Hummingbird

You litterally reposted the link I provided in the very post just above yours

I think anyone who downright wouldn't like a full fidelity F-15 is abit crae crae... imho

I'm not so sure. Some good informative posts to read: https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53852

^Truth

Because it is data deduced by the people best educated & experienced in the field relating to the subject, pure and simple. Hence that is the target you have to go for, not something you calculated yourself. Thankfully this also appears to be HB's stance as well, because most of the time that's also the case with their F14, e.g. it's very accurate at 5 kft for all I can tell, and at sea level it's bang on the 6.5 G at M 0.62 @ SL as pr. the HM chart. It's just in a few places where it's possibly not matching atm, but seeing as Fat Creason himself said "it's not quite there yet", he's obviously very aware of this. I only have praise for the man regarding the FM. Finally don't worry, I am very patient, and I have been calling for patience amongst people here too, as I am aware things like this take time - esp. when you got other stuff in your life to take care of. Hence you won't be seeing me criticising HB for the time taken to fix something, esp. when they're letting us know they're working on it, which is all I need to "stay calm" so to speak.

No more earth shattering than the fact that such data is very valid in the absence of actual flight test data at SL.

I think the reason some people (incl. myself) are so passionate about subjects such as these, are that in our minds there are few worse feelings than lacking/having a performance advantage you know should've/shouldn't have. Which is why getting all the modules matching the charts as close as possible is one of our greatest desires. For example right now it pains me that the F15 FM is suddenly broken, and it will kick the butt of the F16 in many cases where it shouldn't. Or the AV8B basically lacking lift induced drag and being able to outturn every single jet figher in the game atm...

So it's by magic that the EM, VN & HM charts all perfectly match at every single altitude?

I've posted the 5 kft data at the valid configurations already twice. We've currently only been testing STR at 55,620 lbs, 4x4 config. Anyway, the SL performance certainly is valid, we have Ps=0 estimates for it at four different load factors (1, 3, 5 & 6.5 G) in the specific excess power (H-M) charts. To prove they're valid, you can cross reference them with the EM & VN charts at all the altitudes, and you'll see they all match perfectly with the H-M chart. To prove the point, let's compare the EM vs HM vs VN charts at 5 kft: They all perfectly match, and it's the same story for which ever altitude you choose. Hence there is no reason to believe the HM charts aren't accurate for SL as well. It's clear that SL performance is mathematically deduced, that's not in contention, however its been deduced by the pro's in the field with the tools necessary to get figures as close to real life as mathematically possible, hence we logically need to use this as our reference as we simply don't, and won't ever, have any more accurate data available. In short could the SL figures be slightly inaccurate? Sure, but IMHO we simply have no choice but to use them as our target, as they are the best we are ever going to get. I myself calculated SL performance to be 6.7 G @ M 0.62, not 6.5 G as on the HM chart, but I have to bow to the better ability of the professional aero engineers to mathematically deduce such things.

Latest ITR test @ SL 22,000 lbs, clean, 25% fuel (unlimited), ICAO std. day 15 C, sea level no wind: Technique is simple, come as close to max sustainable load factor (Ps=0) as possible, but no further than just below it (or you'll just keep maintaining the same G, which I accidently did a couple times in the vid), then increase to full back stick and on the infobar (dont look at the HUD) note the true speed the last knot just before G ticks down in increments of 0.1 G at a time, then you have the lowest speed a certain G is attainable. I did the first 20 for you guys: 9.0 @ 432 KTAS / 0.653 M 8.9 @ 416 KTAS / 0.628 M 8.8 @ 409 KTAS / 0.618 M 8.7 @ 404 KTAS / 0.610 M 8.6 @ 399 KTAS / 0.603 M 8.5 @ 394 KTAS / 0.595 M 8.4 @ 388 KTAS / 0.586 M 8.3 @ 383 KTAS / 0.579 M 8.2 @ 378 KTAS / 0.571 M 8.1 @ 373 KTAS / 0.563 M 8.0 @ 368 KTAS / 0.556 M -------------- 7.9 @ 363 KTAS / 0.548 M 7.8 @ 359 KTAS / 0.542 M 7.7 @ 354 KTAS / 0.535 M 7.6 @ 350 KTAS / 0.529 M 7.5 @ 345 KTAS / 0.521 M 7.4 @ 341 KTAS / 0.515 M 7.3 @ 338 KTAS / 0.511 M 7.2 @ 332 KTAS / 0.501 M 7.1 @ 327 KTAS / 0.494 M 7.0 @ 323 KTAS / 0.488 M The rest you can note in the video yourself The above figures overlayed on the real life chart:

I'm not the only one, we're quite a few people testing this atm. Also I get performance isn't final and I'm not posting to complain, like I've said many times before, I'm posting the findings to keep track of changes, and to inform where to possibly expect improvements. As for "letting it go", with all due respect I think that sentence more appropiately applies to the people who for some reason can't cope with others posting some figures on a screen and feel the need to start barking at them. I'm sure Cpt. Dalan would have no problem PM'ing you the mission And yes please, the more testers the better. Just remember to test a lot of times at the same target speeds & alts before drawing any conclusions.

