captain_dalan

I guess some things never change.

No perceived differences in both planes that i can over-g and are still considered fully fidelity. The Mirage and the F-16 are FBW restricted. 10-11s before blackout in the F-14 and 13-14s in the F-18, but i pulled slightly more in the former: As for plane damage, i can overspeed the flaps and melt my gyro by over-g in the F-14 if i'm not careful, while in the meantime i can pull on the paddle in the F-18 until the heat death of the universe, and nothing will happen to the plane. What seems to be the problem again? EDIT: Do FC3 planes cause the pilot to blackout sooner or something? I'm not sure i get what the OP is trying so say?

Happy holiday season guys, no need to rush it right now!

My question as well. I haven't really been flying in months and when i booted up DCS last night, just to see what the new updates did i find the spotting..... how should i say, impaired? I mean, it's not as bad as it used to in the days of yore, but at first glance, it seems like my ability to spot airborne targets inside 10 and especially 5 miles, has been diminished by about 50%. Is this the result of the new weather implementation? But i only ran instant actions on Nevada map, i haven't added any weather effects on those. Or maybe my eyesight is finally giving up? Is anyone else experiencing difficulties in spotting things between 1 and 5 nautical miles? Flat monitor user BTW, 2560x1440.

@IronMike @Silhou Bump!

Strange. Maybe it's a MP related issue? Has this happened in SP as well? I couldn't reproduce it. I can send you tacview tracks if you wish. 9-10 g and no blackout.

Confirmed in both TWS and PD-STT, the track is now much more stable when banking away from the target, while before it used to be close to 90% chance of loss if you so much moved few degrees to a side.

First time in the plane? How many g-s did you pull? Did you perform any g-warm before pulling them? Just ran all the BFM instant actions in DCS for the F-14, managed to pull up to 10g on a few (just for the kicks of it), managed to rip my left wing of by rolling to adjust my aim on a jinking F-15 (because i suck, or they changed something about structural stress since last year) while pulling 9 or so g's, but i never blacked out. Came close to really deep grey-out on a downward spiral once, but that was the worst i did.

What are the actual consequences for tactical gameplay? Changes in burn-through ranges? Track loss? Lock-breaks? How is the opposite side effected?

That's ok, i can afford to host these for the time being, hopefully until someone notices or investigates the thread.

Hello there. This bug report is a continuation of this discussion: Namely, unlike a couple of years ago, the F-14A (i haven't tested the F-14B) seems to manifest increased performance (lift over drag) at higher mach numbers then it's supposed to, especially when compared to the CADC wing sweep schedule that is supposed to be optimized for maximum excess power. Right now, when wings are fully swept forward (20 degrees), the performance first drops at around mach 0.6, and then somehow raises at mach 0.7 and 0.8, before hitting a wall as expected near transonic speeds. I ran several tests, at different altitudes, and they all yield same results. I attach the video recordings from my tests with this post, as well as two short tracks taken this afternoon (i made them as short as possible) at mach 0.7 and 0.8 up at 15000ft. For full relevant documentation, please check the thread mentioned above. The Videos: And the tracks below: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-rbspHyUabuVm4sfsoq0805SjL0dOvpY/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FcdsbKbq6DGoN6d9z-kVMqeGdMH4QmXn/view?usp=sharing Note, the tracks are too large for the 154kB restrictions (i wonder how short a track needs be to fit), so uploaded them to g-drive and given access to them. If needed, i can add the Tacview files as well. Have a great day and safe flying!

Roger, creating a bug report then.

Likewise! I realize that for most of the consumer base, shiny graphics first, and pushing buttons as close second is the major selling point for flight sim, but for me it's actually flying the things, so flight dynamics and aircraft performance are much more important. If pretty graphics were the main factor here, other market share holders would be considered. Is there a way to transfer this thread into the bugs? I have a distaste for double posts, so if we could just mark the discussion as bug or possible bug, pending investigation instead of opening a new topic and then copy-pasting the entire thing, it would be great!

Rivet counters? So, for you a plane breaking the laws of physics equates to faulty texture? Good to know.... I would say "most realistic" flight modeling is major part of sim marketing campaign, but WTH do I know, being a rivet counter and all....

Customer support 101! At least it's good to know what to expect in the future. Have a great weekend everyone

Well...it's dead Jim!

