fat creason

No, the Yaw SAS logic has nothing to do with rudder authority. Hanging out above 25 units is not a flight regime you want to be in, pilots didn't do this in real life. Like I said above, the recent changes were purely performance updates other than tweaking the yaw SAS that was incorrectly suppressing wing rock. I've mentioned on the forums before that wing rock was always present in the model since the beginning. If you had ever turned off the Yaw SAS in any version before the FM update, you would see it immediately if excited above roughly 20 units. All I can really say is nothing you've mentioned here has changed, any "change" you're experiencing is likely a placebo effect thing or something else, but it's not any modifications I've made to the model itself. It's easy to make precise changes to flight models if you know what you're doing, and I can guarantee the latest update did not affect anything you're saying here. Well since you said it, let's roll with this explanation for now

The only areas of the model that have changed "recently" are thrust and drag, along with reducing the effectiveness of the yaw SAS at high AOA. An adjustment was made to the yaw SAS in 2021 that unintentionally eliminated wing rock, this bug was investigated and fixed while doing the FM performance work. Handling qualities changes have been minor, but the last of those were completed around 2020-2021 after extensive SME testing. https://heatblur.se/fmupdate/

The suspension is an ED provided model, it just depends on how you set it up and tune it. You can see it in Config.lua.

I don't see any sound effect in the code for wing sweep FWIW.

Yes.

No, that would be borderline impossible to do in real life. Look at level accelerations for tests you can run in the sim and real life.

No, that is not how those particular charts work. The intent of those charts is to show the ESTIMATED 1G envelope at a fixed gross weight and drag config. You're confusing top speed and acceleration. Far more extensive testing using more advanced techniques and proper methodology has already been completed. Anyways, good luck with your tests, the model is not going to change so feel free to run them for your personal enjoyment. There's nothing else to add to this discussion as far as I'm concerned.

I respectfully have to disagree. The model is very unlikely to change at this point unless some highly compelling evidence is provided. Your testing results and methodology do not meet that criteria. Any tests being hand-flown are not really acceptable as the margin for error is very high and lack of repeatability makes them somewhat useless. It seems you still haven't read this, particularly the section about testing: https://heatblur.se/fmupdate/. If you want to see how fast the plane can go at 50% fuel, why don't you just set fuel to 50% and turn on unlimited fuel?

Mach 2+ is a bit silly regardless, you're burning so much fuel to achieve that speed that you really need to be pointing in the direction of the airfield when you start your speed run.

I'm not aware of any wing sweep sound in the code. You sure you weren't hearing something else?

The previous brakes didn't need to provide much brake torque, as there was so much rolling resistance it was as if the brakes were being applied at all times. Now that rolling resistance is much lower, we have to crank the max brake torque back up. This issue was discovered just after the submit deadline for the last patch. They'll be able to hold Zone 1 AB in the next patch.

We're aware, part 2 of the fixes just didn't make the patch in time, it will come in the next one.

I personally believe everything I read on the internet and never look into it... Seriously though, the DCS F-14A hits about 2.30. I think the numbers in the write-up didn't get updated, we'll fix it.

What would that be? Does the chart make sense?

No we just made improvements to the model after fixing some other stuff that was impacting it. Things like this take large amounts of time to get right and things have to happen in a particular order. It's all discussed in the link I posted.

The 1G flight envelope charts are the ones you want if you're concerned about top speed. These charts are NATOPS speed limitations based on loadout. If you care to read the link I posted, the fact it's about the F-14A isn't relevant, the discussion and methodology is. Any questions as to what we did or why can be answered there, the process on both A and B was the same. You can see what the F-14A's 1G envelope looks like there. Look for the same chart for the F-14B. We'll post about it eventually on the website if you can't figure it out.

NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1 for the F-14B (F-14A+) and NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1.1 for the F-14A.

Over the past few months we did some tuning to bring both aircraft as close to the charts as possible, there's nothing else to really say.

No, the stick is where it's supposed to be. You can run some nose up trim if you want the stick be farther aft or change how the stick is mounted in your setup.

We'll have a shorter post about the B soon, but the B isn't as fast at the top end as the A. However, the B has better acceleration to reach top speed. You can easily see it in the charts if you google them.

Please don't use the term "nerf", this isn't WOW. Read this and educate yourself instead: https://heatblur.se/fmupdate

We anticipated there would be a large amount of people complaining about it so we made it an opt-in feature.

If you're waiting for the mirrors to let you know someone is on your 6...you screwed up. You'd be better off ejecting at that point. The mirrors are not intended to be used for seeing bandits behind you.

The latest changes above didn't make the coming patch, which is next Weds I believe. A majority of the gear improvements (reduced power to taxi, etc) should arrive on Weds, but the nose won't bounce as much until the subsequent update.

See my post here if you want to try out a preview of the suspension changes...