Jump to content

captain_dalan

Members
  • Posts

    2590
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by captain_dalan

  1. Added the F-14 myself and a new personal high score, this time 66 (over the previous 62). It could have been 68, but i may have entered the final break a bit too aggressive
  2. Do note that that total surface area isn't available or really useful at all possible Angles of Attack. It only comes into play at very high values.
  3. Of course, but that would IMO require more work intensive changes to the Jester logic, while what i proposed is already there, it just needs interfacing with the Jester wheel, so it should be easier to implement short term? That looks like a really neat mod, though having to override it after every update is a bit tedious.
  4. I usually don't encourage it, but i've recorded few traps with the controls indicator ON last night. Maybe you'll find the recording useful. If nothing else, it should help get some general idea behind the entire process. Full disclaimer, i am far from being the best stick behind the boat AND i hadn't done this in few weeks now, so i am a bit rusty. Especially with my groove times. Hope this helps and feel free to ask more questions if something seems unclear:
  5. I've noticed this even with unloaded gun tracks. Say a bandit is burning rubber in a straight line just ahead of you and you actually need to aim the cross a bit higher to hit it. I always thought it was a feature though, and not a bug, so i tend to naturally aim a bit ahead then the reticle says. More pronounced the farther the target is.
  6. This could be a very useful Jester wheel add-on as well. Say under BVR-TWS options, we can have the number of tracks generated by the AWG-9, and they can never be more then six of them, so there should always be enough room for all. Then once selecting a number, we can have DO NOT ATTACK option or BACK. Would help in saving some time for people that don't like jumping in the back seat or just for "immersion" having your RIO do it.
  7. Lift quotients are usually calculated to work with reference wing areas for that plane, so you should be fine with most vanilla data.
  8. Ah, that explains it. I usually do all the tests in standard atmosphere conditions. Eh... that fuel consumption (still no reply on that topic, hopefully after the FM revamp?) is still rather fishy and some of the envelope edge cases are questionable. But just based on raw performance, it's probably ok-ish. But Draconus is right, this is not the place to discuss it. There's no recovering from it by using command inputs once it fully develops, short of lowering alpha. At least not one i've discovered or am able to execute right. But go into the excursions with no sideslip and you should be ok.
  9. Inside those parameters there isn't a valid way to confirm or deny your statement. If you chose to hold one or the other as true, that will entirely up to you. But i for one, would never take that statement as anything other then contrived. I can always fudge some numbers to reach a conclusion that would suit my argument. Especially with vague metrics that hold little actual value. There's a reason people use Ps diagrams.
  10. That is a placebo though I ran both A and B through the same fuel flow test i did back when we were flying, and any difference in FF in a continuous 350-360 KIAS turn ASL are marginal. Like 3-6 seconds up or down, values that are easily attributed to pilot error. The planes still have about 3 minutes 40ish seconds of burner time inside those parameters with the A having a bit more, but not much. Seriously, i should do a full fuel flow test at some point, with tighter margin and time in burner charts in mind, but that will have to wait me retiring i think. The plane does accelerate much better though, especially in the transonic region. I only got to test the A thus far, and with 2x2x2x2 at 35000ft, GW of 66000pds, mach 0.691 to mach 1.2 is about 2 minutes, 20 seconds. Which is right on the money (it used to be almost impossible without modified climb profile that involved climbing above 35kft and then diving bellow it). However, the plane also overperforms above that. Should take about 6 minutes to get to mach 1.6, but in DCS we get there in about 4 minutes 40 seconds. Also, max mach should be 1.75, but in DCS we get up to mach 1.8 AND instead of 10 minutes, we do it in 9. Something that calls for immediate attention? Hardly, as we not gonna fight at mach 1.6. But still something to keep in mind for the future. And i am itching to test the F-14B and see how it performs. Not to mention, this is linear acceleration, we need cross-testing with excess energy in maneuvering situations as well. And i'd rather take more precise values here then in the former, if there's a tradeoff. What i had in mind was more something like this (Tacview attached bellow). The above mentioned test. Possibly associated with a track file and or a video. Tacview-20230420-031153-DCS-FM test 35000ft f14A 2x2x2x2.zip.acmi
  11. No room for should here. Compare in-game performance to known configurations and metrics in the manuals. If a mismatch is found, report it.
  12. This! Or, alternatively, start practicing snap shots without a lock and just eyeball the tracers. In a system where the pilot has no stamina and fatigue bars/metrics a human or an AI can jink or stay at bellow blackout pull indefinitely. So try reading where the target's gonna be and fire in that general area. Humans do these jinks much more rarely then the AI, and usually are less erratic at it. But still. practicing firing without a lock is always a good idea.
