Hummingbird

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:

I've said it before many times, the Fw190 (A8 & D9) both lack in Clmax as compared to RL values for the type of airfoil profile it used, hence why it can't even compete with the P-47 or Mosquito in turns in DCS, whilst in reality it was on par with the P-51 (and better down low). It's the same reason the F4U was found significantly superior to the P-51 when it came to turning in US Navy trials, despite it actually having a higher wing loading than the P-51. The NACA 6 digit profile that the Fw190, F4U & F6F used quite simply provided a higher max lift coefficient at mach numbers below 0.5 than most other profiles, esp. the low drag NACA 66 series.

Hmm I doubt we will be getting Captor E.

I couldn't find that option yesterday, where is it? Is it via the load out slots?

One the same note: How do you remove them?

It is a bit strange that the P-47 & Mosquito will both outturn the Fw190's...

I can't hit 694 km/h at Steig u. Kampfleistung (2600 rpm) and 9 km, I am at full power (2800 rpm) to achieve that in the K4 ingame, and since MW50 makes no difference at that alt I have that switched off. You have to be absolutely sure you achieve the speed perfectly level, and don't dive to achieve a higher speed, which the aircraft will maintain for quite a bit before slowing to the max sustained speed.

Nope, 694 km/h is with std. series prop. With the Dünnblatt the speed rose to 706 km/h. Performance is spot on.