Jump to content

New FM excessively draggy?


Dugong
 Share

Recommended Posts

Disable fuel burn in cheats, set fuel to 50% (7500kg), make a standard atmo mission, and throw it in leveling mode at 5km and check acceleration from 0,5M to 1,0M for ~42s continuing to 1,3M at ~100s.

 

Then try the same thing at 13 km for 1,0M to 2,0M of ~380s.

 

It may have changed recently. I'm trying to understand how different indicated AS and TAS and Mach are compared to the true values and combine that with historical graphs to get objective about acceleration performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the same about the new flight model. The Fishbed should be able to gain quickly new energy, but now I am not able to accelerate further than 650 km/h at 1000m ASL with 100% thrust in level flight, this is from my perspective quite confusing. Another behaviour, when I perform a slight turn with 15° bank I'll loose up to 100 km/h of speed at 4000m ASL, thats far too much. When I compare it to a M2000C (I know this is an a bit unfair comparison) with which I am able to maintain a speed of 460 knots (870km/h) at 9800 feet ( 3000m) with 75% thrust, the flightmodel of the MiG-21 seems to be underpowered. A Year ago, when I bought the module, the Fishbed was by far more powerful.

 

P.s. Please forgive me my bad English and my arguments, which consist only of feelings... I may add later some calculations and more precise arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just run some tests at 5km altitude between the current version and 1.5.4 . Clean is with 50% fuel, Payload is with 2xR13m 2xR3R no drop tank. Acceleration is from Mach 0.6. It does look like it's got slower.

 

mwwqac.jpg

+6eNzeCkQE4AAAAASUVORK5CYII=


Edited by Dugong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malek, that was the same thing as i noticed at first, excessive speed loss in gentle turns.

 

Going on Frederf figures, M1 to M1.3 should take 58 seconds, in 1.54 im getting 60 seconds and in 1.55 64 seconds, which is a fairly substantial change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made this diagram... July 25th. I did my best to compare DCS performance (color lines) to old Soviet manual graphs (black lines). At that time the data matched really well at least subsonic. Supersonic was over-performing.

 

What I did was find the true speed via the game engine at which the sonic speed effect was heard and did all my speeds relative to that. That's a huuuuuge assumption that I should be comparing time vs. fraction of true mach and not indicated.

 

What I've found lately is that indicated IAS, TAS, and Mach are strongly different than their reported engine values (read F2 F10 UIs). There are also tons of Soviet graphs that show rather wild discrepancies between true and indicated values of speed. Depending on which data source you use you can get rather strongly different results.

 

Another assumption I settled on was that the 7500kg figure was a constant-mass solution which of course is impossible physically but it can be tabulated intelligently from real flight test data. I found the constant-mass assumption matched DCS with historical data most accurately.

 

I don't really want to completely redo it as it was quite a lot of work but I might do the 5km and 13km lines again to see if there was a significant change. For completeness I should do several techniques (indicated, indicated with manual corrections, simulation-direct) and compare but it's a lot of work.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=145101&d=1469503462

 

TEST

 

0.6M indicated is 621 IAS and 700 TAS by instrument

At this same moment F2 IAS 589 F10 TAS 685.

The speed of sound by method of the sound changing is 1016 km/h. This places the previous TAS at 67.4% Mach.

 

This is distinctly different from my old data which placed Mach at 1183.5 TAS, 86% as fast. To make sure it wasn't a simple temperature I went from 20C to 15C which produced no detectable change. Of note the Mach needle shows 1.05M at this point.

 

Reducing to 1.0M indicated is a F10 TS of 1089. 60% of 1089 is 653.4. And 937 F2 IAS x60% is 562.2. The ratio of the F2 and F10 speeds (TAS-IAS ratio) is 116%. This same ratio of instrument readings is 113% (a 116% indicated ratio would have paired e.g. 720 TAS with 621 IAS for example).

 

Before we've collected a single piece of acceleration data we're already saddled with a choice 6 different speeds to reference: cockpit Mach IAS TAS and game-engine Mach IAS TAS.

 

OK I go into special options and disable pitot-shock errors. Now cockpit IAS and F2 IAS are practically 1:1 (cockpit reading is reliably +2 km/h which is small enough to just be an artwork misalignment such as not using the center of the needles and markings). From now on the data will be gathered with the shock error option off.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=153764&stc=1&d=1482231041

 

Here is my quick results for a single 3km 0.5-1.2M run. Altitude 2999m. 15C SLT. A "running start" established first afterburner. Cheat no fuel use at 51% fuel and gun ammo (a few kg more than 7500kg constant).

1939873216_MiG-21_accel_comparisonDec20163km.gif.e3403c2e69b91cb5a71cfacbe3c4ba72.gif


Edited by Frederf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the same about the new flight model. The Fishbed should be able to gain quickly new energy, but now I am not able to accelerate further than 650 km/h at 1000m ASL with 100% thrust in level flight, this is from my perspective quite confusing. Another behaviour, when I perform a slight turn with 15° bank I'll loose up to 100 km/h of speed at 4000m ASL, thats far too much. When I compare it to a M2000C (I know this is an a bit unfair comparison) with which I am able to maintain a speed of 460 knots (870km/h) at 9800 feet ( 3000m) with 75% thrust, the flightmodel of the MiG-21 seems to be underpowered. A Year ago, when I bought the module, the Fishbed was by far more powerful.

 

P.s. Please forgive me my bad English and my arguments, which consist only of feelings... I may add later some calculations and more precise arguments.

 

I agree with your assessment and have noticed the same issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that when rpm is set in pit 80% but in F2 is about 72-74% and at same time in formation with AI are using 80% rpm. Also was in flight loaded with 2 wing tanks, 2xR3R, cannon and even with empty wtanks i could not maintain mach 0.8 at 5k in 95% indicated.

 

Sent from my HUAWEI G510-0100 using Tapatalk

"These are not the bugs you are looking for..":pilotfly:

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

My YouTube channel

 

SPECS

-AMD FX8370 8 Core Processor 4.2 ghz

-GIGABYTE 970A-UD3P

-GTX 1050 TI Windforce 4g

-16 GB RAM

-Saitek X 52

-FaceNOIRtrack - 3 point clip Red Led

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please keep in mind that the F2 infobar RPM is never accurate. The reason is; that it is tied to the visual effects for the engine (stuff like heatblur, smoke, AI afterburner, etc.) and so it is independently programmed from what the engine simulation itself is doing.

Nicholas Dackard

 

Founder & Lead Artist

Heatblur Simulations

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copy that but we still need to know what is happening with acceleration and the fm in general.

 

Sent from my HUAWEI G510-0100 using Tapatalk


Edited by BadHabit
syntax zZzZz

"These are not the bugs you are looking for..":pilotfly:

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

My YouTube channel

 

SPECS

-AMD FX8370 8 Core Processor 4.2 ghz

-GIGABYTE 970A-UD3P

-GTX 1050 TI Windforce 4g

-16 GB RAM

-Saitek X 52

-FaceNOIRtrack - 3 point clip Red Led

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copy that but we still to know what is happening with acceleration and the fm in general.

 

Sent from my HUAWEI G510-0100 using Tapatalk

 

Yes that would be nice, as it stands the 21 has gone from being fairly effective in the F5E v Mig21 server to useless, it's now the F5E getting 15 or 20 kills to 1 kill from the 21. People are actually flying the Mig15 more against the F5 !:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that would be nice, as it stands the 21 has gone from being fairly effective in the F5E v Mig21 server to useless, it's now the F5E getting 15 or 20 kills to 1 kill from the 21. People are actually flying the Mig15 more against the F5 !:(

 

And you think that the previous behavior it´s normal?

 

A 21 with full missile cargo that can stand in front of F-15 or Su-27? :music_whistling:

 

The 21 should turn less than an F-5 and accelerate better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you think that the previous behavior it´s normal?

 

A 21 with full missile cargo that can stand in front of F-15 or Su-27? :music_whistling:

 

The 21 should turn less than an F-5 and accelerate better.

 

I don't know what you are talking about, the MiG-21 was less agile with a better acceleration than an F-5. The reason why some MiGs or Tigers are better than many F-15s or Su-27s is, that those aircraft are sort of beginner aircrafts, because they are cheap, easy and very powerful. So a majority of the pilots which fly F-15 or Su-27 often only "spamraam" but are not able to dodge enemy missiles or aren't performing well in a BFM, so they are easy targets for an experienced MiG pilot.

 

But anyway, this discussion is off topic.


Edited by Malek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that would be nice, as it stands the 21 has gone from being fairly effective in the F5E v Mig21 server to useless, it's now the F5E getting 15 or 20 kills to 1 kill from the 21. People are actually flying the Mig15 more against the F5 !:(

fallacious claim, its just someone discovered there are one or two f5 pilots dumb enough to get suckered into a turnfight vs mig15 and other people are trying it out for themselves.

 

also comparing kill ratios isnt valid evidence of anything, what is this now war thunder?

МИР

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some Calculations about the problem

 

Hi there,

as promised, I did some easy calculations and experiments. The full documentation can be found in the appendix of this post. The conclusion is that the engine of the MiG-21Bis seems to be underpowered in DCS while the Mirage 2000Cs' engine is overpowered compared to their real abilities. For more detail have a look at my research. If nobody has done it already I try to submit the problem on Mantis, although I have no track files of my experiments.

 

As later proofed by GGTharos is my method not only very inaccurate, I used the engine thrust as a constant, which is wrong, because it is depending on the pressure and airspeed. Due to this fact, I removed the obsolete document. :music_whistling::smilewink:


Edited by Malek
Wrong parameters were used.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not compare against actual sustained turn rate or g charts? There's no need for balancing, who cares if the mig is underpowered ... maybe it should be. Same with the mirage. What you need to prove is that they don't match their own real performance charts, their relative performance is of no consequence.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fallacious claim, its just someone discovered there are one or two f5 pilots dumb enough to get suckered into a turnfight vs mig15 and other people are trying it out for themselves.

 

also comparing kill ratios isnt valid evidence of anything, what is this now war thunder?

 

See my acceleration tests on page 2 and Maleks PDF, Mig 21 in current patch is both slower in acceleration than A) real life B) previouse patch FM.

 

The qualitative experience of performance and effectiveness changes between patches is what led some of us to investigate, no one is asking for War thunder style balance at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for those which misunderstood my definition of balancing. I didn't meant that all aircraft should be balanced so that all aircraft have the same chances, like in other causual games. I meant to balance the aircraft to their real abilities and performance. I'll change that in the document, so there is no more confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe some thrust difference. But with last update i can't refuel the main tank, it always remains at the same level even after refueling is confirmed.

 

It would be wonderful if LN could manage the thrust as close as possible i luv this bird too much .

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

Attitude Power Trim Power Attitude Trim

 

Wing Commander SWAC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...