@Kanelbolle and @MAXsenna The issues seems resolved with the latest update (the hotfix), but i can't be entirely sure it's the only thing that helped, as i did follow Kanelbolle's advice as well, and added both exe files and configured them for high performance. A note, that even after this, i still had issue with the Persian Gulf map. In a final act of desperation i created a direct shortcut to the exe in the bin folder, thus bypassing the updater all together when running it. Et voila! This completely resolved all stutter issues i had when panning the view around. My launcher is still disabled BTW. For the time being i'll mark this as solution, though i will keep an eye on the stutters with future updates and the role of the launcher in them.

This didn't seem to make a difference. The screenshots above just so happened to be from different maps (Nevada and Caucasus), but i have repeated the tests in all maps i own, except maybe Marianas. For me at least, the stutter isn't map related, but launcher related. Which is weird, as both indicate same versions of the file, both in file explorer and inside the game splash screen. I'm running Win10. My settings are the same when i check the graphics settings in the game. Do you mean some other settings file?

I had the chance the do some troubleshooting the last few days, and the launcher definitely plays a part, though in a bit of unexpected manner. When i enable the launcher, and i run DCS through it, the bin folder exe performs smoothly, no stutters at all. But i run the exe of mt-bin folder, the stutters appear, like the the screenshots above. It's the complete opposite when i disable the launcher, and run the exe files through the shortcuts or the updater.

Just after today's update, i booted DCS from the default updater shortcut, that defaults to running the exe in the bin folder. As a result i get a huge amount of stutters when looking around the sky, both in cockpit and outside. If on the the other hand, i run DCS from the exe in the MT folder, it runs smooth as silk. If i understood right, both exes should be the same as of today? When i hover over them, they are the same version for sure. But are they the same file really? And what would make one of them full of stutters and the other run smooth? Screenshots below:

The thought crossed my mind, but i first wanted to consult the team, just in case it's a feature and not a bug, or maybe they are already aware of it, or even if maybe though aware, they don't consider it worth the changes.

You mean like 2 or 3?

Looks like nobody's at home. Who do we contact under such circumstances? And ED moderator maybe?

That was definitely informative and educational. So structural integrity was a major player from the very start. This would explain all the changes made and the fine balance they needed to maintain over airframe stress and airplane performance. Using the above charts, i ran i new test, this time comparing wings in auto, wings following the maximum lift to drag chart and wings fixed at fully forward position. The findings somewhat confirmed my previous findings and some of the data in those charts. Using the max CL/CD settings does provide a non-insignificant increase in performance. However, something is not quite right with the forward most setting. Namely even though the charts suggest best performance around mach 0.6 with sweep angle of 20-22 degrees, in game, best performance is achieved at an angle of 25 degrees. Further more, while the wing sweep of 22 does seem to provide best performance around mach 0.7, as the charts suggest, the performance should sharply drop at that angle by mach 0.8. In game however, the performance is exceptionally better then at sweep angle of 33-45 degrees which should provide best performance. So it would seem, something is not quite right, with the way drag is modelled for this sweep angle and/or close to it. This is the recording of my tests: And these are some of the data points i took notes for: 15000ft manual 0.6 - 22^ - 3.8 0.7 - 22^ - 5.0 0.8 - 35^ - 5.4 0.9 - 54^ - 5.4 0.96 -68^ - 4.7 auto 0.6 - 25^ - 4.1 0.7 - 32^ - 4.6 0.8 - 46^ - 4.9 0.9 - 60^ - 5.0 0.96 - 68^ - 4.6 20^ fixed: 0.6 - 3.7 0.7 - 5.1 0.8 - 5.8 Makes me wonder if some of this isn't an artifact of previous changes in the FM? @IronMike does this constitute a bug? Should we file it as one?

Got some flight time tonight, and here's the result. The numbers are much closer together this time around, seeing as how the g's available are lower, and the acceleration times make a bit more sense, though the sample is smaller, again due to the narrow band in which the wings move up here, only after mach 0.72 or 0.73 or so. I don't really know what to make of it. I tried setting the wings to 22 instead of 20 degrees, but as expected no real difference there. Am i missing something? Maybe in the wing sweep schedule and how i'm reading it?