captain_dalan

My limited sample experience is mixed. Say the Fulcrums in the PG BVR have a slightly greater then 50% probability of performing a split-s as a preferred defensive move. And one of them almost always does it. Sometimes both of them. The MiG-31 in my own training BVR scenario almost always opts for a split-s and if not that, a vertical notch that sometimes ends in it merging with the floor. The F-15 in the same training mission on the other hand opts for notching more then it does the split-s routine, but it's not beyond turning cold either about 1/3rd of the cases. That's mostly the AI's i've tested against. No idea how Vipers, Flankers or Bugs act, even less Tigers and balalaikas.

Ah, i see. Though i don't favor the rigid tournament format, and it's one of the reasons why stopped watching them, i still must admit, it won't be much of a dogfight nor fun to watch if people just zipped around the maps chasing each other. How would i go about it? Probably introduce few more categories, like authentic and historical, which would reflect more ..... let's say believable configurations. And have the slick as well, and call it exhibition or something. Add to that all aspect and rear aspect categories and now you have a half descent tournament. I might even watch that.

Yeah, that's very similar to the "heavy" configuration, so it should suffice. Unfortunately i get even less fly time then i used to, and i'm usually available only a couple of days in the month, and generally those days are on a weekend. I'll make sure to notify you at least 4-5 days ahead on when i'll be free, so we can have enough time to coordinate.

Then i would propose 2 configurations: 1 - heavy: F-18C at 50% fuel F-14A at 67% fuel F-14B at 70% fuel 2 - light: F-18C at 35% fuel F-14A at 47% fuel F-14B at 50% fuel Alternatively, each variation can include a Hornet with and without pylons. On top of climbing turns, i would also test acceleration under g as well and if possible max lift turns in both directions of the vertical and flat ones.

Not in DCS it doesn't. In full burner, in DCS, at around 350-360 knots constant turning, the Hornet lasts about 33% longer for the same fuel fraction (say 50%).

Did you actually test the missile in the previous patch? With the lofting logic being severely flattened?

Still. the Persian Gulf BVR mission starts with both blues and reds at 20000ft and 50 miles away. I have shot many a missile on this one and never has one ended up 80000ft high. Something else must be afoot here.

Of course. Test flights like these aren't really useful for fine tuning, but they may help with illustrating the current state (roughly). Only 4 altitudes this time, as there is no 10000ft chart for the B model. 2x2x2 configuration 62000ft gross weight: 5000ft acceleration largely on point till about mach 1.10 or so. The plane then overperforms, reaching max mach 1.16 almost a minute sooner, and has max mach of 1.20 15000ft acceleration roughly on point till about mach 1.20 then plane starts overperforming reaching: mach 1.30 about 10s sooner mach 1.35 almost half a minute sooner max mach of 1.375 almost a minute sooner and has max mach of 1.41 25000ft plane accelerates inside expected time lines till about mach 1.4 after which the plane overperforms by: mach 1.50 about 15s sooner max mach 1.58 more then a minute sooner and reaches max mach of 1.65 35000ft plane is about 20ish seconds fast in reaching mach 1.00 then about 20ish seconds late in reaching mach 1.20 40s late in reaching mach 1.40 40s late in reaching mach 1.60 (which means acceleration between mach 1.4 and mach 1.6 is correct) 10s late in reaching mach 1.80 (which means acceleration between 1.6 and 1.8 is faster) almost a minute faster in reaching max mach of 1.825 and reaches a max mach of 2.00 As always, i would appreciate if someone would re-fly the mission with more precision and if possibly more then one iteration. I am especially skeptical of my 35000ft hop. Mission and tacviews attached bellow: acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.miz Tacview-20221107-233359-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi Tacview-20221107-232624-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi Tacview-20221107-231940-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi Tacview-20221107-231334-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi

We need to establish the parameters of tests in order to do so. I am fairly positive that the effects on fuel states and external configurations aren't lost on you. So what kind of fuel fraction are we talking about here? Higher ones would favor the F-14, lower ones would favor the F-18. Also, are we aiming for equal fuel fractions or equal times in burner? I'm not sure how most dogfight servers handle this, but i've seen both. And finally, the F-14 always has her pylons on and they are factored into the total drag of the airframe. Are we demanding the same of the F-18 as well, or is she going to completely sleek? Next, like in the "how to beat the Hornet in the Viper with the new flight model" topic, we need to establish the metrics we are testing. Total lift available, as in max ITR? Max sustained rate? Bleed rates at a given g? If so at what g? Recovery rates at a given g? If so, at what g? In the above mentioned topic, the Hornet dominated the Viper (back when i did the tests) in practically all the metrics except for the low g energy recovery, which translated to the Viper jock has very little chance unless the Bug driver gave it to him/her. And this was only for one fuel state. I'm sure we can do the same for the F-14 and the F-18 if can come to some consensus on what we are testing.

