captain_dalan

Bolded by me. Are you serious? There is literally 0.2-0.3g difference (resulting in 0.4-0.5deg/s turn rate difference) between the two planes at best sustained mach, for the same loadout and with a greater fuel margin for the A (more burner time). Acceleration? Yeah sure. But Turning? There is hardly a difference. Unless you are one of the 1 in 1000 flyers that plans to do lateral cartwheels with the plane, your engines won't die either.

So no feedback on this? @IronMike?

Or wait for the trans sonic drag to be fixed

Ahoy there mates, it's been a long time. This is not a bug report, or i would have posted in the bugs section, but rather question on the edge of the envelope scenarios. I've been doing some flight tests for a friend recently, and some of those involved riding the max lift all the way down to stall speeds. Now, i could be wrong (it would not be the first time), but if memory serves, with the wings forward to 22 degrees, this meant 30 units of AoA, or 32-33 degrees. As the AoA spiked and airspeed dropped, i started adding appropriate rudder inputs, which bellow 200 knots generally meant (after making sure you are coordinated) full rudder in the direction of bank, in order to prevent the nose from sliding in the opposite direction. This is how i used to do it anyway. To my great surprise, i found that the rudder didn't have enough authority to keep the nose level and straight. Especially bellow 170-160, no matter how hard i stepped on it, my nose kept sliding "up". It may be my technique that is wrong, however when i checked the tacview file, i noticed something strange. Unfortunately, some weeks ago i deleted all of my old test tracks, in order to save space, so i can't compare the test data side by side. But the new tests, indicate my angle of attack to spike over 34 degrees when i pull the stick full aft. Often going up to 35. This is post stall category unless i'm mistaken. And it's not just transient alpha either. Once pegged it stays there. So i started the mission again and this time i pulled gradually. First to 20 units, then 25 units, then 30 units...... and look, i still hade more stick travel unused. And as long as i didn't use that extra travel, the true AoA remained inside 32-33 degrees and my rudder authority was enough to arrest any slipping or sliding tendencies. As soon as i pulled that extra inch or so, my nose went sliding and the rudder could not keep up, even when engaged before the pull. So, what gives? Were the controls changed somewhere along the way? Is this the intended behavior? Should we actually be able to "oversteer" the plane with full aft stick command? And if so, should the CLmax line follow the 32 or 35 degrees AoA? Thank you for your time. Tacview files attached bellow! Cheers and clear skies Tacview-20220501-193157-DCS-Sustained turn rate test flight f14B 5000ft 55620lbs.zip.acmi Tacview-20220501-203938-DCS-Sustained turn rate test flight f14A low clean.zip.acmi

1. Eh, the instruments in the B were exactly the same as they were in the A until fairly recently anyway. I doubt most people even noticed the the difference when they were changed 2. From what i've seen thusfar, most DCS users hardly use the throttles during BFM for compressor stalls to be an issue, and a good portion of those would crash long before they killed an engine if they pulled AoA and sideslip sufficient enough to kill an engine. 3. They most definitely are. Zone 5 is my all time favorite in any plane i've purchased in DCS! In short, i think most people that stay away from the A, just do so on general principle, not because of any technical issues

I thing HB can no longer help you there.

Isn't all ammunition now ED controlled?

Any chance for a hotfix that will repair the issue without disabling the wake turbulence?

If only the alpha induced drag dependency was linear and with a shallow slope.....alas, while the excess power available relation to sustained turn rate is, relation to drag isn't. In the above mentioned example, the 30% increase in installed static thrust resulted in a 0.75 deg/s difference (about 5% increase) at 10000ft and 0.85 deg/s difference (again about 5% increase - no big surprise there) at 5000ft. Even after adjusting for the extra weight gained by the aircraft over their lifespan, the increase in STR (or any higher angle of attack related metric really) due to increase in thrust in relative units is going to remain in single digits. At best 8-9% BUT with lower fuel margins on ordnance/payload available. For similar configurations, the increase is more likely to drop to 3-4%. So....no, a 13% difference is not a slight oversight. IF and i must emphasize that if, the OP's data is remotely accurate (which might as well not be), a discrepancy of that margin is enough to warrant a new plane. Degree and half difference is a lot, even at sea level. At 10000ft? It's unheard of.

You're kidding, right? A 30% increase of static installed trust in another plane resulted in less STR increase ASL, and you are telling me that 1.7 (if indeed so) at 10kft is not worth the attention? Mate, that kind of change would make for whole different plane

Happens to all of us. Looking forward to your F-14 analysis. Would love to help, unfortunately not much time for DCS lately Hardly 30 minutes on my belt in the last month.

Indeed that one!

You also made a very good video on the exact topic the OP was asking his/her question, but it would not share it without your permission.

To the OP, check out this Tacview file. It's the F-14A equivalent of the same mission, with the bandits being J-11's instead of JF-17. You may find some aspects of it useful. This was done on the first try after more then a month of DCS hiatus. Hope it helps, cheers! Tacview-20220416-213251-DCS-F-14A_IA_Marianas_BVR_JA11.zip.acmi

Yeah, i've done that for my training missions, to adjust for different Viper variants as well. However, that does leave us with less mission time. I'm not sure how different dogfighter servers handle this, but i think most do either 50% fuel, or same time in burner for all planes. So one should take it into account when managing expectations.

Our Vipers seem to be a bit heavier though, even without CM's and gun ammo.

You can adjust for the change in atmosphere density within 0.8% accuracy for the change in altitude and then further adjust for the reduction in weight as a result of the removal of external ordnance. This should give you a conservative estimate of the performance that doesn't include the added extra from the reduction in drag due to the clean cavities. The above mentioned math gives the above mentioned results more or less.

You mean in DCS or IRL? Cause by the numbers, if both clean and at about 50% fuel, they should both rate just above 19 - maybe 20, even without taking the account the reduced drag on the F-14 if we drop the payload. The difference should be at what airspeed do you peak.

As mentioned above, be extremely cautious with GS's videos. Their primary goal is entertainment and the secondary is promotion. You should avoid building your game plan based on what he presents. For one, most of the bandits seem highly compliant in illustrating the point of the video and two, he doesn't really handle the F-14 well, even when he's winning. As for the validity of the current flight models for both planes, i hadn't really tested either in a long time, probably since last fall. The last time i did, they were both pretty close to the specs up to 420 knots, with the Viper being sluggish in the g-onset. To make my opinion even more outdated, i didn't really do much BFM (offline or online) in a few months as well in either plane. That being said, some of the most skillful dogfighters i've seen online, and i mean people that really understand BFM, seem to claim that the Viper update did just that, fix the sluggish g-onset, but didn't really change the overall performance. That means, the plane should now be more responsive in the pitch, but ultimately it's turning rates should be roughly the same. I don't know if the E-M properties have been changed to adjust the bleed and recovery rates though, that is if the the 0>Ps>0 has been adjusted as well. However, even if it has, 99% of the user base wouldn't really know what to do with that anyways (please don't take this as a personal attack, i have no idea what your fighting, flying or theoretical skill level is, it's just my overall observation of the people i see online, either on servers or social media).

Haven't been able to reproduce since the last patch and subsequent hotfix. Will keep my eyes open though in case this creeps in again.

I guess they are changing the AI all the time. Aside from changes between missions type, how is the AI responding to changes between veteran and ace skill levels?

What tanker are you using, at what altitude and airspeed? And which Tomcat model?

Confirmed happened to me tonight on the 2nd hop in coop MP, after respawning hot on a carrier. Syria map, Styx server.

Thanks for the input. Sorry for the late reply, RL prevented me from logging in here or in DCS. I will investigate if the issue persists in the latest patch. As for the mission, yes, it's a home made mission, over Nevada. Me at angels 33, the Eagle at angels 35. Some 70 miles out. As i build the track i slowly bank to a side to offset him. Some 30 degrees of bank later and the cone resets from the eagle to dead ahead, just a couple of seconds after the contact went from bright green to dull green. The eagle didn't notch as i didn't fire at him yet.

A couple of hours this evening, i can confirm, the weighting is even worse. No track, as this was a MP server, but a screenshot is attached bellow. Contacts inside 30 miles are the original tracks. Port tracks are hostile, starboard track is friendly. TWS keeps flipping between the two. Target at 40 pops up, another friendly. The TWS hops to it immediately despite a missile bein on the way to hostiles. Result, lost track and the missile got trashed. Ended up with a P-STT launch at 7 miles. Ping was 64, should there shouldn't be desynch issue. Another report on the trim bug, it happens on carriers as well. Same server. Syria map. Dropped frames on final over Beirut, DCS froze, the next thing i know i am burning over some bushes. I click fly again, and my F-14A starts hot on the CAT. I rearm, launch and just after launch my plane enters a hard roll, took some extreme trimming to level the wings. Almost crashed.