Already tested at 5 kft (I wonder when you will finally notice) and found performance there was in order. No reason to focus on an area where numbers are matching, precisely because the goal here isn't to be "disruptive". We've got 4 perfectly valid performance references for sea level we're now focusing on, where the F-14 is currently possibly not matching in 2 of them.

I can't explain the difference between our results @captain_dalan, scratching my head here... the turns are coordinated, I'm holding them rock steady. I can't for the life of me hit above 4.7 G @ M 0.46 under the chart conditions (sea level, 15 C, 55,620 lbs, 4x4 etc), and managing the 5 G chart value is totally impossible for me. I'm going to do a repair of DCS when I get back to my desktop tomorrow, I think you should do the same, just to rule anything out in that regard. Should note I in the same session also tested again at M 0.62 (410 KTAS), and here as before I'm again hitting 6.5 G spot on, just as on the charts, and at M 0.34 I'm getting 3.2 G (+0.2 G vs 3 G chart values) Btw, earlier today when I flew the A my slats/flaps weren't working below ~340 kts and above 15 units AoA, only in the A though, they work flawlessly in the B. Is it possible you could check yours here?

I hope this suffices for a "peer review"

@captain_dalan I now think I know how you got the results you did, it turns out the script WILL actually log a rate whilst you're losing alt, so not true Ps=0 . You can see it in the video below where I use your mission, notice that during some of the script's recordings altitude is actually decreasing as the script logs the rate. I also once again manage to get the aircraft very stable at M 0.46, and get a good long stream grabs starting at 03:14 min. Also note the infobar and the G reading it is registering = 4.6-4.7 G throughout: And the logfile with the recordings so you can compare with the video: So according to the script an average of 16.8 dps @ M 0.46 = 4.75 G. Whilst the actual infobar reads 4.6-4.7 G throughout that turn. Compare this with my last result (it's the same):

I'll post a video of me doing the tests tomorrow, and then add the log file. I have no clue how you're reaching over 17 dps at M 0.46, here's another log file from me using your mission: Can't breach 4.7 G @ M 0.46 no matter how hard I try. I wouldn't be bothered with 0.1 G either, but as you can see I'm getting 0.3 G less. PS: I'm noticing a lot of alt & speed variance between your attempts, are you sure it's not logging attempts whilst alt is decreasing? From 16.4 dps average to 17.8 dps average is a huge difference, way beyond what should be possible. PPS: I run the mission in "summer, clear sky, no wind" and 15 Celcius. Are you possibly running it in winter? PPPS: Noticed the F-14A's slats/flaps oddly don't deploy below 350 kts, but on the B everything is fine.

Admitted?! You're really going to make it sound like I was trying to stir up drama? That I had evil intentions posting those numbers? For real? I quite litterally simply acknowledged he had advised there was no point in testing right now, so as to make it clear I wasn't posting a complaint or criticism, end of story. Jesus... this is fast turning into a witch hunt.

I'm not writing a scientific paper. I am providing my test data for all to see, and I ofcourse have target speeds to test at, esp. at SL where there are only four reference points. If you believe I am making up my results, then run the tests yourself, Dala can provide you the script. You'll get the same results in terms of STR. Also not sure why you keep rejecting the specific excess power chart (or HM if you prefer), if you wanna know wether it's accurate all you have to do is cross reference it with the load factor & doghouse plots and you'll see the 3 G, 5 G & 6.5 G Ps charts match them precisely at every altitude. So I see no valid reason not to trust them.

Why are you qouting me? Quote FC, he's the one who said it: No "please don't test" there, just a "no reason to be testing now", as I said. Hence why I acknowledged this when posting the data, to show that I was aware the performance was still being tuned, and hence highlight I wasn't complaining, unlike how you wish to portray it for some reason.