There is also overperformance above transonic. Anyways, in the attachment bellow i will add the test mission i generally use, a bit adjusted. This one is for the 2x2x2 configuration in the A model. I will also attach some tacviews. They aren't made as a definitive test, but only as a reference to what the test should involve. I didn't bother to fly all that precisely (i didn't even plug in my rudder pedals for this one), but even so, the general issues are largely apparent, especially at higher altitudes. 5000ft, acceleration seems roughly correct within (un)precision of the test flight, overperforming above mach 1.2 , reaching max mach almost half a minute sooner; 1000ft, same as the above, only not only does the plane reach max mach sooner, it also has higher max mach number 1.36 VS 1.31 15000ft, plane roughly matches predicted performance till about mach 1.30, after which it overperforms, reaching mach 1.38 more then half a minute sooner, and having max mach 1.47 instead of mach 1.40 25000ft, this is where transonic underperforming comes into play: plane takes 42s to get from mach 1.0 to mach 1.2, and it should take 18s. THEN the FM compensates for that lag by reaching mach 1.40 in 36s instead of 48s. The plane continues ot overperform reaching mach 1.65 100s sooner. 35000ft, finally, this one is the messiest: the plane starts to underperform above mach 1.0 and reaches mach 1.2 35s late, 1.4 66s late, 1.6 77s late, 1.8 88s late and so on. The plane doesn't seem to overperform at this altitude, except maybe for top speed, as it reaches mach 2.10 as opposed to mach 2.05. Also it seems to take 475s for the fuel to cut off, while (if i read the chart correctly) it should run out at about 400-420s? Anyways, i don't have much time to refine the mission or the tests. If anyone is interested, feel free to update the mission, analyze the data and post the results. Also please make sure i didn't forget to turn off wind and made sure we have a standard atmosphere. Cheers and have a great weekend or what is left of it acceleration tests 2x2x2.miz Tacview-20221106-190033-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi Tacview-20221106-185409-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi Tacview-20221106-184822-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi Tacview-20221106-184248-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi Tacview-20221106-183656-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi If you wish to test, i may be able to indulge you, but first we'll need to set test goals and test parameters. Also, you will need to host the test mission, as for some reason i am not able to do it. So what configurations are you eager to evaluate?

I'll try to reproduce to time-to-mach at altitude tests this weekend, but no promises. Already addressed by the author of the video, but if you need further proof, take a look at the scripted test results published online. Turn rates are essentially right as they are. If your only argument against someone's claims is based in their willingness to fight you, regardless of what they are saying, then perhaps this thread is in need of some moderation.

Done some extensive mission restarts, both in custom missions and instant actions, in order to cause the hanging crash that i used to experience during spawning. So far no crashes. From time to time i would get the same hiccup and "jump" of the plane as i spawn, but just as it looks like it's about to cause a freeze like it used to, DCS recovers and continues to run the mission as normal. Haven't had the chance to test in MP yet, not am i likely to do so anytime soon, but for SP, thus far, it looks like the issue was fixed, at least for me.

They don't seem to have an issue reacquiring though. My test scenarios don't involve AWACS presence at all. Yet, any bandit i ever fired a missile at (veteran or ace), even when belly facing, not only performs perfect 90 degree notch, or heck, even going 180 cold, proceed to immediately point their nose at me the second they defeat the missile.

If you are referring to the subsonic envelope yeah, it's probably mostly done. But everything mach 0.82+ (or so ish), especially in the A (which is the last plane i really tested in any detail at different altitudes across the entire speed range) is quite a bit off. Unless you guys changed something under the hood in the last few months but failed to mention it in the patch notes. There is even a topic active right now, about a guy asking (quite rightly) why he (or she) can't break through mach 1 with 4 Phoenixes and 2 bags at higher altitudes. And it's been so for years now.

Trust me, there are few that lament the lack of performance more then me, however, there's a couple (or maybe 3, depending on how you count) of issues here: 1. The performance in the subsonic part of the envelope that is currently lacking from both the A and the B is not going to be significant enough to change the logic behind F-14 tournament participation, as long the the corrections are done to match excess power charts, and NOT the performance of early release. In fact most of the corrections need to be done transonic and supersonic, where the plane both under and over performs; 2. The same dude may be able to win 10 times out of 10 when going against himself in two different planes. But what makes you think the results should be any different? That is, what argument other then the battle is unwinnable is there for a change? We don't have detailed data for one of these planes and are at the mercy of the devs to model it as they see fit. And yeah, they mentioned the F-18 FM is going to be a subject to refinement, but from what i've seen done to the Viper, i wouldn't hold my breath just yet. My point is, you can get one of these planes as close as possible to available data, but the other may not play ball. For whatever reason. Then what? We skewer the data so they will be matched more closely? 3. (This is optional), say you get my behind delivered to me every time in BFM. Does that nullify my claims? Does that nullify the EM charts? Or does that prove you are a better stick then me? Or does that prove your plane is better then mine? Let's say it's both. Again..... what makes you think this isn't how things should be? (playing devil's advocate here) THIS!

