F15C AFM too sensitive to control (CH Fightstick)

[blkspade]

If an R-77 misses at 3nm, a kinematic defeat is probably not what happened. I think the closest I have ever evaded one was like 6nm. There are specific scenarios where the chaff works really well against the active missiles.

[MBot]

Corner speed is about 425 knots. This means you can maintain maximum load factor at that speed. This was always possible even before AFM.

 

I think you are wrong about what corner speed is. Corner speed is the slowest speed at which maximum G can be attained, and therefore the speed of the highest turn rate. It has nothing to do with being able to sustain that turn. At which conditions the F-15C can or cannot sustain corner speed I don't know.

[Pyroflash]

I think you are wrong about what corner speed is. Corner speed is the slowest speed at which maximum G can be attained, and therefore the speed of the highest turn rate. It has nothing to do with being able to sustain that turn. At which conditions the F-15C can or cannot sustain corner speed I don't know.

 

No. EtherealN has it right on this one. Generally speaking, corner speed is the speed in which you can achieve the best combination sustained turn rate and radius for a given altitude.

 

What you are thinking of is a completely separate theory on excess energy curves that allows you to pull instantaneous rates up to a lower speed. While this is useful information, it is definitely NOT corner speed.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Pyroflash

[MBot]

I quote Andy Bush (former F-104, F-4, A-10 driver and SimHQ editor):

 

"The concept of corner speed (or corner velocity) is often misunderstood. The definition is simple. For a given altitude, weight and configuration, all aircraft have a limiting g load. Corner speed is the minimum speed at which the limiting g can be reached (not sustained, just reached)."

[EtherealN]

My bad. Probably got confused there because in the F-15 they all sort of coincide. >.<

 

Anyhow, the main point is that yes, you can sustain the corner in the F-15, and this isn't strictly "new" to the AFM implementation.

[Maximus_Lazarus]

Yeah you could always sustain "a" corner in the F-15, but now you can go 700 knots, and almost have the stick at maximum pull without losing air speed !

 

This is incredibly usefull for evading missiles, sharp and high speed , and very very long (time-wise) turns.

 

In the old situation that would have bled your speed to STALL in mere seconds.

 

In all honestly though, i did always feel that the engines in the lomac jets seemed a bit under powered .

 

Who knows, maybe the situation as it is now is more realistic, but i kind of doubt it.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Maximus_Lazarus

[BadK]

I mean, it's all cool and stuff but this is still a "game" , and there needs to be balance. Whether that is realistic or not , balance comes first.

 

How will you ever become a better pilot if there are always balanced variables? Some of us probably enjoy disadvantages here and there and use those disadvantages to our advantage. ;)

[Maximus_Lazarus]

Both planes can have their pro's and con's , but all must be balanced.

 

Do you think Starcraft would be a a success if the zergs and protoss weren't equally strong ?

 

Balance is everything.

 

I get what you're saying though .

 

Anyway, if they keep the engines like this it's going to get real hard to get kills.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Maximus_Lazarus

[MBot]

My bad. Probably got confused there because in the F-15 they all sort of coincide. >.<

 

Anyhow, the main point is that yes, you can sustain the corner in the F-15, and this isn't strictly "new" to the AFM implementation.

 

Had my smart-ass moment of the day there :) But this flight envelope stuff gets my head spinning, so I think it is for the benefit of all if the terms are used correctly.

[EtherealN]

Both planes can have their pro's and con's , but all must be balanced.

 

Define "balance".

 

Do you think Starcraft would be a a success if the zergs and protoss weren't equally strong ?

 

So you claim Zerg and Protoss are equally strong? It's ON now! ;)

 

Balance is everything.

 

For a game like Starcraft, yes, balance is extremely important.

However, this is not Starcraft.

This is a simulation of air combat, not airquake. You achieve "balance" through mission design, not through gimping one thing and buffing another in a quest to make things "balanced".

 

Anyway, if they keep the engines like this it's going to get real hard to get kills.

