Hummingbird

Because it records the actual movement of the aircraft in the simulation.

Hence why I'm not using the cockpit instruments for checks but instead the Ctrl + Y infobar, precisely to avoid any issues with instrument error All the aircraft in DCS I have tried have some built in instrument error, based on the IAS to CAS to TAS conversion charts available for the aircraft, for example at SL the F-15C in DCS generally shows about 10 kts too much on the HUD as compared to TAS. I'm sure the F-14 is no different here, and is also modelled with instrument error, which is why I don't rely on the cockpit instruments for performance checks in any of the aircraft.

Yeah I wasn't planning on taking her for a spin until the next patch, as clearly things are about to change. Btw I use KTAS & TMN because the graphs on the performance charts are for TMN. That way I know wether the aircraft matches the charts or not, as the Ctrl + Y infobar shows what the aircraft is actually doing in the DCS simulation. I don't see any reason to believe the infobar is wrong as it merely records the movement of the 3D object within the parameters of the simulation. So that in my mind is not a possibility, esp. since other DCS aircraft's infobar KTAS & TMN figures match official performance charts almost perfectly (F-15C for example).

@Victory205 , understood and I'll get some footage next time I take her out for some testing for sure. I've done this for the issues plaguing the F-16 atm as well, specifically a lack of ITR where I documented my testing with footage - although ITR is also a lot easier and less time consuming to test, esp. with a FBW aircraft.

Keep in mind that at the time where I did my testing and posted my results I was absolutely sure HB had a scripted program to specifically check performance in terms of ITR, STR, acceleration and level speed, and thus could much more easily and quickly run the same tests and verify my results if needed. Hence I didn't really feel the need to video record many hours combined worth of flying and writing down notes. As for methodology, I did explain it as pr. request last time, but to quickly rehash I picked certain speeds to focus on, picked SL, 5 kft and 10 kft as the altitudes for testing, and then I located specific locations on the maps available where there was level terrain at those altitudes to make it easier to visually coordinate the turns altitude wise. I then made sure the atmospheric conditions were standard, i.e. no wind, 15 deg Celcius @ SL (as on the charts), and that the weight and load out was identical to the charts. Next I made sure that fuel burn was turned OFF, so as to allow all the time needed to stabilize any Ps=0 turn without losing weight in the process, as otherwise the whole exercise would be essentially pointless. Finally all recordings/checks were done with the Ctrl + Y infobar set for KTAS and TMN.

Just to be clear, this is not what I am doing. I only test fly to see where/how closely the aircraft matches the official charts (which are based on exhaustive flight testing, so not all extrapolated, I think that's important to make clear) or not, which as you know is hard work and takes a very long time. In other words wether or not I lose a dogfight in the F-14 I won't go straight to blaming the FM, that would be silly as too many other factors are at play to ever be sure. That said comparing against another airframe/FM that hasn't changed, and finding you're now sunddenly and consistently (i.e. over many fights) losing in particular areas where before you clearly had the upper hand, is often what triggers further investigation and the discovery of flaws. Infact this is how I even got a clue to begin with that something big had changed, as in my first evening BFM'ing after the patch I found myself unable at any point to outrate opponents that beforehand I had no issues against, and clearly felt a loss in performance. Hence I went to investigate wether my feeling that performance had "tanked" was just that, a feeling, or factual.

Excellent fat creason. Really appreciate the work!

The F-14 is losing fights it shouldn't because of its current lack of performance, esp. in the sustained realm, that much I can confirm. Atm it's outrated even by the F-15 at its own best maneuvering speeds, ~0.5-0.7 mach. The F/A-18, which it used to be able to outrate sustained (as it should), it no longer can. So the change is definitely very visible and felt by those of us who BFM a lot. That said I don't have any criticism leveled at the devs other than that which I put forth 6-5 month ago, which is that FM changes, like the one made 6 months ago, should be held back until they don't affect the performance of the aircraft to such a degree, at least when it comes to maneuvering & acceleration performance at subsonic speeds. Because if there's something frequent BFM'ers don't like, it's when their favorite aircraft isn't living up to the available charts - which, irrespective of wether the whole envelope was test flown or not, are still by far the most accurate performance figures available, and thus the FM has to match these as close as possible - which I have absolute faith Creason is also working towards. But like I've said before, this is the best module I've bought for DCS, and the attention to detail that has been given to this module clearly shows it's a labour of love by HB team, hence I'm sure they're as anxious to get the fixes done as we are waiting for them. As such I have a lot of patience when it comes to fixes for this module, it's just I regret that this last one wasn't held back.

Both the F4 & EF would be a dream to have in DCS, but of the F-4's I'm mostly wanting the F-4E which ED are said to make at some point, so I'm fine with TG developing another aircraft after the EF. If they want to stick to the modern, and similar aerodynamic layout, then one of the other eurocanards would be really cool if possible.

