Hummingbird

With the axis binding I've heard it works, but with buttons it certainly doesn't. It used to work with buttons though, back at the beginning, which is why it's so infuriating that they broke it and haven't fixed for over a year DESPITE several threads about it, some by yours truly.

I use buttons for positive and negative radar elevation, and it's extremely sensitive. Even a quick tap of the button moves the elevation a large amount.

2024 might very well be more realistic. I misremembered when HB first showed pics of their F14, wich was 4 years, and not 2 as I incorrectly recalled (time flies!), before EA. But let's see.

2023 or late 2022, that's my hopeful prediction. But it could be 2024 for all we know.

A question that popped up in my mind recently: Does the EF use a fixed (F-16 style) or dynamic (F/A-18 style) G limiter? By that I mean, does the G limiter have fixed presets chosen by the pilots depending on load out & weight (ala F-16), or does the FLCS automatically govern the G limit based on registered stores & weight ala the F/A-18? Something you know anything about @Spectre11?

Been trying to find a source for the AoA limit for the EF, only thing I've been able to find so far is 24 deg and 25 deg, the latter apparently coming from an EF test pilot. Anyone got anything?

Nothing, it's just semantics really, as the F-15C FM was, like all the other aircraft, tested using the infobar "TAS" reading, which displays the actual movement speed of the aircraft within the simulation (i.e. it doesn't get more accurate than that), which in zero wind, the condition for which all the performance charts apply, is identical to actual TAS. In short the discussion about the infobar changes nothing, and all performance testing should still be done using the infobar TAS reading for accurate results. Thus once the performance patch hits I'll once again be test flying the F-14 using the exact same methods as always to see how closely she matches the charts. However I won't be mad or complain if the FM falls short of matching the charts in certain areas after the patch, as I understand tuning performance can be an ongoing process with several updates along the way. But I will ofcourse let the devs know about any discrepancy I find, ask them to investigate it, and if a performance issue is confirmed also expect them to solve it in the end. After all ED's F-15C FM is proof that perfectly matching the official performance charts is completely doable, and so I will ofcourse be holding HB up to the same standard which I have full confidence they can meet.

The important take aways from this are that for performance testing, which always takes place in std. atmosphere (which means zero wind), the infobar TAS reading is what to use, as it precisely displays the actual movement speed of the aircraft within the sim, which in zero wind is identical to TAS. Meanwhile the infobar's IAS reading appears to infact be EAS, and is therefore misleading, but no'one here ever tested using the IAS reading, and thus its irrelevant to this debate really. In short the infobar discussion was a sidetrack and doesn't have an influence on our FM discussion as all tests were done with the TAS reading, which is as precise as it gets.

Yes, with wind it's a misleading figure as it's not actually True Air Speed, but rather true "inertial speed" as you pointed out, and thus is only accurate in zero wind conditions.

Alright, but I hope you can see how that could be misinterpreted, something I clearly did as can be read in my follow up post You're very correct, I misspoke on that one. You got the point though, that it didn't affect my testing because I was flying in zero wind.

Well it was the impression I got here: As for the infobar, the TAS reading might very well be showing ground speed, I would not have caught that as I always test in zero wind, and thus it wouldn't affect my testing. What I was told was that it recorded the actual true movement speed of the aircraft in the simulation, which ground speed infact also is. As for the infobar IAS reading, never used it, so never noticed anything wrong with it. When I needed IAS, i.e. outside of testing and during actual competitive flying, I would use cockpit instruments just like any other pilot

Wait whaaat... I thought you said you didn't have such a script? Ofcourse a script that automatically turns the aircraft at a specific G, altitude & speed is much much better than any hand flying, hence why I didn't bother to video record my testing of the F-14 back when I flew them, because I was sure you had a scripted program which would do it much faster and more accurately than any human could, and thus could rather quickly confirm the results I got. But IIRC you specifically said you didn't have such a tool?? Now don't get me wrong, if what you say is true then I'm thrilled to hear it, because with the help of such a script you should be able to get performance to match the charts perfectly in the end. I just don't understand why we were given mixed messages regarding this?

Still it seems it was important we had this debate, as it appears HB weren't using the infobar's TAS reading to calibrate performance, which is needed as the infobar reading shows precisely how fast the aircraft is moving within the simulation. So they will probably/hopefully use this moving forward. That said, if we look at Cpt. Dalan's picture the F-14's mach meter interestingly seems to be corresponding exactly with the infobar's TAS reading and thus seems to show TMN. Not sure if the F-14's mach meter was capable of this IRL, usually mach meters show IMN which just like IAS has some error.

