Airhunter

That sounds pretty awesome! So a covered TCS and not a removed one then? As for the AIM54A, it's literally just a reskin/texture change, it's just kinda weird if you are carrying 54A's and it says 54C on the missile.

There are no "docs" to be found. Please provide your reference as evidence, otherwise those are just claims anyone can make.

Funny you said that. I just now did some static tests with the Jeff and 29S. 29S was single engine only. Both jets starting with 5126lbs of internal fuel. What I found was the following: JF-17 full AB time (CMBT) until flameout: 09m 41s (resulting in 31760 lbs/h FF) Mig-29S full AB time (single engine) until flameout: 10m 39s (resulting in 28879 lbs/h FF) So my question is now how does an older RD93 design perform 20+ % more efficiently at the same conditions and speeds (30000ft, M1.67, ISA) than a more modern GE F110? Even a 15% increase in economy would require an entirely new generation of engine using new materials and possibly a geared fan. Of course I dont have the exact thrust profile and fuel flow charts of the RD33 at various altitudes and high mach numbers, so I can't really reliably compare them and test them. There also isn't any fuel flow gauge in neither the 29 nor the JF17 to make manual tests possible.

Please explain yourself? Are you telling me a JF-17 is significantly more fuel efficient than a F-16 or Viggen with significantly less fuel at nearly the same test conditions? More than 10 minutes in max afterburner with 5k lbs of fuel? Yep, I will do just that and run a static seal level test now. Can you please give me the source for your RD-93 data? Since it HAS to be public.

I'm sorry but you just can't make calculations in percentage relations like that. Speed has a linear relation to TFSC and at high M numbers the increase should be roughly in low decimals (.2 - .4). Go read up on TSFC and typical values for modern turbofan jet engines. As a sidenote, the RD33 has a 18k thrust rating and the RD-93 a 22k rating.

I had it in combat, 101% N1. Yes the 29 will be faster, obviously but you can't really make a legit full AB comparison at the same speed since most aircraft will perform differently. The F-16C does the same speed at that alt in full AB, so that's at least a good reference point. Also TSFC values dont lie, it's literally fuel flow devided by thrust (single engine). But I'm glad Deka has aknowledged this and will adjust it, becuase currently the JF17 is like the most efficient jet out there, trumping Eagles and Tomcats.

I did not neccessarily use the FF shown on the DDI page and IFE but total fuel burned over time (as you can see from my charts). Not every aircraft measures fuel the same way so I went the total fuel burned over X amount of minutes route and calculated the burn per hour manually. The DDI FF value is just a reference and "should" be in lbs/h / PPH - that's the most common one at least. Again, look at the charts and go tell me that seems even remotely right to you.

Correct, theres a mostly linear increase with Mach but its low single decimal digits if anything in those supersonic regions (in terms of TSFC). However the static values should be very comparable, also various other engine types in similar conditions as well. No public source will really give you the exact conditions their values are based on. Most other DCS modules are within the rough ballpark anyway, hence my concern. As you can see my measured TSFC of 2.48 was at M2.3 as opposed to the 2.05 on a supposed static test at sea level.

Yep, the amraam guidence is very WIP. We were going to get a reworked missile API at the beginnin of this year but it seems ED has forgot about that. The amraam will pull insane amounts of lead and AOA if the target is beaming or changing direction even at longer ranges.

Thanks for the feedback! Those values sure make a lot more sense. 2.05 at M=0 is rather significant hah.

Welcome to Eagle Dynamics. I'm sure it'll work with the free HB carriers though. :thumbup:

I have recently done some tests on the max AB times and fuel economies of various jets in DCS and have come across two outliers in my testing. One of which is the JF-17, powered by the RD-93. It has a longer full afterburner time with much less internal fuel than comparable single engine aircraft, the lowest fuel flow of any comparable single engine engine aircraft and one of the lowest TSFC's of any comparable jet. Below are my findings as well as the test conditions. Keep in mind, for the fuel flow chart you'd have to divide the two-engine aircraft values by two to have a direct comparison. From what I've gathered from public sources, the RD-93 is basically the RD-33 with a repositioned accessory gearbox, HIGHER fuel flow and possibly an increased pressure ratio to allow the higher engine rating of roughly 22K lbf, thus reducing maximum engine life. The RD-33 is a fairly old engine and its performance is widely available and known. Specifically a TSFC of 0,77 with full dry thrust and 2,05 in full afterburner are stated. Currently your RD-93 simulation exhibits veeeery different performance from the RD-33, like, it's not even remotely close. Specifically a fuel flow in max AB of 29910 lbs/h as opposed to roughly 45400 lbs/h of a single RD-33 in the same test conditions. Moreover a TSFC of an unmatched value of 1,35 in full afterburner, while it should technically be even higher than the RD-33's. Since DCS modules are supposedly built on publically available data, what sources have you guys used to model this engine if not data for the RD-33? Could you please show me factual evidence and data of the RD-93's performance as there isn't anything out there specifically for the 93? Because right now such en efficiency is very hard to believe and outmatches even the most modern turbofan engines available.

