Hummingbird

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.

Pretty sure it will have flexible rotorblades once released, the Mi-24 has it.

There are so many well documented and easy to find cases of extreme G excursions, without resulting damage, that I really don't understand why you keep insisting on arguing over it? As has been mentioned there's usually a 50% buffer between design load limit and ultimate load limit - and in some cases even more (e.g. F14 which shared the same ULL as the F15). That doesn't mean the F15 shouldn't have structural over G damage modelled though, ofcourse it should. But it's such a strong airframe that reaching the ULL will require pretty extreme carelessnes unless rather heavily laden.

Yup, their work is highly appreciated and admired! (Often called the HB F14 the best module within DCS world, and for a reason) Also incase anyone wants to complain about how long it took: 1) It's no trivial matter, infact it's an insanely complex task to simulate real aero performance. So patience is required if you're expecting quality work. 2) It took ED, a much larger team, even longer to start fixing the F16's FM. (mainly due to different priorities, but nontheless) So whilst I am quick to post my test data amd feedback with every FM patch (like the Nov 2020 one), it's not out of slight or to criticize, but out of a desire to have help point out any potential issues the devs might have missed, and ensure the FM is as accurate as can be. I feel I have to do this due to my shared passion for these aircraft. I also think most of the devs of DCS world, in the last few years, have begun to appreciate how passionate a lot of their costumers are about the modules performing precisely up to real life specs. As well as how highly revered they become when it is achieved. My hope is that eventually the FM will always be top priority amongst all devs within DCS world, as to me it is the most important aspect of any flight sim module.

Which I'm very thankful for

Well I mean it was community testing that first revealed the loss in performance (and that's often the case with most modules), so it aint useless But I do agree that ofcourse you should take community test figures with a grain of salt, they aint perfect and most definitely are susceptible to human error, nomatter how good a stick you are. Also like I've said from the beginning, I ofcourse trust your internal test figures more than anything else, as you've got a program to run them precisely, and like you said it's not exact yet, like my results also indicate. But as far as I can tell, it's close now, and as I've always said, I have full faith you will get it bang on eventually. Finally just to be clear, in the end I study the recordings of my flights when accessing the precise turn rate/load factor and to be sure I didn't miss anything = that's how I caught my 400 vs 410 knot error, which slipped past me whilst flying.

I also just completed a more thurough test, and you're right, it hits 6.5 G at M 0.62 (410 KTAS) @ SL, but I couldn't get 5 G at M 0.46 (304 KTAS), here I end up at 4.9 G. In conclusion, if anything is off, its by very little. I apologize for initially getting it wrong, I accidently tested at 400 KTAS @ SL when I should've been at 410 KTAS. I'm getting within 0.1 G at most speeds. The devs did a great job on the FM.

You cannot reach any such conclusion by that logic. The data I provided is constructive, and to raise awareness for the devs to have an extra look. They have a tool to check with, so their measurements are going to be more accurate (more devoid of human error). Hence we would need to see their measurements for sea level to make such a conclusion. Also as I've been trying to get across, I am not "dissatisfied", I am infact very thankful for this update and all the hard work the devs & SME's put in to correct the STR issues raised after the fateful Nov 2020 patch. Things have massively improved, and many small inaccuracies have been corrected (maneuver slat/flap schedule is now spot on etc.). Just wanna make sure the same is the case with the STR, and according to my tests its slightly conservative, but HB's own test could say differently, would need to hear from them on that first.