VIXEN413

I m doing both upgrades soon or later. G2 on preorder. Waiting to see the 20go vram 3080 to get an idea... Thing is, neither of these upgrade will provide such an amazing boost of performance to what I run at the moment as long as the code is not improved for VR performance... An optimisation from ED, switch to Vulcan, Support multi threading etc etc will give us way better perfs then hardware upgrades IMO.... Time will tell...

how is it noted in the bugs section (no time to look for it, i m on phone connection): reported? investigating?

hey all, in my initial post I mentionned a few observations that lead me to do my own tests. i based my observation on Natops, perfo manual (nfm-210) and some info of the GAO report few observation that I did are in line with what others found too somewhat. So of course, the FM and drag is still a WIP so all this is to take with a pinch of salt and these are just observations. that's all I took an f/a 18c loaded with 2 aim9 and 2 aim7, fueled to 60%. the indicated weight in that config on the - 210 mention 33696lbs but dcs got us up to 33852 in that loadout. close enough. wing pylons has to be removed too for this. keeping them gave me some very weak result so. yes, they tax a lot of performance. each one of these SUU63 has a drag index of 7.5 in the perfo manual, centerline SUU62 also needs removal (DI of 3) standard day at 29.92, 15degC wind calm. 1 Glim I was wondering about the G limit given by the limiter. I compared some weight/Glim from the natops table to what we have in dcs and itvs almost bang on. so, all good there. only one small discripancy at 39000lbs that showed a limit at 6.3 instead of 6.5. (6.5 was attained whith weight under 38200. great stuff. 2: max speed the - 210 shows M0.95 at sea level and M1.02 at fl320 in MIL DCS gave me 0.96 and 1.03 respectivelly so almost bang on! slight difference might come. from the difficulty to locate max MIL onnmy TQS without entering AB zone 1... with AB, the plane goes to M 1.05 at SL and M 1.76 at fl360 here, I obtained some more slugish results with respectivelly M1.04 and 1.71 very close indeed but it seems that the drag wall is coming a bit too soon and the plane has a hard time to reach advertised speeds at optimum altitude. 3 acceleration this gave a bit more answers. we have - 210 infos and also some in the GAO report. the GAO is very optimistic and one has to keep in mind that those numbers might be changed for better numbers to seduce congressmen... but ok, let's see them too. GAO mention aim 120 witch has a slightelly better drag performance on the natops manual but after teying it out, it did not made a difference in DCS actually. all test are done with full AB of course. at 10000ft from M0.8 till M1.08 takes 20s (21s in GAO) and DCS showed 22s very close but the faster you wanna get, the bigger the Delta time with real performances. from M0.8 to M1.15 takes 29s but in DCS an average of 38s from M0.42 to M1.2 should be 60s but DCS gave us 92s it is to be noted though that after 60s we reached M1.16 so the acceleration to M1.2 took 32 more sec just for 0.04.... data at 30000ft also shows quite a difference witch was weired. data at 35000ft on the other hand were once more "bang on" accelerate from M0. 8 till 1.2 takes 63s and DCS gave me 64s awesome! the GAO, like I said, might be optimistic as it gives us 56s.... M.8 did an accel from 0.8 to M1. 6 in 151s while - 210 gives us 145" next up I ll play with turn capabilities too ;) So we can see that ED did a pretty good job with the Flight caracteristics of the hornet in terms of speed and acceleration but somehow, the plane either hit the drag wall a bit too soon and ends up with slow acceleration on the high speed side of it's enveloppe or that it lack a bit of humpf in it's AB thrust. nonetheless, I m impressed that the results are quite close. well done ED. The thing to get right too now is also pylon and payload drag as those takes a big and notorious performance hit with the f18 best regards

Indeed, it is not written explicitly that a change was made but we can still inquire.... I m not the only one that felt (and maybe wrongly so) that something was different. But still, in the last 2 pages, some other users posted their observations that goes in the same direction. Breaks got tweeked. Are they part of the FM as well and since some changes were made there, it might have affected other parts of it too. Compressibility effects on pitot also added on the last update and for all planes. That might have an incidence too... It s been noted as "no change" few hours ago but the FM is still in WIP too, Hence my curiosity...

For such a characteristic of that plane (ie AOA) It would be sad if they turned it down, further from real capability. I was wondering if it had anything to do with Max G limit. Don't know why but an unloaded jet shows me a limit to 6,7g. I tried various loadouts and still, I am very limited. While maneuvering, the number varied to 7 and something but I was wondering if it's not that creating an undesired limit in AOA... Did you felt the same way while disconnecting the Glimiter (paddle)? I wonder what other peers f18 jockeys have to say to ED about that too... You could open a bug report too if it might help... Thanks BR

As I m away from my PC for a few days, a friend graciously tested FM from stable and OB and found no noticeable change in acceleration from one to the other. Might have just been me as I flew the Viper for 3h over the Golan and Beyrut before jumping back in the hornet... Of course it feels more sluggish... One more question, in the week news it is said that they have "adjusted turn rate needle"... Can one elaborate? What changed? BR

Is it me or the hornet accelerates way slower then before? It seems it became also more "second regime", in the pattern, turning final, the thrust you need to add to keep the AOA... Also, even clean, the FCS page shows limits to 6,7g is that normal? The sound update is great but engine sound feels like I m flying an AV8B... I know it's still WIP and this is not ranting but more like observation. Hope no bias is done to the FM to make it less potent compared to the Viper. BR

Lots of trees, objects and remarkable buildings. Looks great but it uses a lot of resources... So here comes some stutters again.... Don't have those on other maps tough. As mentioned elsewhere, playing on this map rises the ram usage to around 22 to 25 GO... Might be a dump somewhere.... But so far, love the map...

mmhm, I see what U mean but again, this is not a fixed science. For operational purposes times might vary for the CCATC to swap from 1 to 3 and not only based on sunset/sunrise. Even on civilian A/D, we swap to CatIII ops while still in cat 1 ops because the forecasts might lead us to low vis later on.... dunno really...