Ok, rechecked and I'm getting a very very slight amount of deployment at 0.54 mach, where AFAIK they should already be halfway deployed, which they are nowhere near. Screenshot:

I'm not touching the DLC, I'm running it in auto as you should. I've only tested it in the B, perhaps there's a difference, not sure. Try to do the test below 1000 ft in both. I'll have a look tomorrow.

Keep in mind I tested it at SL, where they should start to gradually deploy at M 0.58 and be fully out at M 0.51 if the AoA crosses 10.2 units. At 10 kft they should start deploying already at M 0.7, and at 15 kft we're talking at M 0.77. Should also note that atm they don't seem to be deploying gradually as they should, but instead they're just either fully deployed or not.

Thanks Creason. Maybe something broke, I dunno. Just checked it the other day along with STR performance (the latter I know wasn't mentioned in the patch notes, but checked it just incase), and they would stay in nomatter what unless you went as low as 0.51-0.50.

Hi Creason, the issue is still there, the maneuver devices stay in until you go at least as low as M 0.51 instead of M 0.58.

My two notes for the F-14B: 1) Still noticably underperforming in Ps=0 (STR) 2) Maneuver devices still don't deploy starting at M 0.58 as they should (won't come out till you're at least as low as M 0.51 atm) Issue number 1 isn't a surprise, as there was no mention of any change here in the patch notes, however number 2 is a surprise as I recall Creason saying he corrected it?

For sure, however again, we also saw the first 3D pictures of the HB Tomcat about 2 years before EA. So whilst I'm definitely not claiming my prediction to be accurate, it is at least based on something comparable That said, again if it takes longer, even let's say 4 years, then so be it, rather wait longer for a finished & accurate/authentic product than get an early release full of bugs and large inaccuracies.

Im basing it on the work done already, and how long it took for example HB after they announced the F14 was coming. I think EA ~2 years after announcement is reasonable, as most often the project was started way earlier than the date of the official announcement. But ofcourse I won't be complaining if it turns out taking longer, it's gonna take as long as they need it to, sometime in 2022 (i.e. within the next 19 months) is just what I'm currently thinking is plausible.

If it isn't in EA sometime 2022 I'd be quite surprised tbh.

Airframe structural strength? In what way?

AFAIK the wing cannons were used a lot by the 109's, and whilst they were unpopular due to the detrimental effect on performance, they did help boost firepower by quite abit when attacking the bombers. However wether any K-4's mounted them in combat I'm not sure.

As for Mosquito losses, pretty sure they ran close to 100 lost in night fighting between 44-45 alone. Nvm bombing runs.

Well that sounds a lot like the Me262 is far off indeed, which is really sad news for me. Sure the Me262 was unreliable, so were most German vehicles that point in the war due to a major lack of lubricants and thus longer runs between disassembly & maintenance etc, not due to any design flaws. So yeah, woulda loved to fly this great aircraft, and experience what it possibly could've been capable of had it not suffered from all the logistical issues the Germans were fighting with at the time. As for the Mossie, well consider that the German aircraft we have atm are way faster than the average German aircraft (109G6's & 190A's) assigned to protect against such incursions. So I think the Mossie will have a dang hard time running on the MP servers.

Follow up video:

Must admit I'm very sad and disappointed that now two of the most interesting aircraft I was eagerly awaiting for DCS, the F-4E & Me262, are both on hold. Personally I will never understand why the Mosquito was chosen before the Me262, mainly because it wasn't even something a lot of people were eagerly awaiting since the kickstarter. Yes I know ED didn't make the kickstarter, but they took it on, and with that the priority should've been to first release the aircraft the kickstarter initially promised, that's the whole premise of taking over a project, to finish it according to the initial goals first, and then add more to it later if resources & popularity permit. Second reason I don't understand the decision is that, as it currently stands the Mossie will basically present nothing but a target on the WWII servers, being unable to match the single seaters in any way shape or form, and with nothing but AI to target on the ground, and perhaps a few AI bombers here and there. There are no player controlled Bf110's, Ju88's or Me410's to mix it up with and stand a chance, instead you got a sky riddled with thuroughbred single seaters ready to eat you for lunch. So as much as I like the Mossie for what it was, and also find the scenarios it fought under IRL highly interesting and definitely a cool thing to experience in a sim, this just isn't something DCS's WWII arena can provide atm. There simply isn't any player controlled opposition for it that it can effectively fight. Ah well, I do hope they atleast plan on a worthy adversary for it at least. Also if we're lucky, the devs might decide that a Tempest Mk.V or Spitfire Mk.XIV will be accompanying the Me262 once they start work on it again.