captain_dalan

I did some tests last night, and decided to try and eliminate the human factor so i set the missions in the following manner: 1. AI F-18C VS AI F-16C; 2. AI F-18C VS AI-F-14A; 3. AI F-14A VS AI F-16C All planes clean, set to roughly same time in burner Veteran AI level. Only let the AI fight two times for every setup. The F-16 seemed most consistent. Tried to stay around 380-390 knots in all fights. The F-14 mostly tried to stay around 250-260 knots but i two fight actually went for a high energy strategy and kept its airspeed above 420 knots, while periodically exchanging energy for position. The breaks were very sloppy though, with choppy excursions above 6g. The F-18 was the poorest show of them all. In all fights it just bled off all its energy and tried to do a sustained turning fight at 150 knots, which gave him no more then 1.5g available at most times. Only on occasion, usually when the bandit would go into a dive and the Hornet followed, would its airspeed rise to 200-ish knots and somewhat improve its turning potential. All planes seemed to prefer to be at 20 degrees AoA for the most time when engaging in a turn, which feels a bit off to me. As usual, no snapshot attempts were made, so high AoA insistence makes little sense. Anyways, no further reports for now. Happy weekend and Merry Christmas to all!

Ballistic F-16.trkTacview-20211225-223911-DCS-F-14A NTTR_Dogfight_F-16C NO PYLONS 70 percent fuel both.zip.acmi Here is my track and the corresponding Tackview. I don't know if it'll work as it's a Tomcat track. This time around the AI Viper only went down to 90 or so knots CAS. Still perfectly controlable over the top. If memory serves, he did this twice, the second time, did cost him his life.

For what is worth, on Caucasus, in the carrier quals missions, i actually get 3-4+ FPS after the latest patch, but that may be ED optimizing water rendering?

I would actually prefer if it didn't! I mean, if it did, then sooner or later it would reach its theoretical maximum and then we'd end up with flying the same AI again and again. I prefer diversity. I will try to save a track the next time i do the training BFM missions. The above snapshot was taken from an F-14 flight, so that is broken by default, i doubt it will be of any use. Unless you can use the tackview file?

1. If properly employed then yes, against most planes. As for the Hornet....... that is a tough question. I simply can't confirm or deny it's sleek performance. As it is currently modelled in DCS it is arguably the best dogfighter in that configuration. STR is irrelevant here. The Hornet is performing exceptionally well (relatively) in most ACM metrics we can observe. 2. Two disclaimers: 2-1. This is going to be my personal opinion based on my personal tastes; 2-2. I am nowhere near proficient in the Flanker and the Fulcrum as i am in other planes, so some finer points of their performance characteristics may be lost on me I find the flying qualities of the Fulcrum superior and more to my liking then the ones of the Flanker. In a purely guns only environment, i would take the former rather then the latter. It's smaller, more nimble and more more E-M capable (by far) then the lumbering Flanker. This doesn't mean easier time in DCS, as already mentioned, proper tactics are more difficult to execute due to poor visibility. But, as we are forgetting tactical implementation, then 29 all the way. If however, HOBS, HMS and Archers are present, then airplane performance become less relevant and simple nose pointing is the main factor, then go for the Flanker. Not because it's a better plane, but because it will perform that first turn easier and let you have the first shot. IF you survive that long.

Haven't experienced that yet....for better or worse! But i did some practice BFM sessions against the AI this Friday night before going MP (mostly against Vipers and Fulcrums), and in one of those, a veteran AI MiG-29 actually tried to force an overshoot and then proceeded to engage in a one circle with me! ONE CIRCLE! I have never seen an AI engage in one circle of its own volition. Is it possible that ED has slipped some silent AI updates under the hood?

Have the user files been updated with the new version or are you planning on releasing it as a separate download?

I'm ok with the AI trying new tactics as long as it doesn't break the (known) laws of physics

1. Just define maneuverability as the capability to change your energy state in the air, and suddenly the 29 is one of the (if not THE) best planes we currently have in DCS 2. The F-15C is a bit overmodeled (slow) and undermodeled (fast) in DCS anyways. Still fairly close for a FC3 plane Forum rules prohibit such actions.

Looks much closer now! When is this bad boy coming out? Can't wait to get him on the Hoover Dam run!

If i happen to find the reports (fat chance that) i'll post them. Don't hold me to it though, if there is one thing older then my brain, it's my hardware and i've went through quite a few disks over the years

And i was just getting to know her....