  13. Aye, no argue from me there. And i would pay that again for an early F-14A and <gasp> an F-14D that i wouldn't even fly as it's too modern for my liking!
  14. Welcome aboard @Silhou! A short side by side comparison between disabled and enabled alternate flutter mode. No idea which is the "realistic" one, but i prefer the alternate (checking the box in the options) as i find it more "talkative". Also, noticed the difference in amplitude based on airspeed and acceleration. Finally, might as well make a bug report, as during the last mission launch an old friend of hours, DCS freeze on mission startup seems to be back!
  15. Jesus Christ man! I understand the need for perfection, but do we really need that much detail? (said the man that flies detailed FM tests after every update)
  16. The F-15E is by no means substitute for any A-A Eagle AFAIK. One look at the performance charts states what we already know from the basic specs and the visuals. The added weight, the different aerodynamics and the different engines result in performance that is so different from both the A and C variants, that it's essentially a different plane. I can't say about the avionics, but the cockpit seems different enough to me as well. E is a Mudhen after all and no amount of pretend or make-belief will ever change that, which is the prime reason i won't be getting it. Now if someone made an early A or a mature C..... that would be a different story all together.
  17. Those are not very good metrics for assessing aircraft performance. For starters, aside from few YouTubers, very few people fly with their fuel flow set to off. So any comparison should start with start and end fuel points in mind, and that will be mission related. Even BFM/ACM training sorties have bingo and joker states in mind. And then there is wing loading which can be very deceptive in its own right as: 1. it almost never includes the total lifting surface available to a plane. 2. the entirety of the lifting surface isn't always available across all possible angle of attack values and these depend greatly on parts of the envelope explored during a fight. 3. it NEVER includes aerodynamic properties of the airfoil, which is to be honest IMO its greatest flaw. Look no further then planes with "tiny" wings and "heavy" wing loading (comparatively) that seem to turn quite well in their own right, both in rate and in radius. Thrust to weight..... again, way too simplistic, and with static thrust values (that are usually what engine specifications quote) are usually completely useless. Say, a plane has TWR of 0.7/1 with two engines, each of which has individual TWR of 8/1. Are the engines themselves more maneuverable then the plane they are attached to? Is a 2x4 with a rocket duct-taped to it the best BFM machine in the world?
  18. As far as modifying the mission, if it's not too much to ask, would you mind adding the F-14A to the list of flyable planes? I've done that myself for my local copy, but it would sure be nice to have an "official" version. And many thanks for the best CASE I trainer around, i owe you much for improving my grades!
  19. That's why i try to distinguish between DCS burble and F-14 burble What about my original question? EDIT: ....hmmm, maybe they plan to something similar like the burble as in turn it on when flying some planes, off for others?
  20. Yep, but i was referring to the checkbox As in, is it optional or not (DCS burble is) ?
  21. And the checkbox means its optional? Like DCS burble is?
  22. I think the most important change is actually a part of the envelope not often used by many DCS F-14 users, that's between 400-480 knots, and when in the right conditions you can have a very favorable energy retention and recovery for very small sacrifice in turn rate or gains in altitude.
  23. This is what i've read as well. As for preliminary flight model testing......i'm impressed! Still getting used to the new stick, so took me a bit longer then what i would have wanted, but here it is. And what can i say, HB outdid themselves. The only significant difference i found between the charts and the current F-14A FM is the region at the mach 1 number, or 675 knots to be exact. It might be a DCS thing, or it might be charts flaw, but at this point instead of the 5g expected available, i could only do 3.4-3.5. Aside from that...... it's extremely close! It's either inside 0.1 g of expected, or inside 10 knots of expected, which is IMPRESSIVE to say the least. Not to mention that the charts may not be all that precise to begin with. Needless to say, i'm looking forward to the B adjustments as well. Configuration, 4 Sidewinders, 4 Sparrows, no tanks, 53873lbs gross weight. Fuel burn disabled to maintain constant parameters. This of course also needs crosschecking with linear accelerations, but i hope someone else can do it! Also, other altitudes like 5000ft, 10000ft, 25000ft and especially 35000ft need to be checked. And of course, other loads, like 2x2x2 and 2x2x2x2, which i'm especially interested about! Enjoy:
  24. And test pilots are what? Imaginary pilots? Or mythical beasts? There are guys who fly by the NATOPS and there are guys who write the NATOPS. Both are equally valid ways to enjoy this product. As for the the latter point, i'm not sure either, as i haven't yet done extensive testing myself. I have a hunch, but i'd rather wait for the developers to chime in, or someone do the tests for me!
  25. Testing purposes, handling and performance evaluation under different conditions. How else do you learn to fly the plane unless you push her to the limits?
×
×
  • Create New...