Hummingbird

Pretty sure it will have flexible rotorblades once released, the Mi-24 has it.

There are so many well documented and easy to find cases of extreme G excursions, without resulting damage, that I really don't understand why you keep insisting on arguing over it? As has been mentioned there's usually a 50% buffer between design load limit and ultimate load limit - and in some cases even more (e.g. F14 which shared the same ULL as the F15). That doesn't mean the F15 shouldn't have structural over G damage modelled though, ofcourse it should. But it's such a strong airframe that reaching the ULL will require pretty extreme carelessnes unless rather heavily laden.

Yup, their work is highly appreciated and admired! (Often called the HB F14 the best module within DCS world, and for a reason) Also incase anyone wants to complain about how long it took: 1) It's no trivial matter, infact it's an insanely complex task to simulate real aero performance. So patience is required if you're expecting quality work. 2) It took ED, a much larger team, even longer to start fixing the F16's FM. (mainly due to different priorities, but nontheless) So whilst I am quick to post my test data amd feedback with every FM patch (like the Nov 2020 one), it's not out of slight or to criticize, but out of a desire to have help point out any potential issues the devs might have missed, and ensure the FM is as accurate as can be. I feel I have to do this due to my shared passion for these aircraft. I also think most of the devs of DCS world, in the last few years, have begun to appreciate how passionate a lot of their costumers are about the modules performing precisely up to real life specs. As well as how highly revered they become when it is achieved. My hope is that eventually the FM will always be top priority amongst all devs within DCS world, as to me it is the most important aspect of any flight sim module.

Which I'm very thankful for

Well I mean it was community testing that first revealed the loss in performance (and that's often the case with most modules), so it aint useless But I do agree that ofcourse you should take community test figures with a grain of salt, they aint perfect and most definitely are susceptible to human error, nomatter how good a stick you are. Also like I've said from the beginning, I ofcourse trust your internal test figures more than anything else, as you've got a program to run them precisely, and like you said it's not exact yet, like my results also indicate. But as far as I can tell, it's close now, and as I've always said, I have full faith you will get it bang on eventually. Finally just to be clear, in the end I study the recordings of my flights when accessing the precise turn rate/load factor and to be sure I didn't miss anything = that's how I caught my 400 vs 410 knot error, which slipped past me whilst flying.

I also just completed a more thurough test, and you're right, it hits 6.5 G at M 0.62 (410 KTAS) @ SL, but I couldn't get 5 G at M 0.46 (304 KTAS), here I end up at 4.9 G. In conclusion, if anything is off, its by very little. I apologize for initially getting it wrong, I accidently tested at 400 KTAS @ SL when I should've been at 410 KTAS. I'm getting within 0.1 G at most speeds. The devs did a great job on the FM.

You cannot reach any such conclusion by that logic. The data I provided is constructive, and to raise awareness for the devs to have an extra look. They have a tool to check with, so their measurements are going to be more accurate (more devoid of human error). Hence we would need to see their measurements for sea level to make such a conclusion. Also as I've been trying to get across, I am not "dissatisfied", I am infact very thankful for this update and all the hard work the devs & SME's put in to correct the STR issues raised after the fateful Nov 2020 patch. Things have massively improved, and many small inaccuracies have been corrected (maneuver slat/flap schedule is now spot on etc.). Just wanna make sure the same is the case with the STR, and according to my tests its slightly conservative, but HB's own test could say differently, would need to hear from them on that first.

Looking at it like that and it seems trivial, I agree, however even 0.5 dps quickly adds up in a sustained angles fight where people are turning and twisting for several minutes. Either way the FM has been massively improved versus before, so there's definitely reason to be happy(er).

Let me also just say to the HB devs & SME's, regardless of the slight discrepancy at SL & 5 kft, you did great work on the FM. It's close now, very close. So please, don't look at my feedback as anything but constructive, and ofcourse ALWAYS remember to check yourselves to make sure I didn't make any mistakes in testing. It's a lot of numbers and stuff to keep track off, so there's always the possibility for mistakes. Thank you for the hard work!

Tested after new patch and can now confirm they are fixed. At sea level they start to deploy at M 0.58 and are fully open by 0.52

Well I can confirm that the FM has definitely improved, we're talking a bit of an inconsistency in performance only at sea level according to my testing.

Correct, arguing against the flight test and engineering data is silly as you're not going to get anything else remotely as accurate.

Ah yes, I completely forgot about those! That's excellent, then we have hard figures to go by: At sea level we should get: 6.5 G @ M 0.62 / 410 KTAS (currently 6.35 G, so -0.15 G off) 5.0 G @ M 0.46 / 304 KTAS (currently 4.85 G, so -0.15 G off) In short, it should be doable to fix for next patch.

I think things are gonna go a little faster now (but I dont know ofcourse), also let's remember they did write it was work in progress.

I'll try it out.

