Echo38

Speed management within 10 MP, not bad.* Impeccable coordination; was it auto-rudder aid, or Crosswind pedals + mad skills? Either way, this variable successfully eliminated. Seemed to be quite a bit more altitude variation than there should be on a proper test. Hard to say, with the altimeter being mostly blocked by the throttle. Generally, I'd try to stay within 100 feet margin; 50 ft. would be better, but I don't think I could do that, myself.* *I'm sure a dedicated test pilot could, but I don't know if I ever got better than ~10 MPH margin of error in my old turn tests. Perfect sustained turns have never been something I practiced in combat. Even when on the deck, fighting a turning duel with no excess E, I would often alternate between climbing turns & diving turns, pulling & unloading, etc. So I always found it awkward to try to do perfect sustained turns, on the few occasions I did flight tests. Test pilot & fighter pilot are skillsets with a lot of overlap, but also a lot of disparity. Plastic short-throw joysticks don't help, either. What was the song? Part of it sounded very vaguely reminiscent of Zimmer's score for the movie Inception, but the end sounded a bit like Two Steps from Hell (or one of the other groups that does stock music for movie trailers). I'm stumped; can't guess. Could you explain? I'm not familiar with the terms "rate 1 turn," "4 standard rate turn," etc.

That's very kind! I would like to roll my dice for the F-86. : )

This is true, yes, and very important. I asked Crumpp & Hummingbird to list theirs, and we really need to know what mass the aircraft were at in Yo-Yo's graph, as well. I would assume that it was nearly full fuel & ammo, but that needs confirmation.

Mass always matters, in turning. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Not faster. It can turn tighter, but if you slow down below the best sustained turn speed, you'll complete your (tighter) turn in a longer time. Pulling max alpha gives you the tightest turn you can make, but, unless you're burning excess energy (e.g. a diving turn, an instantaneous turn at "corner" turning speed--which is very different than best sustained turn speed), it isn't the turn that you can make in the shortest time. In other words: if you are in a sustained turn, at best sustained turn speed, and you increase your angle of attack, you will slow down and turn tighter, but your turn will take a longer time to complete. That's what makes "best sustained turn speed" the best sustained turn speed: by definition, it's the speed at which you make a sustained turn in the shortest possible time. (There's probably a less clumsy phrase to use instead of "best sustained turn speed," but I don't know it.)

The videos they've posted showed the unexpected phenomenon occurring at sea level, so that isn't the problem, at least in the test shown. The graph shows sea level, their test video was at sea level, and the disputed point is sea-level sustained turns. If you're doing more tests, I have another recommendation: try turning at 375 KPH for at least four full circles. Here's why: When doing sustained turns below best sustained turn speeds, if you unload slightly to increase your speed to best speed, your opponent can temporarily gain on you as your turn widens. It can take some time for the superior turn rate to start making a visible difference. I don't know that this was the case in the videos, but I did see your IAS drop down to about 355 a few times. So, at least at some points, you appeared to be below the desired speed. After raising it back to the best speed, I'm not sure you performed enough turns at the higher speed for it to really start to matter; Crumpp may have still had a slight excess of energy (gained while you were below best speed). Not that I think that this is enough to cause the apparent discrepancy we're seeing, mind you, but every little bit helps. In other words, I suspect the following scenario may have occurred: while you were turning below best sustained turn speed, Crumpp was able to match you and even gain a bit of excess energy (without gaining enough speed to exceed his own best sustained turn speed). After you raised your speed back to best speed, Crumpp spent the stored E to stay with you for a while longer (which would mean that he wasn't quite down to a sustained turn at this point). With your ball centered, you might've eventually started to gain on him, but you quit the circles before that point. Again, it's hard to say without having been in one of the aircraft, but I'm wondering if you would have been able to out-turn Crumpp long-term if you'd A) kept your ball centered, B) stayed at the upper end of the recommended speed range, for the entire time, and C) performed enough 360-degree circles for any E advantage Crumpp might have had to dissipate. If the result is the same (P-51 out-turning FW 190) under those conditions, and the fuel/ammo loads were the same as the airplanes in Yo-Yo's graph, then I can only agree that the tests don't match the graph. However, as it is, there still remains some doubt.

