Hummingbird

All well and true, but let's remember our sim is a mathematical creation itself. So lets stick on the path of striving to match the flight test derived data & math as precisely as we can, esp. since that is the std. set for the other modules as well - not to say they all currently meet it ofc, many others are also WIP here as it's complex stuff, but the goal is the same = to precisely match the performance charts. Also Fat Creason has done a marvelous job so far, and is still tuning. So I'm sure Ps going to match well everywhere in the end, esp. in the subsonic region. We all just have to remember to be understanding and patient regarding the time it takes.

Well I mean that goes for any aircraft, so I think we should strive to match the charts precisely, as it's by far the most accurate source we have and it's what is done for the other modules; Also esp. since it can be done, as we see at M 0.62 where we're spot on at 6.5 G. If we don't conform to some sort of std., the aircraft won't compare accuraretly with each other in the sim. E.g.: One aircraft that pulls 1 dps too little matched with one that pulls 1 dps too much according to RL available data, and suddenly you have a 2 dps difference (very noticable in a two circle turn fight) that simply aint there IRL.

Just tried the same flying a blue F-16... didn't go well, got slaughtered by Su-27's and SD10 wielding JF-17s

Different set of figures for sea level @ M 0.46 (304 KTAS) target speed using the script kindly provided by Cpt.Dalan: F-14B, 55,620 lbs, 4xAIM9 + 4xAIM7, Std. day 15 C, unlimited fuel: SCRIPTING: TR: Counter, Alt(m), GS(km/h), GS(Mach), Turn Rate(deg/s) 2021-11-04 22:54:09.060 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 3 / 23 / 562 / 0.460 / 16.9 = 4.80 G 2021-11-04 22:54:14.264 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 4 / 28 / 560 / 0.457 / 16.9 = 4.78 G 2021-11-04 22:54:42.550 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 5 / 36 / 563 / 0.460 / 16.8 = 4.78 G 2021-11-04 22:54:47.752 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 6 / 44 / 563 / 0.460 / 16.6 = 4.72 G 2021-11-04 22:54:52.958 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 7 / 40 / 565 / 0.462 / 16.8 = 4.79 G Backs up my previous figures. Note: Attempt nr.6 was actually my best turn, which I held very steady for a long time with no alt gain/loss, and it read 4.7 G. FYI; According to Pg. XI-9-5 (5 G Ps diagram) in the performance manual, the F-14B should be hitting 5 G @ M 0.46. So if the test figures are accurate (again HB will know) we're missing between 0.2-0.3 G here, which is upwards of 1.5 DPS. Hence that's the improvement in performance we can expect once the FM is done (although note performance at M 0.34 is +0.2 G according to my earlier tests, so here you should expect less perf, albeit that's rather non-consequential considering you don't fight at that speed)

My targets are, as always, pulled directly off the available documentation. Sorry but I'm using the same reference, and I am not seeing the same number for 35 kft. It's M 1.97 @ 35 kft according to Pg XI-9-3, not 1.90. Same on all the other charts for that configuration, and corroborated by Pg.XI-9-61 with M 1.95 @ 1.1 G Just to prove I'm not talking smack (Screens from XI-9-3 & XI-9-61): Finally there are references that show performance for SL & up within four load factors, they are on Pg.XI-9-4 for 3 G, Pg. XI-9-5 for 5 G and finally Pg. XI-9-6 for 6.5 G. (XI-9-3 from above is for 1 G, i.e. level flight) That's where these targets come from: M 0.34 (225 KTAS) = 3.0 G Pg. XI-9-4 vs 3.2 G DCS (+0.2 G overperformance) M 0.46 (304 KTAS) = 5.0 G Pg. XI-9-5 vs 4.8 G DCS (-0.2 G underperformance) M 0.62 (410 KTAS) = 6.5 G Pg. XI-9-5 vs 6.5 G DCS (spot on) Finally I did find a reference for level speed clean, with only stub pylons left (the SAC docs), which lists top speed clean 50% fuel (as I ran it) as 1196 kts @ 35,000 ft. Which is M 2.073. So a M 0.1 improvement vs the 4x4 load out:

I honestly can't find a single aspect where amraams have improved, only drastically worsened. Be it short, medium or long range shots, the missile behaves extremely odd, easily losing lock and exhibiting illogical trajectories with jerky energy robbing flight behavior.. FACT: Since the update I've fired off more than 100 amraams in MP (most on GS server), and so far I've only scored hits on helis, I haven't hit a single jet yet. More telling perhaps though I haven't once died to an amraam whilst flying a jet since the update.. as a result I just fly around feeling immune whilst destroying blue ground targets in my red F-16. On a positive note I got to learn how to use mavs with the F-16 in MP (GS server) without feeling pressured or dying once as I was fiddling trying to learn how to use them properly...and that whilst circling over the most forward targets on the map. Every time someone shot an AMRAAM at me I just did a few turns, sometimes dropped a bit of chaff, and the missiles never hit me. Even got chased by an F-15 no more than 7nm behind me, and fouled all his missiles, to just eventually turn around and nail him with a 9x.. I've entirely stopped packing 120's now, just load purely 9X's as an AA defence in the F16 now. That's how bad my experience with the 120 has been since the patch.

