Jump to content

HWasp

Members
  • Posts

    558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HWasp

  1. As you can see on the chart, all 3 planes make similiar oscillations in pitch, but the MiG-19's oscillations have much less amplitude, and return to the initial state extremely quick. The MiG-19 does not have a pitch damper or anything similiar. Is there any reason, why the 19 should have such high dynamic stability? Please see tracks attached (Slow time to 1/16 or more to be able to see what is happening) MiG-15Dyn1.trk MiG-19Dyn1.trk F86Dyn1.trk
  2. I have tried to compare the dynamic stability of the modules above (the oscillations after a certain pitch control input). !!Test was done and measured with time compression set to 1/16 (time slowed to 1/16)!! My method was to trim the planes to 1G flight at around 250 - 260 kts, then full aft stick until AoA = 15 (infobar), then release stick to neutral and observe the oscillations !!Test was done and measured with time compression set to 1/16 (time slowed to 1/16)!! I've drawn a chart to show the resulting oscillations:
  3. The way I think this could work well: Use the existing scan elevation at selected distance Jester menu and create a bindable command to change the selected setting +/-5000 feet (basically toggle between the existing menu settings) The current Jester menus are ok to set up the radar initially, but as the fight gets closer, it gets way too slow (and annoying)
  4. Thanks, I'm sure that is useful, and works well, but I personally don't really want to get 3rd party tools involved, just make a really basic Jester function work properly.
  5. ... Why is it not realistic to bind a Jester command to move the elevation by a given amount? Commands to set range and move scan zone left or right can already be binded. Why is this different? This is a very very basic thing and it is extremely annoying to go through all those jester menu layers all the time.
  6. Controlling radar elevation is one of the most basic functions, that is extremely important in any complex scenario. Quick and efficient radar control is one of the most important things, that often decides in the end, who wins the fight. It's been a very long time since release, and there is still no option to bind Jester radar elevation commands, to control the radar quickly and efficiently. I'm wondering, why is there still no option for this? Is there a game limitation? With any other single pilot module, it usually takes me 2-3 seconds to pick up new contact called out by GCI at some random direction and altitude. By comparison trying to control Jester to have the radar look where I want it takes forever, going through all those layers of that damned menu. Please, introduce a system, to control the radar more efficiently! One idea: Keybind to jump +/- 5000 feet elevation at the currently selected range Is there any limitation, why such a thing cannot be implemented? How is it going to work with the upcoming F-4?
  7. OVER G OVER G OVER G OVER G OVER G OVER G Oh no! I can't pull 13 Gs casually, all the time anymore, what a tragedy.
  8. Real aircraft's flight controls are very different to the simple sticks most people use. A stick extension + force feedback would solve this issue for many people instantly. Aircraft with hydraulic flight controls do have either artificial feel / force feedback or a system like MiG-21/19 where the control ratio is adjusted as speed changes. I think it is a valid problem, that the F-5 needs very careful hands at high speeds with the average joystick, but the correct approach to this is not letting people get away with their 15 g turns, but rather to adjust the flight controls a bit for the DCS F-5. There could be an option (in the control options menu), where you could select a help option, that would change the control ratio a bit as speed increases, making it more controllable for users with average equipement. (I mean just change it a bit not dumb it down completely, damage should still be very much possible if someone is too hamfisted) That being said, I don't find it too difficult at all to avoid ripping the wings off. I've been flying the F-5 in MP and I think it is not a huge issue at all. I think many people have developed some bad habits previously, finishing every single mission always with the G meter maxed out both directions...
  9. So, just a quick test: Barrel roll at 8,6-8,9G with 2 aim-9s, and the same at 7,6-7,8 Gs with a full large centerline tank. Both cases I'm far beyond all the red lines and nothing happens. Why is this not enough? Was this maybe adjusted last patch? F-5wing1.trk F-5wing2.trk
  10. 1. That doc, what Wilbur linked, is a different document. 2. You can't simply disregard the whole diagram based on that, it can still be a good source of information. Possible differences should be considered. 3. Keed in mind, when being so strict about docs, that ED had to develop this without access to the official EM charts, as they are classified... We use what we have, results can be argued based on known differences. No blanket statements based a single sentence somewhere please.
  11. Works for me, but original link is on the top of page 3, by Figaro9
  12. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19950007836
  13. Hi! Thanks for testing this. I completely agree regarding the STR performance. I think the current problem, what can be verified using this chart is regarding the ITR and Lift Limit line: The corner speed is quite a bit lower, there is a significant amount of extra lift for the DCS Hornet.