I recently did some comparisons between various aircraft in DCS as some people have stated that the efficiency of the JF-17 and the Hornet are quite high. To my surprise I found a very head-scratching engine economy and performance on the Hornet. All tests were at 30000ft, ISA-like conditions, full internal fuel and the default DCS loadout (pylons when applicable). The Hornet was the outlier across the board and did not even closely match the publically available and stated values I have found. It has by far the longest full AB time of all jets I have tested in DCS, much better economy and a much lower TSFC than most other comparable jets in DCS. Below are my test results. Especially in the chart above you can see the F110-GE-400/402's TSFC of 1,23 in FULL! afterburner. Publically available sources state a value of 1,74, which is mostly in line with comparable engines of similar thrust rating and size. Below is another picture showing a fuel flow of 22200 lbs/h in full AB at Mach 1.63 and 30000ft. I think GE would've won a nobel prize by now if they managed to develop such an efficient engine. Now, other aircraft such as the F-14B, and F-16C match the stated values very well, the 16C's fuel flow matches the real, publically available FF charts mostly within a margin of +/- 5%. I wasn't able to find any publically available fuel flow charts for our F/A-18C and I do know the document designation of where to find those values, however this very document seems to be classified. Now my question to ED - since your aircraft are built on publically available data, what source or data did you guys use to model this? Could you please reference a source that would back the current performance of the Hornet's engines? If not, would you please consider adjusting these values based on public TSFC values for dry and wet thrust? Currently the Hornet is way more efficient than the Tomcat or any other comparable jet- nothing of the "short legs" the US NAVY was talking about all these past years.

I mean, yes why not. But what platforms could employ those? There literally is 0 public data (or not enough) to even simulate those so what's the point? I'd rather have all the current missiles get a rework and have proper aerodynamics and PN guidence than adding any more new stuff.

On a sidenote, will you guys consider adding specific AIM-54A textures to the AIM-54A? (White body and blue stripes). Because currently they all show up as the AIM-54C. Would be a nice thing to have once the F-14A comes out, especially for the IRN faction. Seems like a rather easy thing to fix. Also, would it be feasable to create a seperate IRIAF Tomcat model without the TCS and external fuel tank pylons?

If you haven't flown it or don't understand how FBW is supposed to work then you won't be able to know. To name a few issues - the inverse ground effect is basically still a thing since release and ED never bothered to come back and review the FM again since release. The fact that it has a pretty significant pitch up moment on flap deployment (again, talked to some Hornet guys and they never experienced this behaviour ever in real life). The "supposedly" flight path stabilized FBW will run away from you in the pitch axis if you dont constantly make small adjustments (it shouldn't and should somewhat behave like an Airbus in that regard), you command roll and pitch rates, no significant input or power change results in no flight path change. Then there is the quite high drag at alpha and when doing boat ups. Some of the standard power settings simply don't seem to work as of right now. There are also numerous smaller issues I won't mention here. In my opinion a proper aircraft simulation has to have a solid flight model as the base and this should be the #1 priority, after all most of what you do in the (flight)sim is FLY the aircraft. The FM and performance corrections are very high up on my list, which also seems to be reflected in the community poll with more than 60% of people giving it a 10-8 in priority. Other respected developers like Heatblur or Deka have done or are still doing various tweaking to their FM to get it right.

Like, we've seen the updated cockpit previews more than a year ago now, external model updates half a year ago. Why is this taking so long to finish? I understand their team is very small but this pace is really making me doubt purchasing the F4U or F8J in the future...

Interesting. By exhaust you mean afterburners or the heat distortion?

Let alone Hornet pilots said they never used it for any form of targeting apart from terrain avoidence and finding weather cells.

Not that I'm aware of. As far as I know the only ones that have them are the FC3 aircraft. Might be wrong though.

+1

Everything you listed is related to navigation or has little to no use in DCS. Nice to have but not a neccessity. I'd rather have the visual aspect and sounds finished first (new textures and external model corrections, AB etc.) than the stuff you mentioned.

Which is EXACTLY the problem I was talking about, ED expects me to upload a track (which is too big to upload by the way) so they can check a thing that I excatly described on how to reproduce (both in SP and MP after 5 minutes or less). Most people fly in MP and experience these bugs there, so the trackfiles will be too big, corrupt or simply not be available. This method of checking and reporting bugs does NOT work whatsoever. Also, have YOU used the 9X recently? Or are you just here to scream " where is the trackfile" at people?

Ok, have you guys used the 9X? That's my first question. Did you also not read what I just wrote? You can reproduce all these issues simpy by USING the AIM-9X in game. Drag values at low altitudes aside. A trackfile is totally useless here and I absolutely WONT provide one, no matter how often you ask me to. If you haven't used the 9X yourself and can't provide anything productive to this conversation apart from "muh trackfiles" then please refrain from posting. Because everyone I know who is flying the Hornet or Viper regularly reports the exact same. EDIT: You guys do realize that DCS is such a buggy mess because ED requires everyone to include trackfiles and do the testing themselves instead of testing something for 5 minutes before releasing it? That's a core issue within the QM of Eagle Dynamics.

I've attached several tacview files, why would I need to send a track if this can literally be reproduced in various ways 5 minutes into using said weapon system. A track brings NOTHING to this discussion. EDIT: Here are some videos illustrating this.