 

If you make the other guy run crying home to momma, you don't need a kill. The airspace is yours. ;)

 

As for the particular scenario you are indicating, if you feel something is wrong, I would suggest you test it out, post track and description in the appropriate section, and perhaps also offer a 1.2.7 track to show what is different. Also remember: it's not necessarily the F-15C that got stronger. Perhaps something happened to the drag modeling in your R-77? Perhaps both? Or, when you said that you think you could fire an R-77 in that scenario, that means you have not tested the situation to see if that is actually the case? Just to check here, there is no point in me trying to make sense of the scenario you report if it is just speculation. ;)

Edited April 8, 2014 by EtherealN

[Vintovka]

Both planes can have their pro's and con's , but all must be balanced.

 

Do you think Starcraft would be a a success if the zergs and protoss weren't equally strong ?

 

Balance is everything.

 

I get what you're saying though .

 

Anyway, if they keep the engines like this it's going to get real hard to get kills.

 

 

Jesus Christ I never imagined the day I would hear all this talk of "balancing" on our flight SIMULATION forums. I want the aircraft I pay for to act as close as possible to the real life thing. I am paying for a flight SIMULATION not an arcade title.

 

Digital Combat Simulator not Digital Combat Arcade

[Maximus_Lazarus]

Define "balance".

 

 

 

So you claim Zerg and Protoss are equally strong? It's ON now! ;)

 

 

 

For a game like Starcraft, yes, balance is extremely important.

However, this is not Starcraft.

This is a simulation of air combat, not airquake. You achieve "balance" through mission design, not through gimping one thing and buffing another in a quest to make things "balanced".

 

 

 

If you make the other guy run crying home to momma, you don't need a kill. The airspace is yours. ;)

 

As for the particular scenario you are indicating, if you feel something is wrong, I would suggest you test it out, post track and description in the appropriate section, and perhaps also offer a 1.2.7 track to show what is different. Also remember: it's not necessarily the F-15C that got stronger. Perhaps something happened to the drag modeling in your R-77? Perhaps both? Or, when you said that you think you could fire an R-77 in that scenario, that means you have not tested the situation to see if that is actually the case? Just to check here, there is no point in me trying to make sense of the scenario you report if it is just speculation. ;)

 

excellent arguments. ( well the starcraft one mostly)

 

Maybe total balance is not as important in this game as it is in other games.

 

Also the r77 could be replaced with any rocket in my post. It was more about the engine boost of the F15 than it was about actual missiles.

 

Anyway, i do suggest you try for yourself, get in F15, make some speed, put on that afterburner and try to bleed speed.

 

It's almost impossible. I believe it will be tweaked down a bit in the future.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Maximus_Lazarus

[Robin_Hood]

Just to say that any aircraft can sustain it's corner speed, what it cannot sustain is the maximum instantaneous G at that speed.

 

Although those charts Ethereal showed are really impressive. 8.8 sustained G, that's something! The Su-33 in FC3 can sustain 7.5 G according to my testing.

 

Now I will have to see how those translate in terms of turn rate and turn radius :book:

[eFirehawk]

I hear tell that the SFMs have correct "general values" and that the AFM is more about giving you the "feel" of the plane and getting out of the "flying like you're on rails" kind of behavior. But I do feel that, at least compared to the other fighters the F-15C engine thrust right now is VERY powerful.

 

 

Still, if it's accurate like this, I love it :) Maybe it's the other jets that need tweaking? I wouldn't know.

Edited April 9, 2014 by eFirehawk

[Maximus_Lazarus]

Well that's my point a little

 

If they also give the other jets these engine steroid injections, shooting eachother down will become almost impossible

 

Just fly with high speed into target with enemy on your 10 o clock , and i bet you can still outrun any air to air missile at 3 to 4 miles ?

 

Someone should test this, not me cause i'm too dumb.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Maximus_Lazarus

[lunaticfringe]

Yeah you could always sustain "a" corner in the F-15, but now you can go 700 knots, and almost have the stick at maximum pull without losing air speed !

 

This is incredibly usefull for evading missiles, sharp and high speed , and very very long (time-wise) turns.

 

Actually, it's not useful for evading missiles, because your net change in LOS rate is far less than it would be at 350-425 knots. Having a turn circle the size of Rhode Island does you no good when it's time to defeat a weapon; all you're doing is converting gas to noise and making a corner the missile can turn inside of.