Just to reinforce my point here, we can also compare the real life figures for the F-14B & F-16C at 10 kft and two speeds, and as they both use the GE engine we can rule out engine thrust loss vs alt as a factor: F-16C, 26,000 lbs, 4xAIM120 + 2xAIM9 + centerline pylon (DI=50), 10 kft: M 0.5 = 3.6 G M 0.6 = 4.5 G F-14B, 55,620 lbs, 4xAIM7 + 4xAIM9, 10 kft: M 0.5 = 4.2 G M 0.6 = 5.0 G So a 0.5-0.6 G advantage for the F-14B at 10 kft and M 0.6 & 0.5 respectively. Now here's what the same config F-16C as above gains in sustainable load factor going from 10kft to sea level: M 0.5 = 5.0 G (+1.4 G vs 10 kft) M 0.6 = 6.3 G (+1.8 G vs 10 kft) In short we should expect a similar gain in sustainable load factor for the F-14 going from 10 kft to sea level, i.e. roughly +1.8 G @ M 0.6 and +1.4 G @ M 0.5. In other words at sea level you'd expect the F-14B to be able to sustain about 6.8 G @ M 0.6 and 5.6 G @ M 0.5. (I calculated 6.6-6.7 and 5.6-5.7) As mentioned earlier, it would not make any sense if at sea level the F-16C & F-14B all of a sudden became equal in STR at the mach numbers where the F-14B holds 0.5-0.6 G advantage at 10 kft. Finally the reason this is important is that often most guns only dogfights in DCS ends up near the floor, so you really feel any major discrepancies here.

Credit where credit is due, at 5 kft they got it close: 5,000 ft ICAO std. day M 0.4 (260 KTAS) = 3.50 G vs 3.50 G in manual (spot on) M 0.5 (334 KTAS) = 4.65 G vs 4.75 G in manual (-0.1 G off) M 0.6 (389 KTAS) = 5.60 G vs 5.60 G in manual (spot on) M 0.7 (454 KTAS) = 6.30 G vs 6.40 G in manual ( -0.1 G off) So something is going wrong as altitude progressively decreases to sea level, as you don't suddenly lose a 0.6 G advantage in sustainable load factor going from 5 kft to sea level. But as mentioned in the patch notes, it seems this tuning is a work in progress, and I wasn't expecting everything to be perfect right off the bat anyway. @fat creasonI think you might wanna calculate the expected performance at sea level based on the available 5 kft & 10 kft performance graphs, plot it, and then tune the FM to precisely hit the new calculated plots.

To put the above graph into numbers: F-14B/D vs F-15C sustainable load factor (G vs Mach), same load out (4x4 & ~55% fuel), ICAO Std. day. F-14 = 55,620 lbs F-15 = 41,000 lbs @ 5,000 ft M 0.3 = 2.35 vs 2.15 (+0.20 G to F-14) M 0.4 = 3.60 vs 3.05 (+0.55 G to F-14) M 0.5 = 4.80 vs 4.05 (+0.75 G to F-14) M 0.6 = 5.70 vs 5.10 (+0.60 G to F-14) M 0.7 = 6.40 vs 6.30 (+0.10 G to F-14) M 0.8 = 7.00 vs 7.50 (+0.50 G to F-15) @ 10,000 ft M 0.3 = 1.95 vs 1.80 (+0.15 G to F-14) M 0.4 = 2.90 vs 2.60 (+0.30 G to F-14) M 0.5 = 4.10 vs 3.40 (+0.60 G to F-14) M 0.6 = 5.00 vs 4.30 (+0.70 G to F-14) M 0.7 = 5.50 vs 5.25 (+0.25 G to F-14) M 0.8 = 6.00 vs 6.40 (+0.40 G to F-15) Sources: The original F-14B & F-15C performance manuals. Knowing the lift & drag equations and how they scale with altitude, it's pretty obvious that, unless the F-14 suddenly lost a lot of thrust, it should maintain roughly the same advantage in sustainable load factors vs the F-15C below M ~0.65 at SL as it does at 5 kft; Just as you see it do from 10 kft to 5 kft. It makes no sense if all of a sudden the F-14 & F-15 are equal in STR at M 0.6 @ SL when the F-14 was dominating the F-15 with a 0.6 G advantage at the same MN at 5 kft. Hope that makes sense.

No, but there are for 5 kft & 10 kft, thus its rather "easy" to calculate performance at SL. I mean you wouldn't expect the F-14B to suddenly dump a 0.6G advantage in STR @ M 0.6 from 5 kft to SL, now would you?

First quick results after FM change, at SL & 400 KTAS: DCS F-14B STR, 55,620 lbs, 4x AIM7 + 4x AIM9, SL, 15 deg C std. day: 400 KTAS (M 0.6) = 6.3 G Based on the performance charts, I calculated a 6.55-6.65 G's sustained turn rate here, a ~1 G improvement from 5 kft [5.6 G], which is a similar improvement seen for example for the F-15 & F-16. So the initial verdict is that at 400 KTAS (M 0.6) at SL the DCS F-14B appears a bit lacking, however at 5 kft I actually managed to sustain 5.6 G @ M 0.6 (389 KTAS), as on the charts, so here it appears spot on. So I'm not sure why it's not performing as expected at SL ?

Oh, I see.

Thought there was gonna be a ITR & G-onset rate update today, or did I miss something?

No I don't have the rudder trim option enabled. It even happens with all the AP systems off.

The real thing appears to have a lot more authority and stability in yaw than the DCS version, which is what annoys me the most. I've also noticed, looking at the control indicator in the upper left corner, that often you're not allowed full yaw pedal deflection to one side, with it often showing just 60-70% deflection despite you commanding full deflection with your physical rudder pedals.... it's quite odd.

Well there's also the export Mi-35P: