captain_dalan

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.

No one noticed this at all?

Yep, on the downwind, just before the final break. Sorry for the late reply, i was on a forums hiatus for a few weeks. You should be 1.1-1.3 miles away from the carrier at the closes point downwind, and then bank into it just as you cross the stern. Control the descent with bank angle and throttle input.

First off, this isn't a bug report, but more of a question relating to a problem. No tracks are still attached as they may not be needed if the behavior is as intended. My question: Does the AWG-9 have a datum preference? That is, does it like scanning above the plane datum line more then it does bellow it? As long as the target remains in the same conditions relative to he absolute horizon of course? Say, we have contact, 60 miles out, 35000ft. We are at angels 30. Jester id's it as hostile, goes to TWS-Auto, a track file is built. Now, if i bank away from the bandit say to the right, the cone will follow the bandit based on the centroid logic. After a while, if i remain in the bank, no g's pulled, just a fairly shallow bank, don't lose or gain altitude, TWS auto often gives up and starts scanning ahead. So if the target is below my datum line, it appears the AWG-9 doesn't like to keep the beam on the bandit. If however, i roll in the opposite bank and not change heading, again no g's pulled, that is i keep the bandit above the datum line, the track won't be lost and the cone will stay on the bandit. Even if the lock is gone when the bandit is bellow the datum line, if i make a quick correction and change the bank to bring it above the datum line, the radar will immediately track it again and restore the cone to match the contact. This sometimes happens in PD-STT mode, where it seems the lock is less stable you are banking "away" from the target then banking "into" it. BTW, these are shallow banks, inside 40 degrees of offset, so we aren't talking about the contact being outside gimbal limits. Is this a feature of the radar?

1. ED is yet to tune the FLOLS for the F-14. It's only precise for the F-18 and it's always been so. If you fly the ball. you need to fly a ball or two higher; 2. Because you are too wide, that is, too far from the boat. The needles take into account what your slope should be for a given distance but the script expects you to be at the correct altitude for a much closer distance. You should be between 1.1 and 1.3 NM when you are at 180 and your bank needs to be more aggressive

And not just the Hornet. I have a series of homemade missions that i use to train certain parts of the envelope or systems use and ACM techniques. The last time i flew those the end of last summer and the start of autumn. That is until this weekend. Many of the planes that were happy to fly themselves in the ground back then are now making a decent show of themselves in the BFM arena. Oh, and they no longer seem to go for the hammerhead 2 times out of 3 like they used to. I get a feeling ED is not just constantly working on the AI, but actually sneaky-sneaking pushing the updates to the open beta without mentioning in the changelogs!

Is the meatball messed up in the non-supercarrier boats as well or do they work properly with the F-14? I might want to switch back to those or the Forrestal, but haven't used any of those since the SC came out.