If you have admin/moderator privileges, then edits don't show.

In std. atmosphere (i.e. zero wind, 15C @ SL), if I know TAS and altitude, then I know TMN, and vice versa if I know TMN & altitude, I know TAS. There's really nothing more to it. Hence to make the checks: You decide on an altitude and the speeds you want to check at, and since speed on the F-14's performance charts is listed in TMN, you then simply convert that into TAS and you know precisely what speeds to aim for on the infobar during the test flight. It's that simple, and exactly how I tested the F-14 & F-15. Other aircraft performance charts show performance vs KTAS, which allows you to skip a step. In short, what's the problem? The main point here is that only the infobar shows TAS/TMN, which is a recording of the aircraft's actual movement within the simulation, aircraft instrumentation will not. As such the infobar TAS reading is what performance needs to be calibrated in accordance with, as otherwise you will end up with incorrect performance.

It displays TAS, which is then easily converted to TMN when you know the altitude, and vice versa, for checks vs the charts. As all tests are done in zero wind and std. atmosphere, as on the charts, TAS is all we need.

Keep in mind there's a difference between IMN and TMN, and all the performance charts are for TMN, which only the infobar shows.

Yes that's my point, I see no reason for the infobar TAS/TMN to be incorrect as it merely records the actual movement of the aircraft in the simulation, hence it should be THE most accurate measurement available and what is used for calibrating aircraft performance vs official charts. If some devs aren't doing this, then that could explain some of the issues we're seeing. We need to keep in mind that the performance charts are corrected for true mach number, thus if the devs are using IAS or IMN to calibrate performance then the end result is incorrect performance. In order to get correct performance you NEED to calibrate using TAS/TMN, and only the infobar provides this.

But if the infobar, when set to TAS & TMN, merely shows the actual/true movement of the aircraft within the simulation (i.e. it's just a recorder), then how can it be wrong? I'm struggling to understand how it could be off. As for when testing the F-14, I was always using TAS & TMN as shown on the infobar, as I do it for all aircraft. As noted ED's F-15 matches the performance charts perfectly when doing this, i.e. its performance as recorded using the TAS & TMN (& G) readings shown on DCS's infobar perfectly matches the performance as shown on the F-15C's performance graph illustrated as G vs TMN.

As I've observed it when flying all the different type aircraft ingame the IAS on the infobar merely mirrors what the HUD or instrument gages in the simulated aircraft show. But the TAS & TMN figures on the infobar show the actual/true movement of the aircraft within the sim, and hence the performance of atleast ED's aircraft are calibrated according to the figures displayed here. That's all I know, or think I know, we'll see if the devs suddenly say different, because like I said I was specifically asked to use the infobar for testing. tbh I was convinced that TAS & TMN as recorded by the infobar was what all the various devs were using to measure & calibrate performance, so I'm kind of mindblown atm.

Yes, that would be nice. Although I kind of already got the answer back when I was litterally asked to use it for testing.

I was asked to use it by the ED devs a while back for any tests I did, making sure to toggle for TAS & TMN, as it is supposed to accurately record the actual motion of the aircraft within the simulation. If it wasn't accurate, then how are the various devs ever supposed to make their aircraft perform realistically relative each other? Note: When the infobar isn't set to TAS, but IAS, it shows what'ever figure is shown on the HUD of the aircraft.

When it matches in Ps=0 through the entire speed range, then coincidence is pretty much ruled out. Besides like I said, the devs themselves have said to use the infobar for testing.

You know you can press it twice to get TAS & TMN, right? F-15 as tested in DCS (TAS & TMN for checks) vs the real life performance chart: In short, ED's F-15C is litterally spot on when it comes to Ps=0, and such a perfect match with the performance charts makes it's clear ED calibrated their FM performance using the infobar. Hence the infobar is ofcourse the standard measuring device we need to use when testing, as the devs themselves have also requested in the past when we were submitting test results for other aircraft in the sim. The above also shows getting a perfect or near perfect match is very doable, it just takes time, and I have faith Heatblur will get the F-14 there. We, as customers, just need to be understanding of the scale of the undertaking and be patient. Quality takes time.

You're not helping anyone with responses like that Maxthrust... Not sure why I would have any ego in this? All I want is for the performance to be modelled correctly. I use the Ctrl + Y infobar because I was asked to use this in the past by the ED developers when testing aircraft to get an accurate reading. So do I trust it's accurate? Yes I do.