wilbur81
-
Posts
1842 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by wilbur81
-
-
On 4/6/2024 at 4:33 PM, Mr_sukebe said:
Rather pleasantly, I also seem to have a frame rate probably 30% better, thanks ED!
Yeah, the team really does have DCS firing on all cylinders... it really is a joy to pick it back up after some time away as you kind of forget/take for granted how incredible a sim it is that they've achieved. Welcome back.
-
1
-
-
On 4/7/2024 at 9:12 AM, RoddersAndDodders said:
I haven't done it in ages, but you can get 20-21-ish sustained as per the figures that were released in a GAO document (it was bashing the Super Hornet a bit so it was picking the points where the classic Hornet had an edge) pretty much bang on. The issues is that it's just a single datapoint, and the Hornet is on a bit of a knife edge doing it - if you get slow you really get slow fast, and if you get fast the G limiter starts limiting your turn rate. Pulling the override just make it a little more F-16 like where it can do good STR over a greater range of speeds but this is IMO abused by people who then complain it over-performs. I typically do it at 360-400KIAS depending on weight but if you're fighting someone it's much more fluid than hitting numbers like that.
IIRC - The big advantage of the F-16 is the rate speed is high over a portion of the envelope and because it can use vertical and gain speed so fast, it can force the hornet to get slow by being able to sacrifice some speed to get the nose around while not losing out much on the ITR.
Also, any time you're >15,000ft the Hornet starts to lag behind pretty much everything. I personally think ED did a good job for public only data sources.
Indeed.
Here's a nice little break turn video of a small-motored Canadian CF-18 in 1988 doing 360 degrees in about 16 seconds... averaging a nice little 22 degrees per second, and with energy to spare.
-
A quick post as a reference:
There is a fair bit of misinformation floating about regarding the DCS Hornet and it's Sustained Turn Rate (over) performance in the form of user created EM diagrams, Youtube videos, etc. I submit that ED has pretty much nailed it. Here is a completely slick Hornet with 60% internal gas, at near-sea level, through a few max G turns...But keep in mind, I've flown these WITHOUT the paddle switch employed, as a real USN Hornet would be (and which would be reflected in real world EM performance charts) flown, real world. This is obviously only one, non-extensive, test, but you get the picture. The paddle makes a fairly significant difference.
Max sustained turn rate in this test was 18.5 Deg per sec. These were all max stick deflection pulls, in full AB. You can definitely get the little chart at bottom left to read higher in the 23-24 deg per sec range, but if you actually watch the live "object box", those dps are not sustained but momentary, and at low airspeeds... which makes the chart itself a bit misleading. Truly sustained, after testing both the Viper and the Hornet, the Viper has a consistent 1.5-2 deg per sec. sustained advantage when watching the live object box in TacView.
STR - Slick Hornet - SeaLvL.trk Tacview-20240402-215526-DCS-STR - Slick Hornet - SeaLvL.zip.acmi
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, maxsin72 said:
It's an online server with turbolence at 0,3 m/s and winds at 0 m/s, i don't think this is the problem
The bandit was on the other side of the circle, far from me
But did you fly through the path that he'd been on before he was far from you? As you know, those wakes linger for a fair bit. As said, a track will be best for diagnosis.
-
On 10/16/2023 at 8:08 AM, Gunfreak said:
More powerful engine, but also far heavier. It has lower thrust to weight ratio then the regular hornet and lower top speed.
So you'll get an even slower plane. Sure got more fuel, but that's about it.
This ^^^
As the pilots say, "There's nothing "Super" about the Super Hornet.
-
The slow-mo is actually kind of unhelpful in diagnosing the problem... but my guess would be you flew through the bandit's lingering wing-vortices? Happens to me all the time in BFM when in the same maneuvering plane/circle as the bandit.
-
On 3/17/2024 at 2:27 PM, Paveway333 said:
The latest update brought a great feel to the aircraft. However I feel that there is still something off with roll rate, acceleration, g-onset and alpha.
I have no evidence to back this up other than 10+ years of watching this aircraft in the air, and in my opinion it seems a bit more agile in real life.