Hey Drac, No mods but every update, I change this .lua file explained in that post. Works for DDI and Hud, not the APMPCD tough... BR https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=218251&highlight=Stroke

The AMPCD si still a WIP but was still better a few updates back... Now, to be more relevant in those observations, look at the 2 real AMPCD pictures here below. It shows what's actually missing on our screen; all lettering and symbols that are on top of the map are indeed green but outlined with some black. That gives a contrast with the background moving map and makes things readable. We are missing this and have only green text over greenish yellowing map that makes it super hard to read! So the solution is Get that black outline and thin the lettering. On the DDI, after every update, I need to go update MFD .lua to correct the stroke size and fuzziness to thin it down. this Lua covers the MFD's and the hud but not the AMPCD. Being able to tweak the AMPCD lettering as well could be a great plus too. Pics for ref (they are not mine but found on the net)

Not much done these days, just working on the switches

Yeah, daily "Ascott" on 125.5...

Yes I think you can swap them. The trim hat has a rim that is wider but I think the diameter of the actual switch drum is the same. Shame I didn't look closer while I had the stick open.... It's easy to open up to get a sneak peak if you feel adventurous. Try it! Have a look!

Hey there! Sure thing! Indeed, you found it that the throttles are angled to 18 deg compared to axis of motion. This angle can be measured on the flat frontal face of the throttles. So I turned my block upside down and cut at 18 deg for 1 inch up. Then, I measured the plan where both throttle spilt on top, marked it and tried to mark some other points. I covered them with red electrical tape to use it as a cutting guide. First throttles were badly cut but I molded 3 pieces so I just tried again on the second. Worked great this time... Here are more pics for you and my initial plan... Looks messy so if u need more infos, feel free. I used the official plans, completed some measurements with pics sent by a great gentleman here on those forums. Air bubbles in my molds will be filled with bondo and sanded while I will be at the finishing touches... As for the switches, I went the OTTO way for the push buttons. The other switches will indeed be crazy and massively expansive.... I m just transferring all the electronics of my virpil cm2 throttle into this throttle set. Amazingly, the right virpil throttle contains all the buttons and switches required for both f18 throttles. So I ll mount another post, outboard of the throttles containing all the left throttle buttons and switches of the virpil throttle. And will use that for non hotas stuff like nvg and pilot salute etc etc and also as a PAL/vshi/vslo switch in the tomcat... I was thinking to place the switches and the daughter board in the throttle but I changed my mind and will just enlong the wires to keep the daughter board in the base of the assembly. This solution forces me to de-solder the TDC ministick from that little board but hey, it's just the way it is...

+1 A/G mode in a hornet with EGI, moving map, tpod lgb and jdams... I have a hard time to see a use to it. Now, indeed for early days missions, fine I understand too that the API will be used for other jets but I would have rather seen other stuff solved before implementation of that AG stuff... Just one opinion...

Same observations as above here...

Had the same, even with daytime parked planes on deck, turning in Marshall stack over the boat, I see those nav lights as bright as the alignement laser light at the back of the deck...

Dry fit of the electronics...

Hey, no prob, I m glad if I helped.... With 3d printing, you gonna go faster as you have less process in the way and also, it s much less messy.... Hahahaha your throttles are gonna be much easyer to arrange too as you can make them void while the molded ones are plain solid... Will give you more room to fit any kind of electronics... You plan to transplant the internals of a Warthog, right? BR

I m on it too but I took the molding route. I reversed engineered a lot and found some dimensions by trial and error and could get confirmation thanks to the forum support. If you need some quotes or measurements, don't hesitate! Good luck!

I m drilling them. tried to shape some foam to use as insert in the mold to save on PU resin but to get the right shape then was a nightmare. Don't want to create any weak spot due to lack of matter. I also have to redo the top of the throttle as my blade slid and cuted sideways. I m doing all freehand without a jig (I know, I know) but that's how I ve always been modelling...

Small update, Got some resin molded and some work on the handles. I made a few so if anything goes wrong, I can revert to another cast... OTTO buttons fits great, the red one is a virpil button to check the diameter that is slightly different. This buttons have the same diameter then the 5way switches so I know how to swap them... More further. Regards...

The positive is done. Now to mold it in silicon... Ran out of silicon so I m waiting a new shipment...

Tried it again in mission editor. Build up the objects on ramp to see what's possible. I ended up with 4 parcked f14 on the 6 pack, 10 f18's on bow, 3 18's on junkyard with a e2 and the crane, 1 f18 at finger lso's and somme ground static crew... Was still going 30 fps as a minimum. Getting away from the bow and the 6 pack got me better fps. On a clear deck, solid 45 fps so, no issues with the carrier itself, just don't overload with AI static planes. A good tip would be to use AI models on the planes the most visible and simplistic objects for the "less visible" ones. Like when planes are on bow, the 2 first as hi-fi models cuz they are the ones you see best and can get close to. The others, as low fid models would be enough... I have the same dilemma at Nellis near Aggressor par King, all those hi-fi planes are killing the fps, taxi further and you re good..