Two things. First: I noticed that your turns weren't coordinated; you were in a slight/moderate slip the entire time. While that amount of slip shouldn't make a very large difference, it does hurt your sustained turning ability. I don't know if it could mean the difference between out-turning or not, in this case, but those graphs make it look like a pretty close thing, so it just might. It would be best if you keep the ball centered in all future tests. Second thing: what was the song? What fuel loads were the tests conducted at? How about ammunition? Any other variables you can think of? Yo-Yo's graph shows it to be close enough that it wouldn't take much to tip the balance. In a sustained turn, at sea level, at best sustained turn speed, you aren't nearly close enough to exceeding maximum angle of attack for stalling characteristics to matter.

Obviously, the Tiger, so that we can complain when we can't kill it with Browning fifty-calibers.

That's a big difference, in flight vs. taxiing. Trim is effective at flight speeds. Trim is irrelevant, however, when airflow is very low, as when taxiing. Remember, in real life, all trim does is to reduce stick forces. There are no stick forces to speak of, when taxiing, even if you give a solid burst of power. Edit: I wrote that before I saw your later posts. You seem to have come to the same conclusion within the sim.

Yes, 5000 ft. will definitely make a noticeable difference. I'm glad the airfields are a bit higher-altitude; we need more high-altitude fights, but the time-to-climb from sea level is a killer. Solution: higher airfields. : )

I would think that, at taxiing speeds, trim shouldn't make a noticeable difference, even with a burst of propwash over the tail. It's possible that there is more than one issue here.

Oh, interesting! How much higher? This reminds me of a fatal crash in the real world, where the pilot wasn't prepared for the lower air density of a high-altitude takeoff, and "painted himself into a corner," in a a valley just past the airfield. Too close to stall IAS, at that altitude, to make it over the mountain. It isn't an obvious thing, at all, because everything looks normal, visually, and you normally would have been able to get over that hill. It's happened to me, once, as well, when flying through canyons in DCS.

Try entering the maneuver with more airspeed, and countering the gyro with rudder. You'll want to practice to get the feel of how much is too much back-stick and how much is too little. Either one can cause you to bleed off too much speed, and reach the point where the airflow isn't enough to counter the gyro and/or torque, before the maneuver is complete.

Be fair; that was four months ago, and he's had several discussions with Yo-Yo since then. Jcomm has since then recanted his heresy and returned to the fold. Right, Jcomm? [holds up torch]

Not lock the tailwheel? Wow, that sounds like it'd make for a wild ride! What's the benefit of leaving it unlocked, in this case? Shouldn't the stick be to the left, rather than the right? You know, to boost the rudder with adverse yaw?

Fine. You two are difficult to tell apart in this thread. I've edited my post; the point itself stands.

A simulation isn't a simulation, if it is simulating a non-historical scenario instead of a historical one? Are you even trying to make a modicum of sense? Simulation /= historical reenactment This is beyond ridiculous. There's also quite the straw-man being used: the idea that our position hinges upon the point of whether or not the fuel slider is historical. I made it clear since the beginning that the basis of my argument was never that real pilots regularly chose to take low fuel loads, because they generally didn't.

Well, I do want to go to Nevada.

I appreciate the kind words, MJ, but--a clarification: I only have about ten hours at the controls of real airplanes. Not my choice to have so few, of course; I'd have spent the rest of my life flying for real, if it were at all possible.

Thank you very much! I am not offended by the speech, but I do prefer the track with just the music. I'm very fond of the stuff you've done for DCS. Don't ever stop making it! : ) [Addendum: sorry, folks, was a thread "necro"--didn't mean to revive old discussion.]

I've made a number of small edits to my previous post after posting it, as is my usual habit (first publish, then proofread!). Comparing the "before" and "after" versions, I think that some of the meaning (as opposed to merely phraseology) has changed, in a significant enough manner that you may wish to review the edited version. Apologies.