Two examples being in this video at this timestamp down below:
First, look at that alpha and how he slides trough the air almost backwards, and second look how fast he is accelerating out of that manouvere. Tried to recreate this in DCS so many times, it is not far off so I give the devs credit for that. Recreating stuff like this in game just make it seems that there is a couple of things a little bit off, same with demonstrations off roll rate etc. However like i said they have done an incredible job with the likeness of how she manouvers, just hope they continue refining some details. Thanks!Agreed. I've had a good bit of time to play with the new FM. They've done an amazing job overall (no surprises there
)... but we still do not seem to get the kind of pitch authority/nose rate at those speeds that you see demonstrated by real world Legacy Hornets in (absolutely incredible) videos such as these. We are getting close...
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, KLaFaille said:
Well I'm glad you got it all worked out. I loaded your track from the first post and the jet never went past of full MIL. Took control of the jet, touched nothing but putting it in AB and hit 1.04 mach.
Gosh, I'm an idiot.
I was doing some MIL power top speed testing too and must have just crossed my i's and dotted my x's that day.
-
1
-
-
Haven't looked at your tracks...but just a couple thoughts:
- Try creating a fresh mission from scratch. There seem to be some weird things going on with stock/older missions.
- Are you pulling the paddle switch in your turns and over-g'ing? If so, don't.
-
4 minutes ago, VFA41_Lion said:
Did you put it in full afterburner as the quote says "blower" ?
Indeed...I had the controls indicator on as well just to confirm... I think it must have been a faulty mission as mentioned about. A freshly created mission and things looked good.
-
Whoa... how did you manage M0.99 at 500ft!? Did you watch my track? I was at 700ft in my test and couldn't break M 0.90 until the final few miles when I got to Mach 0.91... and I didn't even have wingtip Sidewinders and started with 20% internal fuel at 14 deg Cel. air temp.Are you on 9.2.3 and do you have a track of your flight?**EDIT** Well, I'll be darned!! I went back and tried my test again, Raven. But this time, I created a new mission from scratch (I believe my first test was the stock Persian Gulf Carrier Launch Supercarrier mission or some similar, older stock mission). Same config, same altitudes, air temps, and fuel loads...and got almost exactly what Wombat describes.
BIGNEWY, unless we still want to do some testing with the extra pylons and the Mach passes as displayed in my two real world pics above (which I have not yet) to see how she does in-game, I guess you can go ahead and delete this thread...but I'm wondering if there is some mission corruption with the new update and stock missions?
-
53 minutes ago, KLaFaille said:
On the other side of the altitude scale, there's definitely been a loss of performance as well. I would often take off from land and do CAP in the Hornet on GreyFlag Syria or PG with 3 bags, 6x120C, and 2x9X and could quite leisurely hang out in an orbit up around 48k to 49k feet at mach 1, giver or take .1 either way. Have TacView acmi tracks showing it. After the update with the same load out I can only get up to a similar orbit at around 42k feet, with empty bags, and only hit around .98 mach. Above that the plane doesn't have the thrust to maintain altitude.
There may be a slight reduction on that side of the envelope too... but I have no knowledge of what a real EPE Legacy Hornet could do at that altitude, especially with that particular (very draggy) configuration (and I'm VERY confident there's nothing available that isn't classified). To stay on topic though, I've started this thread because there is available reason to believe that our DCS Hornet should quite possibly be able to get to (possibly exceed?) M1.0 with three bags and otherwise slick down low...which it currently cannot in-game. But again, all I have to contribute is some photos and the anecdotes of Wombat.
-
2 hours ago, Tiger-II said:
Not sure why it would be questionable that an aircraft can go supersonic with fuel tanks? Anything can go very fast; it's a question of whether it remains intact.
A flaw with many, many flight sims, is they have artificial walls of performance "because an aircraft can't go faster than x with y". That simply isn't true. What is an operational limit isn't an absolute limit.
I totally see what you're getting at... but that is not the nature of the question or the bug report... It is this: The real Legacy Hornet can apparently (but that's why we're here in this thread) safely hit very close (per the photos) or even break (per pilot's anecdote above) Mach 1 down low with three bags... Our simulated Legacy Hornet in DCS currently cannot.