I hope they fix this fast, is killing MP. Still haven't had a single 120 hit on a jet in MP yet, it's quite horrible.. In SP I've had some hits, but it's quite unreliable here too. Whilst watching the missiles in F6 view I've noticed that they are doing a lot of jerky movements they never used to do, losing lock and wasting energy.

I see 1.97 for the B/D with 4x4 load out, so I'd be surprised if a clean bird only gained 0.03 over that. Also I did try the script and remember I had used it before (about a year ago), but both times I found it will register rates whilst G's were transient, i.e. PS= +-50-100 ft/s, and thus I would sometimes get rate figures registered whilst I was slightly decelerating or accelerating, climbing or descending. To be more precise it would need to also register the climb/descend rate, speed gain/loss rate, and the load factor (last part to make life easier) Drag racing usually occurs at 1 G

To add to this I remember a talk with a couple of Danish F-16 sticks who recounted how they easily picked up coastguard Sikorsky's when they were idling on their helipads from some 40 or so km away. Also the Boing patent description seems to emphasize the difficulty in ID'ing a low flying heli, not in detecting it. In DCS it's the latter which is the problem.

Now I know @fat creason said not to test anymore, but having just completed my final SL testing to the highest standard I can achieve these are the results vs the available reference points for that altitude: DCS vs reference @ sea level: M 0.34 (225 KTAS) = 3.2 G vs 3.0 G (+0.2 G) [by far the hardest to test] M 0.46 (304 KTAS) = 4.8 G vs 5.0 G (-0.2 G) M 0.62 (410 KTAS) = 6.5 G vs 6.5 G (0.0 G) If the above figures are accurate then the missing ~0.2 G @ 0.46 M is what is most sorely missed, as this is right around the area of peak rate (occuring @ M 0.49-0.51) at SL, and results in a loss of ~1.5 dps vs reference. Interestingly we got the opposite occuring at very low speeds where a bit of extra performance vs reference is found, albeit it's of less consequence. Anyway this just to show the current state of affairs, and should in no way be seen as a complaint. I am confident it wont be long before its matching the charts even more precisely.

Helis are usually very easy to track, even whilst sitting on the ground, due to their spinning rotor blades acting like a large reflective disc, hence why helis as a rule aren't sent into airspace that isn't dominated by friendly airforces; they're quite simply easy pickings for enemy fighters. Thus I don't see why the Gazelle should all of a sudden go completely invisible to both radar and IR when either hovering close to the ground or landed if the rotors are still spinning.

So, for the last couple of years I've noticed this thing can hardly be tracked by either radar or IR, which is pretty far fetched. Choppers are notoriously reflective when it comes to radar signature, and I don't see how the Gazelle should be basically invisible to AIM-9M's let alone AIM-9X's.. Furthermore IF you somehow manage to shoot one down, the kill never counts. Will any of this ever be fixed?

I'd expect it to go faster clean, but the biggest thing is the acceleration, it's oddly slow here. Currently it gets thuroughly beaten by the F/A-18 in both level acceleration and climb rate, both clean at 50% fuel.

The B, and it took forever to get there, got out accelerated by the Hornet quite easily (We started side by side at 450 KTAS)

Also noticed you can't hit more than M 2.0 completely slick atm, and acceleration is quite low, so that's something to keep an eye on too

After some more testing I can say it for sure has to do with incorrect drag values, as the vertical climb rate of the aircraft is not very impressive... infact it's the opposite considering the thrust to weight ratio of the thing. All very odd, I remember the FM seeming quite authentic about a year ago.

As I've said in another thread, I haven't hit a thing with the amraams since last weeks update, any target that attempts to evade just slightly appears entirely safe.

Really? Then how does the gunsight compensate for range when using both gun & rockets? Is it all just gyro?

Yeah, I was wondering why it wasn't available in DCS, as according to some sources flechette rockets were used to great effect by Soviet Hinds in Afghanistan during their invasion in the 70's. As for their use against air targets, I doubt it would be particularly effective here. Btw, a good way to ensure max lethality from such types of weapons is to use a proximity fuze to make sure the warhead bursts within a certain distance to the ground or object. Hence I wonder if this was ever made use of in flechette rockets.

Was wondering why the Mi-24P didn't have the option of flechette rockets, this explains it....

Also haven't hit a thing with the amraams since update, any target that just notches is entirely safe.

Sorry but a 15% increase in thrust in no way justifies at 68% increase in STR performance. Currently the AV-8B is outperforming every single other 4th gen fighter in DCS (plenty of which feature more extensive LERX, LEFs, TEFs and much more favourable lift/drag & thrust numbers) when it comes to STR from M 0.6 and below. If that doesn't set the alarm bells ringing, , then I don't know what will...

Thank you.

AV-8B 20,941 lbs, 6x pylons, 4x AIM9's, full guns, @ Sea level / ICAO std. day 15 C STR DCS vs RL M 0.4 = 4.10 G vs 3.20 G (+1.90 G off) M 0.5 = 5.45 G vs 3.60 G (+1.85 G off) M 0.6 = 6.65 G vs 3.95 G (+2.70G off) M 0.7 = 6.05 G vs 3.90 G (+2.15 G off) M 0.8 = 3.8 G vs 0 G (+3.8 G off, real aircraft can't even attain said speed in level flight at SL) ITR DCS vs RL M 0.65 = 9.0 G vs 7.8 G (+1.2 G off) Guys, this is not so good, it's way off the charts Reference: NAVAIR 00-110AV8-4, cleared for open publication.