Crumpp, I'm gonna try this one last time: I think the entirety of the contention in this thread stems from your accusations (both implied and stated) that taking off with less than a certain amount of fuel is non-sim behavior--not from your actual core request. The actual thing that you're asking for--the option for servers to enforce specific fuel loads--is a reasonable thing to ask for, and I don't think many (if any) would have fought you, if you hadn't made it personal, with things like this: Phrased this way, it can only be taken as an accusation that the slider is non-sim, used by people who don't care as much about accurate simulation. More importantly, if incorporated into the sim in the manner you describe, we who disagree would be forced to effectively agree with your accusation, by choosing a "game" (as opposed to "sim") option, in order to be able to adjust our slider. Do you see? If you ask for a mission editor option (which effectively gives you what you're asking for--the option for server operators to enforce fuel loads), or even a server-side game option, which does not contain an opinion in the label ("sim" vs. "arcade/game"), then those of us who prefer the option to adjust our fuel amount incrementally have little reason to oppose you. I would vote for mission editor options like this, in general; as you said, more options is good. However, if you're going to make your argument hang on the issue or whether or not it is "sim" to be able to adjust fuel loads incrementally, then you're going to find much more resistance against your core proposal, simply because of the opinionated "extra baggage" you've attached to it. To conclude, "Give us a server-side option to lock fuel loads" is hard to argue with. "Give us a server-side option to lock fuel loads, and make sure everyone understands that the fuel slider is non-sim" isn't going to fly. The latter opinion is easy to argue against, and it just drags down your (legitimate) core request. Too much "my way is right and your way is wrong," and not nearly enough reasoning to back it up. I've already lucidly made my case for why I disagree with it, and I'm not going to change your mind by adding to it. Hopefully, however, this post has given you a different perspective on how you could phrase the request/suggestion for a more positive reception. It'd be enough that at least some of the "no" votes would have been a "yes," instead, or at least an abstain.

Mm; my fictional scenarios don't ever have bombs. Guns only. Something my friends usually notice, to their chagrin, in jets: "What, no missiles"? As I keep saying, my high-fidelity simulation is of fighters dogfighting, not war. War sucks; it always has. I don't see how that demonstrates that 20% P-51 vs. 20% 109 is similar in relative combat ability to 60% P-51 vs. 60% 109, etc.

Fuel mass affects energy fighters as well as angle fighters. Climb is crucial to an energy fighter. In the non-historical very-short-range scenarios I am simulating? Yes, seriously. I can't imagine an expert fighter pilot, in real life, would blindly choose to take a full fuel load if his mission objective were a few minutes away, and probability of encountering at least one enemy within a few minutes was nearly 100%. If he knew that his enemy was likely to be running light--and quite probably even if not--I firmly believe that he'd say, "Don't fill her more than that!" He'd be foolish not to. There's no point in getting killed because you're carrying a bunch of extra weight for no good reason ... but I feel like I'm going in a circle now; I swear I said that a few posts ago. Lemme try this: the benefits of reducing fuel mass by far outweigh the risk (and, yes, I'm aware that fuel vapor is more dangerously explosive than liquid fuel), when facing a deadly enemy, with an excess of fuel-mass that great, and a flight distance so short. After a five-minute fight, that extra two hours of fuel will simply burn longer on the ground; all else equal, the guy with a half-hour's worth flies over your wreck. You posted a bunch of graphs, but I don't see how they show what you state that they show. That is, I don't see how any of the graphs you've posted show that a 20%-fuel P-51D versus a 20%-fuel Me 109K have the same relative combat ability as the same two ships with, say, 60% each. If you would like to explain this clearly, I am listening. Re: "emotional beliefs"--while I can't prove it with numbers (because I suck at maths) this isn't an emotional belief, my claim that lowering fuel masses by equal percentages affects fighter balance. It's rather an observation I've made over thousands of hours of competitive flight sim-gaming. I acknowledge that it's possible that it is incorrect, because most of those hours were in lesser sim/games, which were rife with errors, rather than DCS, which has far fewer errors. However, although you say that the observation is incorrect, you have yet to explain why, in a clear manner.

That simply can't be right. The CoG balance thing alone throws that off. And even if the cap for both is at the % that the P-51 is at when it's got full wing tanks & empty rear, I'm almost sure that the aircraft aren't affected equally (in terms of dogfighting ability) when equal percentages of fuel mass are removed. There you go again. [scowl] You think I would even look at a server that wasn't full-switch? I get my flightsuit in a bunch if cockpit labels are on, even if everything else is right. Just because I don't like historical-style missions does not mean I care any less than you do about maximum-realism fighter simulation. Little could be farther from the truth.