2. (and 3) the difference can (and in the case of the F-14) is negligible. And most aircraft are designed with certain parameters and performance in mind. But that is far beyond the scope of this topic i think. 4. It is stronger when compared to its direct competitor the F-16. Even though similar, it's STR per mach is better for lower airspeeds. I don't think you can expect one plane to be better in an arbitrary metric then all the other planes, along the entire envelope. Especially when comparing similar levels of technologies. 5. I don't think relaxed stability is universally better as such. It does provide access to parts of the envelope that may not be available otherwise. But EVERY design is a compromise, and the choice of the airfoil, the geometry of the inlets, the power curve of the engines.....they all will play a part in the end product. And that product will be dynamic in nature, which leads us to: 6. I think you are relying to much on static properties (again) to quantify a highly dynamic process. Is a sail better lifting body then a 2x4? Of course it is. But that doesn't really resolve our conundrum now, does it? Better lift coefficient you say, but better at what angle of attack? As mentioned above, maintaining or sustaining g's (a turn) is a state where the excess power is zero, that is, the power of the engines is in a state of equilibrium with the total drag produced for a desired lift (g-force). Two planes can have same ratio between lifting surface and total weight (lift loading) but very different shapes of wings. In fact, they most certainly will. And even the airfoil used will have vastly different properties, that will result in very different performance at both different angles of attack and different airspeeds. There is no one perfect wing. If there was, every plane would have been designed with it.

1- He will......if i get stuck in lag. But what's stopping me from relaxing or unloading, getting my knots back, and doing it all over again. The outcome depends on what happens faster, me getting enough knots back, or him completing a turn which he starts at a position of disadvantage. 2- But the entire line of reasoning behind the example is to illustrate why you should NOT sustain at all times. If he decides to bleed or go out of plane, then there is no sustaining, ergo, no need for the illustration, right? 3- They may, they may not. It's not a given. Once both sides start playing the energy game, then who even manages his/her transitions better will come on top. And it will also be AC specific, as not all planes perform the same along the entire envelope 4- at this point we are purely academic and removed from the scope of the mental exercise, but i'll indulge you......why not? If you go one circle in such a way that you will get inside the Archer WEZ, you have just completed one way of surviving the merge with the R-73 equipped platform. It may not the be the best way, but it is A way.

Roger that! Thanks for the info

Also worth noting that (if memory serves) in some engagements (depending on initial conditions), even "BVR" Sparrow shots had to be supported long enough to bring the larger planes inside a possible Winder retaliation shot. Which given the fire and forget nature of the Winder, again, made the exchange ratio less in favor of the expensive plane.

1 - Sorry, i forgot to include the number, despite writing the text. It was 6100lbs. Edited the post accordingly. 2- Why do you think lack of power results in worse turning capability? WW1 biplanes are woefully underpowered and they can turn inside their own tails until they run out of fuel. Gliders have no power of their own at all, and can out-turn anything in the air. If you've seen the performance charts for the F-14A and F-14B, you'd see that despite the tons of excess power the B has when compared to the A (manifested in superior acceleration, climb rates, loaded climbs...) their turning rates are barely 1/2 a degree different at the point of equilibrium (no excess power, level sustained turns). Is more power better? Yes, but in virtually every set of aerodynamic data i have ever seen, the alpha induced drag (drag as a result of increase in the angle of attack) rises faster (in a non linear fashion) beyond a certain point (around which the lift-to-drag ratio is optimal for a sustained turn) then ANY increase in thrust you might get as a result of a new more powerful engine. So even if you have 30-50% more thrust, you might get 10% or less excess power, as the increase in drag will just chew up the power. 3- If you are really that interested, Clmax for the F-14 (without maneuver devices) is a bit more then 1.9 but it will do you no good in this case. All the properties you have listed above are next to useless when comparing dynamic conditions, even fairly predictable values, such as zero excess power turn rates. Let me put it this way (as this is my favorite example), a jest engine (just the engine) can have a thrust to weight of 8 to 1, or even 10 to 1, or above. Where is that engine going to go without wings, or fuel, or control surfaces, or someone or something to control those surfaces? You CAN'T determine turn rates based on static values. You need the CL and CD values for all angles of attack available at given mach numbers AND you need the ACTUAL thrust produced at that given angle of attack and mach. Only by matching these two sides (lift-to drag per alpha and thrust to weight per mach) will you get the sustained g (or turn rate, really the same thing) for a given and state. And that will give you just that, the STR, which is by no means the end-all, be-all of turning capability as: 4- You are assuming that higher STR is better. Which it is, but only in a bubble, that is, if all other properties are the same. But they aren't. And while fighting at best STR has its uses, 9 times out of 10, the guy who fights at best STR, even if that STR is better then the bandit's STR, will get thrashed by the guy who fights the proper energy exchanges. Let me put it this way: -you fly at 350 knots and hold 6g until the heat-death of the universe; -i can only sustain do 5g at 350 knots => you assume you are safe and continue to fly that way; -but, even though i can only sustain 5g at 350, or 6g at 400, i can still do 7g at 350 and 8g at 400; -aha you say, but you can't sustain them and i have made this a guns only fight! -so what i say, and proceed to pull 8g. I can't sustain them, but i don't care. As a result i lose airspeed, my circle tightens and now i am not just inside your turn, i also have my nose on you. In case you haven't noticed, this is how the Mirage 2000 guys will shoot you on a dogfighting server. -ok you say, but what if you miss, you are now at 250, and you can't stay behind me for a long time, as you just can't sustain my rates! I got you again! -so what i say? Who ever said i have to stay at 250? Because my plane is better then yours in acceleration, i can just unload, and get my knots back i a few seconds. IF i can get my knots back BEFORE you manage a full 360 to get behind me, i can do the same trick from above again and again, until i do get my shot. - Alternatively, i can even take the fight into the vertical, and cut my effective turn radius thus staying inside you circle even though you are rating with the speed of heat until you run out of fuel, and i can just keep bouncing you with high Yo-Yo's until you are dead. (this is less likely to see in DCS for the reasons i mentioned above, that is, maintaining tally is a pain in the butt) Bottom line, i have out-turned you, even though my STR is worse then yours. For all intents and purposes, my EFFECTIVE turn rate is better, because i have exploited my plane's energy-properties better then you have. While you have kept your plane in a state of equilibrium the entire fight, i have traded energy for position, then position for energy and ended up with more shooting opportunities then you have. They key to success is knowing where in the envelope your best exchange rates are (what angle of attack, what mach numbers, what altitudes....) EDIT: ah, isee @Spurts gave a good breakdown of the F-14's aerodynamic properties!

