17000., 370000., 2.5, 19000., 390000., 3.9, 82000., 310000. } doesn´t change the fact my friend, that you ended up with 1.3 thrust to weight ratio in full AB (even though the regimes between had good intentions) :smilewink:

you really confuse me GG: and here you say (HL chatlog) "03.04.2010 15:58:45 44th_GrayGhost > do you have reference? what is your reference?" "03.04.2010 15:59:11 A.S > what you mean reference...where i get my datas from?" "03.04.2010 15:59:14 A.S > oh i see" "03.04.2010 15:59:17 A.S > now that comes" "03.04.2010 15:59:29 A.S > i know somene who knows someone who told me the real datas? :)" "03.04.2010 15:59:31 A.S > dude....." "03.04.2010 15:59:37 A.S > puuuhhleeease" "03.04.2010 15:59:44 44th_GrayGhost > no, I have the real data" "03.04.2010 15:59:45 44th_GrayGhost > right here :)" "03.04.2010 15:59:54 A.S > which is?" "03.04.2010 15:59:55 44th_GrayGhost > I thought you had it too you colelctor of all things of flight you :)" "03.04.2010 15:59:58 44th_GrayGhost > the -1 :)" "03.04.2010 16:00:00 A.S > GG: which is?" "03.04.2010 16:00:07 A.S > tell me the real thrust" "03.04.2010 16:00:12 A.S > and the one used in 2.0" "03.04.2010 16:00:13 A.S > go" "03.04.2010 16:00:14 A.S > shoot" "03.04.2010 16:00:17 A.S > come on" "03.04.2010 16:00:19 A.S > bring it" "03.04.2010 16:00:20 A.S > ;)" "03.04.2010 16:00:24 A.S > blooooooooooow" "03.04.2010 16:00:44 A.S > just a number dude" "03.04.2010 16:00:50 A.S > type the numbers here in chat" "03.04.2010 16:00:51 A.S > :)" "03.04.2010 16:01:32 44th_GrayGhost > 55000lbf" "03.04.2010 16:01:34 44th_GrayGhost > both engines" "03.04.2010 16:01:52 44th_GrayGhost > Hm, that is 27.5" "03.04.2010 16:02:00 A.S > thx you.... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"