What I am refering to as being ignored are all the times I've said/done the exact opposite of what some of you are accusing me of saying/doing. I mean the easiest to spot example of this is Victory keeping on claiming I've done no tests at 5 kft, when it was infact one of the first things I did... and what did I comment following those tests? I gave credit, and then I moved on to focus on the altitudes where performance still didn't match. Also I know FC said that there's no point in testing right now because the FM is still being adjusted, he however didn't say "please don't test", which is very different, wouldn't you say? There's a clear distinction between those two things if you ask me. So I then did some tests just to document what performance is like right now (that way any changes, when they arrive, are visible), whilst at the same time acknowledging (not ignoring) what FC had already said, i.e. that current performance is not final, hence my figures are not to be taken as a complaint or criticism, but as documentation. I'm not out to hurt anyone here. Yet you're completely looking past all this and instead now trying to twist it into some sort of narrative where I'm feeling offended for being ignored in general? I mean come on now... The facts (i.e. what is actually written) are being ignored, and a false narrative is created. That's what tires me, and hence I don't really see the point in continuing to explain myself when I feel like Im seemingly being purposefully misconstrued. So I'm going to go back to my testing and document it for everyone to see, both so that they get an idea of areas where they might expect improvement and so that changes become more visible. Also the script Dalan kindly provided me is proving quite useful in reducing the workload to achieve accurate figures, so I also wanted to show my results with this as promised. TLDR; I don't claim the charts are 100% accurate, but they are the best we got and are ever going to get, and thus matching them as precisely as possible, human error, slop and graphic artistic fudges and all, should be striven for... same as for all the other modules. That way you got your back covered when someone goes "I don't believe this performance is accurate" or "this a/c is over/underperforming". And that's essentially what it's about, matching the most accurate data we have access to, warts and all, because then you cannot do it any better.

The performance at SL is obviously calculated, as it is for all fighter jets (testing maneuvering limits close to the floor is an absolute no go for pretty obvious reasons). That doesn't mean the estimated performance isn't accurate however (accurately calculating performance at lower alts based on flight tested performance higher up is something the industry pro's have been able to do for a long time now) and it doesn't mean it's 100% faultlessly accurate either. But that's not the point. The point is, and this is important, it is THE most accurate data we're ever going to get, deduced (and most certainly NOT fudged) by the people best equipped to do so. Thus why on earth not aim to match what is the most likely performance as pr. the true professionals? And do it across the board for every module, so that they're all calibrated to the same standard. In my mind, it's the only logical path. Anyway, I'm honestly getting tired of discussing this, as HB are obviously committed to getting it right (why else put so much effort in?), as they've said multiple times themselves, and I've been thanking them for it from the start. In short I'm not, and have not been, complaining. I've only shown test results and stated what can be expected. I've been a happy camper from the start, eagerly waiting the next update with further tweaks and an ever increasingly accurate FM. We're spoiled, and I feel priviliged to be living in a time where this is possible. Over and out for now!

*sigh* The sad part for me here is that I no point disagreed with the statement that performance charts aren't 100% true to life. That was never in contention, it's a pretty easy to grasp fact of life. Yet I've been made out, by certain individuals, to be in denial about this regardless, whilst what I actually write is being entirely (and feels like willfully) ignored. To then followingly be accused of instigating drama, and having to stand subject to various untactful comments and ad hominem attacks.. My only question is: Why? I understand perfectly well that these aircraft performance charts don't equal 100% reality. But like I also said, this goes for all aircraft, and regardless it's by far the best source we've got. Hence aiming to match these charts with the precision we're capable of, is/should be the goal. Why? Because then all aircraft are calibrated to the same standard = what the brightest minds and test pilots out there could deduce. I don't see that to be an unreasonable goal or expectation for a hardcore flight sim.

Nothing... On 10/21/2021 at 6:28 AM, Hummingbird said: " 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) " Did you hear me mention 5kft much after that? No, because I find the above accurate enough. TLDR; I only concentrate on areas that don't match the charts within consequential margins. With all due respect, nothing stirs up drama like ad hominem attacks.. Meanwhile I think, anyone who takes the time to read through the posts will see that I've been respectful, mostly praiseful infact, of HB's work the whole way through. I have at no point been incentivising drama or even critisized HB. But what'ever floats your boat, Im not out here to convince you of anything. I do find it a shame the proper tone couldn't be maintained however.

Stupid and obsessed, ouch, that's rough.

Sometimes parts of a FM break, it happens, which I am totally understanding of. The F15 FM used to be spot on, some thing(s) broke (E.g. no stores drag atm, but there used to be, and so on), it will be fixed eventually. We see it happen all the time, and it's not a big deal when the devs make sure to correct it. And honestly I like that there are people who care and take notice of discrepancies in the FMs, it's what ensures we get to fly the most accurately performing and behaving representations of these aircraft as possible = the very reason I'm into flightsims. Also I'm over the other FMs like a hawk just the same, hence you'll see me posting regarding any discrepancies I find there as well (F15, F16, AV8B, Mirage etc etc..the list is long) And I agree the F14 FM has always been great, esp. in terms of feel, and mostly also in terms of performance. Now it's getting real close, we just need a little more tuning near the peak performance area, and FC is working on it, so all is good.