Is that minor update related to the very slow part of the envelope, as in landing and around the boat ops?

I think this has most to do with the DCS flying habits in ACM, that due to spotting and maintaining tally difficulties tends almost always result in : 1. Very closely knit, tight fights with sub optimal range (hugging the bandit); 2. Avoiding of vertical maneuvers.

Well, here are my findings, specific to DCS. But first the initial conditions: Standard atmosphere, altitude between 0-1000ft. Time in burner at FULL power, about 3 minutes and 15 seconds. There are alternatives to calculating the fuel flow for different regimes, but i don't think we need to be THAT pedantic. All sorties were flown with the scripted mission, so the room of errors and deviations were minimized. Each plane was evaluated at 300, 350, 400 and 450 knots of TAS. I thought these airspeeds to be most viable and relevant for BFM. F-14A, internal fuel 7776lbs - clean 301KTAS -5g => 18.3 deg/s 353KTAS -6.2g => 19.1 deg/s 404KTAS -6.9g => 18.8 deg/s 453KTAS -7.1g => 17.2 deg/s MiG-29A, internal fuel 6100lbs - clean 295KTAS - 4.7g => 17.7 deg/s 353KTAS - 5.9g => 18.7 deg/s 401KTAS - 6.8g => 18.8 deg/s 446KTAS - 7.8g => 18.9 deg/s The planes are rathe close in terms of STR, with the F-14A having a slight advantage at lower speeds, as expected. Around 400 knots they become rather equal. Above 400 knots, the MiG has the obvious advantage. The runs aren't that pedantic again, as you can see, there is a delta between the airspeeds at which the measures were taken, but i don't think it really matters in the grand scale of things. What the STR data doesn't show though, is the ability of the MiG to accelerate, even with some g's on it, or alternatively to climb. Especially above 400 knots. In fact, it has so much power, that maintaining a coordinated steady turn in level flight is (for me) very hard. The plane just wants to climb. I hope this answers your question. Cheers! P.S. The time in burner was chosen purely arbitrary as it was the first value i got when i was fine tuning the fuel states. My original goal was to have both planes between 3 to 4 minutes in burner and this was the first value during the iterations at which their timings roughly matched. I think i got 3:16 for the MiG and 3:24 for the F-14. EDIT: edited for the MiG's fuel state, i forgot to include it in the original post.

This is indeed what i thought was the conclusion as well. Archer or Winder, i just doesn't matter. If a bandit can shoot you in the face, it will. There won't be any merge and this no opportunity to utilize HOBS. And during the same evaluation, tactics were developed and experimented with, to see what the best counter is. It turns out, the most consistent success was achieved with a FOX3 capability (at the time only available to the F-14) because it required least commitment from the firing platform.

I mean, i won that fight i took the screenshot of. It is doable, because it's an AI, and knowing it can and will go vertical like that, you can account for it, and keep a 100 knots or so in reserve, so you just shot him to hell on his way up. But that's meta gaming at its worse. No jet we have in DCS should fly at 30 knots. I know some may have the thrust to just stand on their tail like that, but there just isn't any airspeed over the control surfaces to matter. You are indeed ballistic at that point

1. By time in burner, you mean, time till out of fuel and hit the ground or time till bingo? And if the latter, then what are the bingo states? Maybe a more concise fuel state would be more helpful? 2. You mean DCS data, right? Not RL? 3. Going STR may not be the best tactic for an "energy" fighter.

Thanks for the info!

Aye, you got that right