Jump to content

Hummingbird

Members
  • Posts

    4336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hummingbird

  1. Been wondering the same thing, but didn't want to ask in fear of being shut down. But yeah, it's been a while now without any updates on this.
  2. I don't think (hope) anyone in here wants that. If it matches the charts, everything is as it should be, so that's what we're looking for.
  3. Hopefully we get the Spitfire Mk.XIV, F4U4 and Tempest etc at some point, it would be truly amazing. I am still waiting anxiously for the Me262A1 though, really would love to have that bird in the sim - eventhough, yes I know, it's not very "balanced" vs the Allied aircraft currently available. If we're lucky ED soon decides to take on one of the Allied beasties I mentioned before though. I think the Spitfire Mk.XIV would be a good choice, as I suspect it could be developed a lot quicker thanks to already having the Mk.IX base. Good thing is that there are also a lot of flying Griffon engined spits around, so modelling its FM as accurately as possible should be easier than say for example a Mosquito or Fw190. Other than that, I'm looking forward to trying the F4U-1 by Magnitude, should be more capable in a dogfight than the P-51, so that's something.
  4. We do have four Ps data points for sea level we can check with, for 1 G, 3 G, 5 G & 6.5 G. It was the 5 G one I couldn't match. 5 G sustained should be attainable at M 0.46, where I can get at most 4.8 G's sustained when doing everything by the book. Videos and track files of the tests posted earlier. But yeah, dead horse at this point, waiting for next performance update before any further tests.
  5. I couldn't get Ps=0 to match at SL in accordance with the 5 G chart, for which I posted my proof. (At 5 & 10 kft however it was spot on) As for acceleration, we did some tests, but decided against posting them after the reception of the mentioned Ps ones. We're waiting with posting any more test results before Creason announces that the performance tweaking is over.
  6. FC said we shouldn't expect performance updates until after the next 1-2 patches. So wait until the 2nd or 3rd patch in this year.
  7. Hoping for effective AIM-120's again soon, it's such a pain to witness how they "track" (hard to even call it that atm) targets in their current state, they're so incredibly jerky and thus extremely wasteful in terms of energy that they're not achieving even half their RL effective ranges. Going to be glorious once they're fixed and working as intended.
  8. I'd strongly advise against that, as TacView is known for sometimes showing wildly incorrect values. Meanwhile the infobar is a live recording/reading of exactly what is happening in the sim, and will therefore be as accurate as it gets; providing ofcourse you're in SP and not spectating someones else over MP were netcode becomes a factor.
  9. It indeed sounds like it should show DL contacts (Friend & Foe) on the HMD, just as in the Hornet. Which is why Wags comment confuses me.
  10. Was wondering, should our Blk 50/52 F-16C have the capability of showing data link contacts in the HMD, such as the F/A-18? Asked already on YT, where Wags stated: "For this tape, year, country, just PDLT." Is this correct?
  11. Any rough idea when we might expect the next FM update? Just curious.
  12. Get to know the aircraft well yourself first, that way you can quickly boil down the basics for him (like what keys to map etc.), and then have him get the 14 day trial. Best way IMHO.
  13. Keep in mind that in full AB I'm not giving it full stick deflection until I get close to 450 KIAS, whilst at full MIL I can give it full back stick at much higher speeds without fear of reaching Ps=0 and maintaining speed @ 9 G, which is essential as you logically can't test ITR at Ps=0, cause you'll never decelerate.
  14. Need atleast a video recording where the infobar readings are visible, and also a track file according to ED. Otherwise it's moot.
  15. Im sorry but the above quite simply doesn't correspond to actual ingame values atm, which can clearly been seen when watching the posted videos and noting the G's attained at a specific speed and then comparing it to the real charts.
  16. I don't understand this, I was as smooth as in the video I posted, and used the same technique, and ofcourse also level with the horizon, esp. at the relevant speeds (otherwise maintaining altitude wouldn't be possible): I really don't see how the above can be considered 'rough' in any shape or form. Furthermore no G warm up was required as G-effects were turned off, as I always do when testing so as not to allow this to affect the results. Really important (!): From testing I know that above 454 KTAS (452 KIAS) in full burner the DCS F-16 will accelerate at 9 G (at 22,000 lbs, clean, SL, 15 C), hence I need to be at full back stick & 9 G right before that. Also I need to be in full burner when noting the load factor, as anything less will result in less ITR/load factor at the same speeds for the DCS F-16, eventhough thrust shouldn't affect ITR. (This is easy to test, try a full back stick turn at full mil vs full AB, and note how a lower max ITR/load factor is attainable at the same speeds) Crux of the matter: In the DCS F-16C a 9 G instantanous load factor is only attainable from 432 KTAS (M 0.65) upwards, and in full burner only, whilst the real thing is capable of attaining it starting at 409 KTAS (M 0.618), at which speed the DCS F-16 will only manage 8.8 G instantaneous. This lacking behind the reference values continues down to M 0.488 where finally it matches at 7 G DCS vs 7 G reference. Finally the use of tacview really surprises me, as I've experienced it not matching infobar figures on numerous occassions, and hence have always rejected tacview as inaccurate. The figures from the infobar are live, clear and unmistakable in all the tests:
  17. No, earlier in this very thread BIGNEWY litterally said: "When we compare our Viper to the data it is correct. We still have some work to do on G-onset, but that is all. " and then later: "Just reiterate, we have tested our viper with the real world data and it is correct, if there are track replay's that we can check that shows it is wrong we will take a look. " To which I responded regarding the ITR (didn't mention G-onset because that issue had already been acknowledged), hence no trolling going on here. But glad to hear the ITR issue is acknowledged and still WIP, that is all I wanted.
  18. Ok, here's the track: ITRF16.trk
  19. EM charts say nothing about G-onset rate, they do however say something about energy retention (Energy Maneverability).
  20. Copy that, will make sure it's only one aircraft then. Don't use any mods, so that shouldn't be a problem. Will quickly redo the test and send the track once I get home.
×
×
  • Create New...