  14. I searched the forums regarding the infobar accuracy, and the only problem I have found, is regarding TAS and IAS. In case of TAS wind messes up the readout, it's a known bug. But in my tests wind = 0, so that is a non-issue. I did not use the IAS readout on the infobar. I have not found anything against the infobar G readout's accuracy. I don't think, that the script calculated turn rate should take priority against ingame infobar G value, unless there is proof, that it is bugged.
  15. Sorry, but why are you so sure, that a slight G overshoot cannot occur? The FCS is not perfect. I would not disregard the infobar only based on that... Is there any test / source / thread saying, that the infobar Gz is incorrect? I have never heard of that. I did not see Gz values in the data dump, only longitudinal acceleration.
  16. Thanks, I'll check that. Could you please tell me, on your chart, which G lines represent which G value? It seems in your chart DCS hornet tops out at 7 G. Am I reading that correctly? If so, why is that?
  17. For me, as you can see, there is consistently a close to +1 G advantage on the lift limit line for the DCS Hornet vs the Nasa doc chart. This is consistent with the HUD footage. STR does seem to be correct for me as well up at 15000 feet in this config. Again, I tested at 34000 lbs G limit is 7,3G. NASA doc G limit is 7,33 so that config cannot be much heavier. Could you please check your testing data again please? I'm quite sure that Viper numbers are spot on, as they say. When I checked it last time STR was perfectly lined up to the HAF manual EM chart.
  18. F-18_maxITR_15k.trk Just 3 datapoints from DCS: M 0.60 7,4G AoA 30 M 0.42 4,4G AoA 36 M 0.38 3,6G AoA 36
  19. At 33700 lbs (2x9 2x7) I have this for max ITR: M= 0,60 AoA= 30 N= 7,5 I used the weight on your chart, 33700 lbs. I did not see the weight in the nasa doc. Maybe it is a bit heavier (7.33 limit G?) EDIT: just checked, G limit is 7,3 at 34000lbs, so difference is marginal.
  20. Great stuff, thanks for posting that! Could you please confirm, which G lines represent which G values on your chart? The source document shows a 7,33 G limit on the chart, in DCS I get 7,5 G at M 0,6, but on your chart it seems like max ITR happens at a lower G and also the DCS line is at a lower G over the corner speed. For me in the same config corner is M0.6 AoA=30 at 7.5 G (DCS)
  21. Very good question! They are flying in Canada not in Iraq, so I would gess, it is not extremely hot. How much ISA deviation would be required to have a difference of around 19% in your opinion?
  22. I think you are right. Having more G/AoA than it should could easily cause both the higher STR and the better than expected acceleration under G load while the straight line acceleration is exactly matching the data. What can also be seen on the HUD tape vids in the linked thread, is that when they do a quite agressive high AoA (up to 30 degrees) pull, the speed loss is less drastic than in DCS. My theory is, that if in DCS, the Hornet would have a less steep lift curve to match the G/AoA in the vid, that would also cause lift induced drag to be less, meaning overall worse STR but also speed loss would be less drastic pulling high AoA, so it would give more nose authority I think.
  23. I'm a little bit confused now.... First you say, that it's overperforming in your opinion, then, after someone actually does some work trying to prove that, and get it fixed, then it's "much ado for very little", let's just leave it like that. lol
  24. For me in a SL acceleration test from 300kts to 500kts F-16 : 7,6 seconds F-18 : 9,8 seconds So, in a straight line F-16 has a almost 30% advantage here, as expected, so nothing crazy from the Hornet On the other hand, I did a speed recovery test: Start speed = best rate speed -100 kts , end speed = best rate speed, (Hornet 260-360, F-16 350-450) Timed the circle from and to HDG 000 Times are almost equal, so the Hornet can keep up with the F-16 easily in this case, it appears the F-16 does not gain advantage here from it's superior straight line acceleration I would be very interested to see, how these things would change, if the DCS Hornet would get closer to the G/AoA shown on the HUD tape video. F-16_speedrecov350_450.trk F-18_speedrecov260_360.trk
  25. I think, that 1G acceleration is not the problem here. (I also got something like 4:15 for that test, while the F-16 can do it in around 3:10 for example) If there is something wrong, that must be acceleration under G load imo. I've made some tacview records earlier with a 5G turn for both Hornet and Viper to measure speed gain under that G load. some data: (22k clean F-16, F-18 same config) 350 - 400 under 5Gs: F-16: 3,4 seconds F-18: 3,9 seconds So F-16 has very little edge here under some circumstances, and I think, the reason for that might be, that the Hornet's CL-alpha slope might be very steep. There was a thread about this earlier: In summary: There is quite good HUD footage, that shows G and AoA values. While this is of course not 100% because exact weight info is not present, you can see that there is a max G = 7,3 indication, giving us a hint. I tested this back then with close to max weight where 7,3G is allowed. (must be below 34000 lbs) So, as you can see: In DCS AoA - 20,4 -> 5,3 G IRL AoA - 22,4 -> 4,6 G Later I matched the exact 22,4 AoA shown in the vid: ---> that gives 5,5 Gs versus the 4,6 in the HUD tape This could easily cause both the higher STR (exceeding the GAO doc value), and the sense of better than expected acceleration in a turn, due to lower AoA and therefor drag. F-16recovery_320_450_DCS.zip F-18_320_450-DCS.zip
×
×
  • Create New...