-
5 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:
I will mention it to Wags, but we need data to work with, as we have done for for all flight models. SME feedback is very helpful but not always accurate, which is why we rely on data more.
If you have evidence that something is wrong please PM me.
thank you
Thanks for looking into it, BIGNEWY.
I have no data, just this anecdote... I figured Wags and Wombat could sort it out for us when they get a chance. Cheers!
PS - This isn't necessarily 'data,' and I know that these condensation vapes can be produced slightly before going through the Mach... but thought I'd throw this in anyway. Some thoughts: Note the empty pylons in addition to the three tanks. This photo is most likely taken from the boat for a low alt. 'morale pass' as you rarely get those vapes at altitude. Currently, our Hornet will get no where near 0.97m-1.00m down low with three tanks (and that's without the extra pylons). Here's the caption and link:
Off the coast of Pusan, South Korea: An F/A-18 Hornet assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron One Five One (VFA-151) breaks the sound barrier in the skies over the Pacific Ocean. VFA-151 is deployed aboard USS Constellation (CVN 64). This is an edited version (reduced grain).
...and here is another similar photo example with link and caption for reference:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supersonic_aircraft_breaking_sound_barrier.jpg
The Commanding Officer of the "Black Knights" of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron Three One Four (VMFA-314) performs a supersonic fly-by for Columbia's visual effects unit, while filming for the motion picture production "Stealth" on board USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70). The Bremerton, Wash.-based nuclear powered aircraft carrier is currently underway for the first time since returning from an eight and half month western pacific deployment. Carl Vinson is conducting training with Carrier Air Wing Nine (CVW-9) and units of the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group.
-
38 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:
Yes: I ran the exact same mission earlier today and went for the tanker as well after a few landings. I had more PIO than usual too.
I've not run any detailed tests...but it is interesting to me the ratio of stick deflection to G that we now have. If you bring up the controls indicator, you can pull the stick back a small fraction of the total stick travel and end up with something like 35-50% of the available G indicated on the FCS page. That is without any curves or dead zones on a TM Warthog for me. Not sure if this is related to the PIO's you're referring to, but it does seem like the G/Pitch onset is disproportionate to total stick travel... at least from how it was before.
-
2
-
-
Since Wags and Wombat have a very entertaining and ever-growing YT buddy-ship happening, I thought I'd ask about this one and see if someone on the Team could follow up with Wombat about the real Legacy Hornet in order to get ours ever closer in this regard:
Though anecdotally, Wombat talks in this clip about a Carrier-Qual. take off with three full bags in the Legacy Hornet where he breaks the Mach at around 500 feet off the water:
"kept it in blower at 500 feet, a couple miles off the ship I went through Mach 1, and it shocked me."
https://youtu.be/APAEykrfUZs?si=_Gql1s7iqzHXUDEc&t=1110
I've done several tests at different altitudes at San Diego-like air temps: the best I can get with a three-bag-otherwise-slick Hornet between 500 and 1000 ft MSL is Mach 0.91 (as you can see in the track attached...it can't break 0.90M in DCS currently until the very end before gas has gotten really low). In my test, I even reduced the internal gas to 20% at takeoff to see if it made a difference, which it did not...
Just wondering if Wombat and Wags could compare notes to see if we are where we should be with our -402 EPE simulation and drag model, in comparison to the real world rough conditions Wombat describes, with the current FM update.
Thanks for looking into it and all your INCREDIBLE work on this latest patch. DCS has never looked or ran better. Golden Age.
-
Wombat talks about a Carrier take off with three full bags in the Legacy Hornet where he breaks the Mach at around 500 feet off the water:
"kept it in blower at 500 feet, a couple miles off the ship I went through Mach 1, and it shocked me."
https://youtu.be/APAEykrfUZs?si=_Gql1s7iqzHXUDEc&t=1110
-
12 hours ago, Fulgrim said:
Data by @contactlight. Flies even better now than I thought it would be possible. I'm even competing with M2K's in 1C.
