Hummingbird

There is ofcourse serious evidence as we have the real life EM charts to compare with, and I'm 100% sure HB can see the discrepancy the moment they test fly the aircraft.

@captain_dalan I did check the flap/slat schedule, and it's the same as before, which actually wasn't entirely correct in that they don't extend at 0.58 M @ SL as they should, but instead at 0.50 M. But since performance before this patch was spot on, that doesn't explain the loss in peformance. Based on the testing done so far it seems as though the root cause is a noticable reduction in thrust, whilst drag vs AoA might also have changed. The latter appears to have had an affect on how the aircraft feels in terms of feedback in the turn, atleast to me it definitely seem a lot less buffety..

I did try asking before the patch went live, as I couldn't understand why thrust below 0.7 M had to be adjusted as the a/c was already perfectly matching the charts, but they must have missed it: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...49#post7138149 I actually thought they might have increased thrust a bit and then adjusted L/D to take account for it, or vice versa. But yeah, it would indeed be nice if they wrote in which direction or if at all their adjustment are meant to affect performance going forward.

While that is OT I think that has to do with less buffeting occuring, and later than normal.

Update notes say: Adjusted F110 AB thrust below mach 0.7. Adjusted subsonic airframe drag per SME comments Perhaps one of these had some unwanted effects? Or maybe something went wrong implementing them.

Thanks IronMike, appreciate the quick response!

Heatblur should be able to quickly test this and overlay the performance over the available charts, and then see if something funny is going on with thrust, drag or lift with decreasing altitude and/or with drag when removing/adding stores. And yes hopefully they can fix this soon. Feels very odd how it's performing now, esp. the wild dip in turn performance above ~0.5 mach.

DCS F-14B, 55,678 lbs, 4x AIM-9 + 4xAIM-7, Std. ICAO (15 deg C), Sea level (unlimited fuel): KTAS/Mach vs G's 450/0.68 = 7.00 G 425/0.64 = 6.65 G 400/0.60 = 6.25 G 350/0.53 = 5.25 G 300/0.45 = 4.60 G 250/0.38 = 3.70 G 200/0.30 = 2.70 G RL chart values for same weight & load out but at 5 kft: Mach vs G's 0.68 = 6.25 G 0.64 = 5.85 G 0.60 = 5.70 G 0.53 = 5.25 G (Same as the DCS F-14 at sea level !) 0.45 = 4.15 G 0.38 = 3.30 G 0.30 = 2.35 G Based on this the expected RL performance at SL would be: 0.68 = 7.35 G (+0.35 G vs DCS) 0.64 = 6.95 G (+0.30 G vs DCS) 0.60 = 6.60 G (+0.35 G vs DCS) 0.53 = 5.85 G (+0.60 G vs DCS) ! 0.45 = 4.75 G (+0.15 G vs DCS) 0.38 = 3.80 G (+0.10 G vs DCS) 0.30 = 2.75 G (+0.05 G vs DCS) In short a our cat has suffered a noticable drop in performance above 0.45 mach (at 0.53 the difference is big), and a slight one below that, as compared with the real thing.

No, it was performing basically spot on before. Now it's missing some 0.5-0.6 G's compared with the real life charts.

Interestingly performance at altitude doesn't seem much off, it's mainly at low altitude where about 0.4-0.5 G's is missing in sustainable load factor.

With the new update the sustained turn rate of the Tomcat has decreased below EM chart values for some reason, so much so that the F-15 is actually matching the F-14 in sustainable load factor at 0.5-0.6 mach atm. There also seems there's an issue with stores drag, as if removing stores doesn't help with drag at all.

Testing sustained turn rate performance and it has dropped noticably in the B for some reason, by quite a lot, so much so that the F-15 now matches the F-14B in STR even between 0.6-0.5 mach, which is crazy. The A also doesn't live up to the charts. Right now I can't even achieve charted values for 5kft at SL. Something is up... :-/

Yup just retested it with new patch, and there's a definite issue here, the maneuver slats/flaps do not even begin to come out until 0.50 mach at SL (15-17 units AoA), where'as it should be at 0.58 mach at said AoA. This has a 1 deg/sec affect on turn rate, which means max STR doesn't happen at 0.54-0.56 where it should, but instead around 0.49. Hoping for a fix here soon.

Noticed that the maneuver flaps/slats don't come out when they should, not coming out until ~0.51 mach @ SL ingame when turning. According to the F-14 manual they will be partially extended already at 0.58 mach @ SL. (Not sure wether this is manual limit, as the automatic CADC schedule actually runs until 0.86 mach)

Personally I'm fine with that, it just looks odd that other non promised aircraft come earlier, which is what upsets some and begs questions from others. Rather wait longer to get a proper modelled module, than get a rushed one.

Ok, way to make it personal... Infact a lot of people are confused about it, this thread alone is a good indicator of it. What people want to know is wether or not it's planned. A "maybe" means it isn't planned, and hence 3rd parties have free hands to make it for DCS.

Would be nice with a word from the devs themselves on this, as it's a highly requested module and obviously a lot of people are confused on wether or not it's actually coming.

Just wondering wether the F-4E which was announced a couple years back is still on ED's roadmap or wether it has been dropped entirely?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it's hard to argue against people being a bit upset that a random aircraft is put before one promised 6 years prior that many people payed for.

Oh I am aware of the DFCS benefits and like I said while it didn't provide truly carefree handling, lacking for example a G limiter as well as auto 1 G trim, it did make maneuvering the aircraft on the edge quite easy. The main benefit was that it removed the need for the pilot to manipulate the rudder pedals if he wanted to roll the aircraft at high AoA, with the stick-rudder interconnect he now simply applied side stick (a big no no with the old AFCS) like in an F-18 or F-16, which alone made it a big improvement for BFM.

Fair enough, hopefully some day far in the future I guess

Yes, as many WW2 planes as possible please... but... please focus on finishing existing modules.

The forum is here for people to express themselves regarding DCS, hence if people don't agree with or have questions regarding any decision ED made/makes it's to be expected, and allowed, that they will voice it so long as it's kept civil. Asking why we're getting a Mossie before a plane that was originally promised 6 years ago is a legitimate question, and not an attempt at making them change their mind as obviously that's too late.All we can hope is that the 262 gets the attention it deserves going forward from the release of the Mossie.

Yeah, not sure why they chose to release the Mossie before the 262 considering the latter being a promise from 6 years ago.