wilbur81

Yep, you're right. And I thought I was the only one turning the IFEI off at night. :thumbup:

With the HMD brightness knob turned down to minimum at night, it appears too bright in current O.B. Keep up the amazing work, guys! :thumbup:

Wow. Nice find. Now we need some tester/document-ers. :thumbup:

Thanks, Quid! Just tested and pylon drag is indeed simulated in DCS currently. I did one flight with no pylons and saw Mach 1.22 at 10K MSL whereas, with 5 pylons, I was only seeing Mach 1.19 at 10K. Thanks for the info on the GAO. :thumbup:

I've kind of been assuming pylon drag as I know this is something they've been talking about for quite a while, but was pylon drag mentioned in any changelogs? Also, what is "the GAO report?"

So, my Stable version in the tests above is the last 2.5.5 branch of Stable (kept by me because of its better overall FPS performance :)) . So, Hornet FM/Engine stuff must have been changed within some version of 2.5.6. In the latest Open BETA (v 2.5.6.52437), starting with a clean Hornet (with pylons) at 40,000ft and 400kts, with max AB, full internal fuel and A/P set to BARO hold, the jet took 5 m. and 17 s. to hit Mach 1.63 and it never exceeded Mach 1.66 in level flight. In Stable version 2.5.5.41371 (the last Stable version of 2.5.5), the jet achieved Mach 1.75 in the same amount of time and topped out at 1.76 in level flight. See screens below. So, again, there were apparently some fairly significant changes made somewhere during iterations of 2.5.6. **another little test and question: A clean jet with pylons and only 4000lbs of internal fuel cannot achieve Mach 1.2 at 5,000 ft MSL. It only achieved Mach 1.12. (and at 10,000ft MSL, Mach 1.19.) Is the real Block 20 that draggy and under-powered? I'm not saying any of this is unrealistic, just surprising to little, uneducated me. And when any jet in DCS takes a bit of a performance hit in an update without any word from the devs, it's bound to get the attention of those who love that particular jet and how it's been performing up to the (stealthily made) change(s). But I'll take realistic over what I like any day of the week...and realistic is what I like. :thumbup:

Welcome to LockOn/DCS's famous Shadow-Performance-Monster from circa 2003 and counting. :thumbup:

Wow! Super cool! I'll give it a try. Thanks, Mustang.

Are you using the standard (garbage) Warthog 'nub' for TDC slew? If so, I'm afraid it's a hardware-specific problem as the current TDC sensitivity works great on everything except the stock WH throttle nub.

Man, the haze is really bad still (latest OB with 20 Celsius and fog option off):

Unfortunately, though, I'm still getting 17 FPS at night whenever I look at the Island in the CASE III mission, though daylight is a tiny bit improved (maybe?). Not sure why night is worse than day?

Thanks for the official word. :thumbup: By "last patch" you mean the 7-15 OB patch? Since there have been some since to OB and Stable. Also, does that include no changes to pylon/weapons drag I assume? My testing between builds seemed pretty straight forward. Were my tests really that bad? Haha. ;)

Good question: I'm using the latest OB build but not the latest Stable (I'd have to go back and check the number as I don't update Stable as frequently but I go with every new OB that comes out.)

If you're not actually willing to do the work and test the two versions side by side, then you are not in a position to say "there's no significant change for sure." I have both Stable and OB loaded on separate drives so I test them while both programs are open when switching back and forth. Doesn't surprise me that a Stable test track doesn't work on an O.B. platform. Are you using the latest OB? Again, my test results are displayed above for those who don't want to watch the tracks or want (or are too lazy :)) to actually do some testing. I'll be the first to admit, though, that my testing is amateurish compared to what some others here would have the time or ability to execute... so please do. :thumbup:

Just give those tests in post #25 above a try and you'll see there's a significant change somewhere (FM, power, drag, something). :thumbup:

Thanks guys! I hope you know that, as an avid military flight sim fan since Falcon 3.0, I have always assumed that the flight modeling was THE most challenging aspect of what you guys do... and it is what you're great at. :thumbup:

What's interesting is, before last week's OB update, it made sense in the Hornet to enter a merge at about 390-400 kts on the HUD as I could swing the nose around and utilize the Hornet's strong low-speed handling. Now, it seems like best practice is to enter the merge at like 450+ kts, which feels a bit more F-15-ey. I'm no real pilot, though, so I'm just making guesses while I wait for Lex, GB, Mover, or the Devs to interject. :) **Another test mission: MACH Test.miz Starts with a clean hornet (with pylons) with 4500 lbs of internal fuel at 500 kts and maintains 2000 ft MSL. Stable: Achieves M 1.17 top speed with max AB Latest OB: Achieves M 1.08 top speed with max AB

So, it looks like there have been significant changes to the Hornet FM since this latest O.B. not mentioned at all in the changelogs: I flew (Results and tracks below) a break turn with max stick deflection starting at roughly 460 kts at a heading of about 016 for a full 360 degrees of turn at max AB. Both screens show the final bearing after completing the turn. STBL Turn Test.trk OB Turn Test.trk Please note the final AOA readings too... which make sense but are a BIG difference. Note also "Max G" in the HUD. Not sure if that is a product of my own spastic initial pull being inconsistent or a new FCS tweak in the latest OB? It's telling, though, that the current G and Max G pulled are equal in both scenarios. Feel free to use the "Take Control" option and try some tests yourself. I sure wish they'd publish major changes to the FM...as Wags mentioned today: FM changes are a big deal. :thumbup:

Play with the GAIN switch in the bottom left corner. It works now.

Tests, tests... let's publish tests. :thumbup: Try my mission posted earlier in this thread (post #11). Perform some good tests and replicate them in both versions and post results. :)

100% agree. :thumbup: I'm thinking about posting a little BFM test mission here that people can run on both Stable and latest O.B. so that they can see any differences that may now exist. I'll probably do, like, 6 engagments GUNZO and see how many of the 6 I can win using both versions of DCS. I did a pitch test today between the two versions with the same mission/conditions... full AB from start; max stick deflection at 10 seconds; hold until the jet no longer adds degrees of pitch. In Stable, the jet kept pitching through 63 (ish) degrees before all positive nose movement was lost. In the latest O.B., it hit the wall at 55 degrees. It seems that something has definitely changed. I might be noticing more than most people here because I only exclusively fly the Hornet and I'm a sucker for guns-only BFM ( and have been since 2003 LOMAC :)).

This is the question. Is it closer to reality or not? Rate is one thing, but it seems now that the low-speed handling the Hornet was so famous for seems to have deteriorated as well. But, again, there needs to be more comprehensive and professional testing than what I've provided above.

Hey, fellas. I did some very amateurish testing today as I still feel like the Hornet has lost performance with the update on 7-15 last week…which is mostly apparent in 1v1 BFM type conditions. I tested this mission (FM Test.miz) in both the latest OB version and Stable Version. Note that I’m using a clean Hornet, but with Pylons and Max internal fuel, with the same starting conditions (point on map, altitude, airspeed, ect.), weather, etc. In the first test, I go from mission start (at max burner from the start) to 20 seconds in, past the EI hour as indicated on the HUD, to see what airspeed can be achieved in that time frame at full power, in both the OB and Stable. As you can see, in the Stable FM, the jet has a 5 knot advantage. In the second test, I fly (at max burner from the start) to 12 seconds as indicated on the HUD and then execute a max pull to 90 deg pitch. As you can see, again, the Stable FM has about a 5 knot airspeed advantage at the end of 90 degrees of pitch. (** side note: look at the rate of climb as well above the altitude box on the HUD. Obviously, the faster speed gives better rate) 5 knots doesn’t seem like much, but what I’m noticing is that, in a 1v1 BFM fight, that first pull is 5 knots more costly in the latest OB, and then the second and third pulls are exponentially more costly, resulting in a poorer performing BFM'ing Hornet than before the 7-15 O.B. update. Maybe this change is pylon drag implementation? Maybe it is now more realistic? All I know is, this latest Oben Beta rendition of the Hornet seems like it’s taken a performance hit. I’m hoping that someone with more skill and time than I have can do some more definitive testing… or the Devs can tell us if changes were actually made and, if so, why? :thumbup:

The Hornet is harder to land than the F-14?!?! Something's not right.

Interesting. In full 4K res. (2D) the DDI's are clearer than ever.