wilbur81

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. Wombat3bagsTEST.trk

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

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.

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.

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... no more GonkyCruise.trk

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.

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.

More Legacy Hornet praise from a former Viper driver...

My pleasure, bud!

These statements, in particular, make it appear that you know little about these two A/C in real life... I do appreciate your post, though... as it's the most likely post to shut this silly thread down for good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-gPWlODKCY&t=4838s https://youtu.be/Vz7B_QfF_hw?t=224 https://youtu.be/w877J-B6IXU?t=975 https://youtu.be/APAEykrfUZs?t=1515 https://youtu.be/yDMVhAh7nOQ?t=162 https://youtu.be/yDMVhAh7nOQ?t=401 https://youtu.be/eD9s0Eb6c7U?t=3432 https://youtu.be/y-a-CL8ClX8?t=9 https://youtu.be/eD9s0Eb6c7U?t=3481 https://youtu.be/Q_n78CvQrRY?t=1017

Maybe the telemetry data you saw was bad data? No, there's not a single 4th gen fighter that will do M.1 straight and level at Sea Level with such a loadout in mil Power. Not sure even the Raptor could do that with 4 external pylons and stores at Sea level. **EDIT** Looking at your post more closely, I do not believe that 1090 km/h would be super sonic at sea-level... 1200+ Kmph would be closer to Mach 1 at sea level. What was the surface level altitude of the terrain he was over?

Hey, Gdoggyc... Quick question: Do you have any idea whether or not your grip is compatible with TM's Warthog Magnetic base? -Thanks in advance!

I did give this nvngx_dlss.dll update a try today. It may be placebo only, but it did seem to bring the ghosting down a few notches for me. It still is evident, but seemingly less so.

It is definitely a step backwards in everything but raw FPS performance. I'm only playing in pancake 4K, but I tried DLSS with sharpness at full about two times and went back to MSAA at 4x... MT already has DCS working quite nicely (in 2D) without the Nvidia feature.

Hey, Bubsy, would you be willing to part with that TrackIR and hat clip for $70(ish)?

It didn't for me.

Try to fly one of Baltic's Raven One campaigns to the end and then come back and tell us that the Hornet is boring...

After 2.9, you now have to be in burner to launch.

This is precisely why I am not using DLSS. The negative effect on cockpit displays is too much for me...even with Sharpening up to max. I'm using 2D, but I can't imagine how it looks in VR. I use MSAA still, and my performance is very good. If they could find a way to keep cockpit displays crisp and clean with DLSS, I would consider going back... but it's a no-go for me.

As many have done and documented here in the forums, you can map MFD PBs to your HOTAS. I control every single radar function this way, without ever taking my hands off the HOTAS.

All 4th and 5th Gen fighters will stall out in a vertical climb when drag, air density, gravity, etc.. catch up to it....the Hornet sooner than several others due to its lower TWR.

Very true... and probably with a fair deal of MACTBDCADM at play as well. (Military Aircraft Coffee Table Book and Discovery Channel Aviation Documentary Misinformation)

My pleasure.

This is the proof that we're in the Golden Age now.