That's a neat chart... But those numbers are apparently nonsense...I'm assuming this was done with the Paddle Switch pulled (which doesn't count). The real corner speed for the Legacy Hornet is no where near 456 knots, nor is it in DCS if flown properly (without the paddle). If these tests/results were accurate for the Hornet with no paddle pulled, that would be an insult to all the work ED have put in on this flight model. Would love to see actual tracks of this guys tests.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, oldcrusty said:
I was simply drunk with happiness... ok I was just drunk
When I have more time I'll try to follow some specific tests.
nice.
Regarding specific tests... I'm not really trying to pinpoint current benchmarks for 2.9.3 but comparing the performance loss from 2.9.2 in speed/acceleration in MIL and AB, STR, ITR, etc. Those performance areas are definitely lower than before the update...if you still have a copy of 2.9.2, try and compare if you get a chance.
-
3 hours ago, oldcrusty said:
New Hornet
Your turn there, from a mag. heading of 117 deg and back to 117 (full 360 turn in 25 seconds) was a whopping 14.4 degrees per second... a fairly significant drop from it's STR performance prior to the update. Again, perhaps this is closer to reality? But it is definitely more sluggish. I also tried Gonky's "supercruising the Legacy Hornet with a centerline bag, two pylons and 9'ers on the wingtips" that he accomplished real world (and that was doable at 25K and 60% internal gas in 2.9.2, before the FM update)... couldn't get past Mach 0.98 now at 20 deg Cel. (track attached)
Again, with this new FM update, our Hornet accelerates a bit slower and has apparently a fairly significantly higher energy bleed per G b/w 300 and 400 kts than before...
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Figaro9 said:
Do you use bushmannis miz? Check temperature?
Hey, Figaro... no, I don't use that miz. The ambient temps were the standard for Caucasus map whenever you create a new mission. I should've probably said above that I did not, do not, will not use the Paddle switch when testing for ITR and STR.
I'll post tracks when I get a chance.
-
I finally had a chance to play around with the new FM today. As everyone has said, the low speed, higher AoA capability has certainly improved. However, it does appear to me that there's been a fairly significant reduction in the Hornet's instantaneous and (especially noticeable) sustained turn rates. Before the update, if you kept your speed up between 350 an 400 kts, you could maintain a good rate (19-20ish deg. per sec.) without too much bleed. Now in 2.9.3, you cannot maintain airspeed if you initiate a turn at or below 400kts (any altitude) without major bleed down...and I'm talking no stores, in full AB, with only 55-60% back-stick deflection and roughly only 65-70% of max allowable G. I will post tracks tracks when I get a chance. I'm not saying this is wrong necessarily... but the new FM definitely appears to suffer more in ITR and STR than it did before. I'm also fiddling around with why, at lower weights and optimal airspeeds for higher sustained G's between 400 and 500 kts, the FCS-indicated available G cannot be sustained as it did before? ...but I'll obviously have to post some tracks.... I'm sure, overall, we've made a step closer to reality.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Braunn said:
F-18 definitely OP now. Holy crap even I can win a dog fight.
There's actually been a fairly significant reduction in the Hornet's instantaneous and (especially noticeable) sustained turn rates. Before the update, if you kept your speed up between 350 an 400 kts, you could maintain a good rate (19-20ish deg. per sec.) without too much bleed. Now? Well, just try it yourself. You cannot maintain airspeed if you initiate a turn at or below 400kts (any altitude) without major bleed down...and I'm talking no stores, in full AB, a 55-60% back-stick deflection and roughly only 65-70% of max allowable G. I will post tracks at some point. Not saying this is wrong necessarily... but the new FM is hardly 'over-powered.'
Now the new low speed AoA, on the other hand, is quite nice.
-
1
-
-
More Legacy Hornet praise from a former Viper driver...
-
3
-
_-_filtered.jpg){kind=link}
Praise for Legacy Hornet
in DCS: F/A-18C
Posted · Edited by wilbur81
Here's a nice little break turn video of a small-motored Canadian CF-18 in 1988 doing 360 degrees in about 16 seconds... averaging a nice little 22 degrees per second, and with energy to spare.