 

Complaints about a highly optimized airframe/wing/engine configuration maintaining speed in an AFM- saw that coming from 160 miles out on the HSD.

[blkspade]

Well that's my point a little

 

If they also give the other jets these engine steroid injections, shooting eachother down will become almost impossible

 

Just fly with high speed into target with enemy on your 10 o clock , and i bet you can still outrun any air to air missile at 3 to 4 miles ?

 

Someone should test this, not me cause i'm too dumb.

 

My point was that if the bandit is firing a medium range missile in optimal parameters, a kinematic defeat @ 3nm really isn't going to happen with the AFM. Maybe in a ridiculously low altitude engagement, but there is a good chance the motor would still be burning or just stopping when the missile reaches you. It'll have to be notched or spoofed as opposed to being outrun. I kill bandits at 3-4nm in a full chase.

[BadK]

Yeah you could always sustain "a" corner in the F-15, but now you can go 700 knots, and almost have the stick at maximum pull without losing air speed !

 

This is incredibly usefull for evading missiles, sharp and high speed , and very very long (time-wise) turns.

 

In the old situation that would have bled your speed to STALL in mere seconds.

 

In all honestly though, i did always feel that the engines in the lomac jets seemed a bit under powered .

 

Who knows, maybe the situation as it is now is more realistic, but i kind of doubt it.

 

My F-15C bleeds speed like crazy at max pull. Perhaps your statement is an exaggeration? Have you tried this again, or even tried this at all? Regardless, your opponent in an F-15 really shouldn't be pulling so much until it's necessary. The idea is to keep your speed constant. Now with the new engine AFM, the F-15 has the ability to keep the speed more constant and more able to avoid your shots.

[71st_Mastiff]

cntrl-1,2,3 SAS.

[Maximus_Lazarus]

Actually, it's not useful for evading missiles, because your net change in LOS rate is far less than it would be at 350-425 knots. Having a turn circle the size of Rhode Island does you no good when it's time to defeat a weapon; all you're doing is converting gas to noise and making a corner the missile can turn inside of.

 

Complaints about a highly optimized airframe/wing/engine configuration maintaining speed in an AFM- saw that coming from 160 miles out on the HSD.

 

Not for "dodging" no, but for simply outrunning and letting the missile bleed heavily while you perform your high speed high G turn for 6 seconds on end.

 

@ badk

 

Try 90% pull , seriously it's a huge difference with how it was before. Really the engines are a LOT more powerfull

[lunaticfringe]

Not for "dodging" no, but for simply outrunning and letting the missile bleed heavily while you perform your high speed high G turn for 6 seconds on end.

 

You're not outrunning the missile when in a turn. You may turn to an escape heading, release, and escape it thus, but you will not *outrun* a missile simply by maintaining a specific rate of turn. Period.

 

It's simple geometry. Try it. You might learn something.

[Maximus_Lazarus]

No, you're missing the point.

 

I'm saying that you can bleed a missile's speed much more quickly now without having to worry about your own speed draining when doing high speed high G manouvres.

 

Basically, snaking an enemy missile is so much more easier than it was.

 

It's simple geometry. Try it. You might learn something.

[lunaticfringe]

No, you're missing the point.

 

You're not making one. You're complaining that employing a tactic the wrong way doesn't work because an optimized airframe doesn't bleed enough speed, when employed your way, you get killed by any weapon worth a damn.

[winchesterdelta1]

Deleted misunderstood.

Edited April 9, 2014 by winchesterdelta1

[GGTharos]

I think that now, when you fly into an freshly fired R-77 at 3 miles, you can still turn 180 and outrun it :D

 

I mean, it's all cool and stuff but this is still a "game" , and there needs to be balance. Whether that is realistic or not , balance comes first.

 

So, if the russian planes will also have "super sayan" (i lolled :d ) engines in the future, then air to air combat is going to get real weird

 

No, balance neither comes first nor even second. What you are experiencing is behavior that is unintended and will be corrected some day. If you believe you can be doing anything that resembles bleeding or outrunning a modern medium range aam inside 6nm, I have a bridge to sell you.