fat creason

Really appreciate the reports on this guys! Currently trying to inform ED of the issue.

The best way to test this would be at the exact same atmosphere (choose +15C and pick an altitude), loadout, fuel state, and aircraft configuration. Trim the aircraft for steady, hands-free level flight and check the airspeed, AOA, and engine power setting. If they are different with land vs carrier spawn, we have a problem.

Not much has changed in the subsonic regime. Drag and thrust have been unchanged there for a while. I reduced the pitch damping a bit which might allow you to pull higher instantaneous rates and therefore higher instantaneous AOA/G. Instantaneous rate measurements are not a good metric to judge the FM by either, btw.

Still having trouble reproducing this bug, I've spent hours trying to get this to happen. I think in rare situations DCS does not initialize something in the correct order, and for some reason only the right engine does not think there is fuel available. Not sure what's special about the right engine, both engines use the exact same code.

Still nothing from ED on this bug.

Not sure what the issue is for the first part of 10, if ignition is on and fuel is flowing it will relight at almost any speed above the minimum lightoff RPM. For the second part, there is no Airstart switch on F110 powered Tomcats, that will be removed when we get the proper EIG for the B model. If I recall correctly, you need to be close to 450 KIAS to spool an engine enough to windmill/airstart without crossbleed assistance. As for idle lockup, I've got something in testing but have no documentation on it. Its existence is merely mentioned in the NATOPS but no description on how it works. If you have more detailed documentation on that subsystem I'd love to see it. I may just push what I currently have in the next update.

The F-14’s artificial feel system is literally just a spring that can move with the trim actuator and a bob weight that increases stick force with positive G. I will also be bringing back the aerodynamic buffet a little closer to the original after some further SME feedback/testing by Victory205. This will happen when I get back to the States end of next week so don’t expect it in the next patch.

I don't know enough about that to comment, sorry.

Yeah, I'd say 90% of the FM changes since EA release have been focused on "subjective" handling qualities tweaks can that only be adjusted according to SME feedback. Much of this behavior is not captured in the data sources we have. These changes have been minor and are mostly adjustments to the pitch moments and damping, trying to get the feel right. A couple of these changes have had unintended consequences that either I or the testing team did not detect before the build was sent to ED. Many times we have only had 1-2 days between myself making changes and the build going to ED. We try to test as much as we can, but we cannot always hand fly everything to check every aspect of the FM in the patch cadence. I'm almost done with a new FM testing system to try and finalize the performance numbers and automate away much of the testing we now have to do by hand. I'm hoping to wrap this up in the next month or so.

We are still waiting to hear back from ED on this.

I increased the buffet onset AOA by about 2 units and decreased the rate at which it comes in according to SME feedback.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3995130&postcount=35

This is a very tough one to fix since it is so rare, and therefore hard to reproduce. I’ve never experienced it, but I think it’s related to the engine thinking no fuel is available for some reason.

Typically aircraft structures are designed with a factor of safety around 1.5 or 2. Keep in mind that the 6.5G limit imposed by the Navy was merely to extend airframe life, not because of any actual load restriction. Most operational load limits are fatigue and lifetime related and do not necessarily reflect on the ultimate load factor. I've read that Grumman designed it to be a 9G airframe and bench tested out to 13G without issues, although they set the suggested carrier operation load limit to be 7.5G to increase the safety margin for lifetime shipboard operation. I don't have info on the ultimate load factor, although we can assume that it's at least 13G. I imagine other things like INS failure as well as bent engine mounts would happen before structural failure of the titanium wingbox or main spar above 13G. My "wild ass guess" number for wing structure failure would be in the 15-18G range. Additionally, the physical toll of that many Gs on the human body combined with the fact that it would be nearly impossible to physically control the aircraft to that G loading makes this a rather moot point. We don't simulate physiology or human arm strength in this equation and we have no plans to. All this being said, if you're routinely getting into that G range and have issues with your wings coming off, you need to re-examine your piloting skills and go back and do a bit of training.

Yeah, we think this has been an issue for about 6-8 weeks. It took a while to notice, we first noticed when I increased engine thrust and we somehow lost performance on the next patch that was not reflected in the FM testing. It could be that something with DCS API has changed and we need to fix something, but it's hard to tell and we have questions out to ED.

There have been no changes to the aircraft's performance, lift, or drag in this update. It could be a change in stores drag but we have no real way of knowing.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Thanks for putting in the time to investigate. Unfortunately all we can do is bring it to ED's attention and we've already done that. This is really the first time I've seen hard numbers measured in a quasi-scientific way, cheers! Would be interesting to see the results on an ISA standard day (15 C at sea level), but this is close enough. I try to test the FM in the "cleanest" configuration possible since testing and tuning against specific stores configurations was and continues to be an exercise in futility.

The trim switch moves the trim actuators, which in turn shifts the zero-force position of the stick as well as the stabs. Try holding down the pitch trim while trying to keep the stick in the same position -- you will experience a force increase due to the shifting neutral position of the stick away from its current position. Hopefully that makes sense.

The added drag from stab trim position change is negligible compared to the speedbrake drag. When some larger issues have been addressed I’ll come back and tune the moments so that the speedbrake and trim compensation actually cancel each other out.

Please refer to post #3 on this thread, that is our F-14 pilot SME.

I removed the pitch moment from the speedbrake and the automatic trim compensation until we can fix it. The speedbrake deployment is supposed to be pitch neutral, which it was not. Not sure when I'll bring back the pitch moment from the speedbrake and the trim compensation, but I felt it was more important to get rid of the pitch moment for now as it was our SME's biggest complaint. Good eye. Doing this also solved an issue of needing to trim far too much nose up during speedbrake deployment and subsequently far too much forward stick/trim needed on a go-around when the speedbrake retracts.

Yes, we're in the process of trying to finalize some handling qualities. The team and our SME have been very busy the past couple months but we're starting to focus on the FM again and trying to figure out some discrepancies that have popped up as DCS get updates.

Our SME has brought up this issue as well, we intend to address it in the near future. Currently trying to finalize handling qualities around the boat, this is a slow process that requires lots of hand-flying by our SME to assess.

Maybe the GBU38 is the sleekest bomb ever designed! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ground effect and any other aerodynamic phenomenon is entirely up to the FM engineer to add. DCS does not inherently model any effects other than the ones listed in my previous post. Our level flight acceleration is very close currently from 0-35,000 ft according to our internal FM test system. In-game, I'm not sure anymore.