Yep, this exactly.

Finally got the chance to run the updater last night. I flew some of my standard training missions, 70% internal fuel, veteran AI, sleek, guns only, against MiG-29, F-16 and F-15. Indeed, the infinite vertical loops have been traded for infinite horizontal loops, 400-500 knots, 8-9g constantly. Until the AI runs out of fuel. Also, most of my training missions were balanced for roughly equal time in burner both for human and AI participants. Now the AI runs out of fuel much faster. But the oddest thing is , now the AI flies at negative AoA while pulling positive g's from time to time when checked in tackview? I actually ran some AI VS AI tests as well, just to make sure, it's not player related. Track bellow: Tacview-20221030-072944-DCS-AI BFM F-14A IA_NTTR_Dogfight_MiG-29A light.zip.acmi

You are not alone there, we are all in the same bucket: Welcome back to the stone age.

Fully agreed. I can even imagine the absurdity of it all when birds like the Mud Hen and the Typhoon hit the shelves and get shoehorned into the couple of dozen miles nearsighted club.

Oh, i must have expressed my thoughts inadequately. Joyriding and BFM was all i ever used every other module for. The F-14 was the only one i really took seriously, as in flew actual missions with it, both SP and MP, and bought and flew campaigns for it. Even managed to finish one . Which is why i didn't notice the jamming mechanics i guess. Though, my Viper wingman did complain the last time we flew together (a bit more then a month ago) that his radar was essentially blind. We now know why. Both if us. Absolutely. As i said before, i consider the matter settled. I would challenge you to prove that all the radars in the world perform absolutely the same against all the jammers in the world (as that seems to be the implementation of EW in DCS right now, and burden of proof should fall on the one making the claim (on that we agree), but that would be outside the scope of this thread. Anyways, with the risk of repeating myself, i consider the issue final and immutable. Vis major. You ain't gonna get 2 F-14's most of the time, and never in SP. You couldn't hit a thing if it was flown by an AI before when the loft was gimped from 30 miles. With a non existent loft, and the AI omniscience, you'll hit even less (if that's somehow possible).

That is a far cry from justifying an implementation because you can't prove it wrong. At least not in science. Otherwise you could just present a random mathematical model as a solution for any singularity a current theory may present and go "voila", you can't prove i'm wrong, this what's going on in the middle of that black hole yonder. You may have gotten the intent of my post as advocating for reverting of the previous state. It's not. I'm completely aware this is fait accompli and there is no rolling back. What took me by surprise is that i had no idea this was the way ED modelled jamming. Despite me owning all those planes, i mostly used them for BFM and joyriding. I don't have enough time to be operationally fluent (something that i think is mandatory for flying actual missions) in all of them, and even those i didn't fly, i bought to support ED and its 3rd party developers. I considered myself only truly proficient in the F-14, minus ground attack of course. If i had any idea that this was the way ECM was modelled, i would have ditched long time ago. It's just a cup too much, on top of counter measure implementation, AI SA, Cloud and vapor effects on sensors and AI, certain aircraft integration with the Super Carrier, missile API.... But now that i do know, it makes so much sense. I mean, the behavior and the reports i've heard and seen from other people that flew other jets. So do i expect this to change? No. Do i advocate for a change? Heck, no. If ED wants jamming to work this way, so be it. It's their product and they can aim at a customer base they see fit. As to the last point on things being fair and perceived advantages and disadvantages, competitive MP isn't my thing, so i really don't care. Sports and war don't mix. And there are 90's packages/titles that do most of the above much better anyways. Cheers! EDIT: (and a DISCLAIMER) in the 5+ years since buying my first module, i've spent more then enough hours of enjoyment (especially the 500+ hours across both F-14 variants) to consider my money well spent. So let there be no ill will here. Few games could ever hope to match these stats, except for MOO1, CIV2 and BG1. In my book, that's saying something!

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that.... unfortunately... Oh, i'm not blaming this on you, we all play with the tools that are given to us. And yet, just a casual browse through many a threads will have you believe how things in DCS aren't modelled with balance in mind... Not meant as a jab, but just look at the above quote just for a bit of reference on contradiction. I get the impression that ED wanted its tiny deathmatch WVR arena, and they found a way to bring it back, despite what looked like actual progress in the last few years. We are back in the dark ages of 10 mile shots and split-s for home of the yesteryears. I don't think this will work well with the way ED models omniscience in the AI.

Thank you. You have always been an honorable and open person, honest and straight-forward with your answers, and i have learned a lot from you. It's been an outmost pleasure to have had the opportunity to get to know you. I would like to think of you as a friend.

So, if i got this right, the detection (that is burn through) is reduced TO those ranges, not BY those ranges?

Wait, so the developer (of a given plane) decides the burn-through range that its jammer allows? Is this at least different for different radars, or is it equivalent to a worker's salary in a communist country ?