Jump to content

Engines underpowered


Mods-o_joy

Recommended Posts

I think it is time for you to sit back down and let the people with actual knowledge speak (like Habu) and give their information, and not you who is another keyboard warrior thinking he knows all.

 

Yeah, because a random poster on the internet made a claim of superiority (no offense Habu) why bother with things like 'proof' or 'evidence', right? You know, I've never had an argument online that somebody didn't claim to be an expert on the topic. Saying it doesn't carry too much weight online (again, no offense to Habu) when it doesn't have the relevant data going with it.

 

That said... it's not rocket science, no. It's aerodynamics and physics, though, so it's not as simple as entering numbers in a spreadsheet.

 

@bbrz

Skootch's point though was just 'publicly available' doesn't always count in all conditions. Case and point the guy recently busted was using publicly available manuals, but crossed national boundaries and reproduced it... putting it in a game in Europe is also 'reproduction' persay, depending on interpretation.

 

Point is, you have to be careful. And again, my original point was that ED had a contract for A-10 that they were allowed to port it. There were conditions applied to that aircraft, we know for sure, so it's not out of the realm of possibility 'performance' was included. It is also not dependent on potential negotiations for OTHER aircraft, as it's the agreement they made for THIS one.

 

 

Again, I'm not saying it IS or ISN'T nerfed, or that these are the reasons why or why not. I'm just saying it's been the way it is for a long time, through much bug fixing and updates, so it's possible, like the laser mavs not being permitted, other concessions were also made.

 

 

 

 

 

Or it may be right and the desk jockeys, keyboard warriors, and 'rl pilots not adjusting to sim over reality' are all wrong.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy. Now you've gone and done it. Calling DCS a video game. Right now there are "pilots" furiously unclipping their oxygen mask and yanking off nomex gloves to type out a furious response. Get countermeasures armed and ready.

 

Yeah, I know, it's a fiercely debated topic ;) But tis true, and the DCS equivalent of 'Trekkies' have a hard time accepting it =D

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever seen those very frequent, but often long & tedious threads where someone will post that DCS's calculation of distance must be wrong, because the sensation of speed at low level is too low (& / or doesn't feel any different at 500m than at 5,000m) ?

& in the end there's a discussion around the angle of the field of view, and everyone agrees that it's all good ?

 

Or the endless posts about how this aircraft or that aircraft should be easier to fly because I fly in real life & the plane I fly isn't that hard to fly, and then there's the discussion about the length of game controllers vs actual controls, and the missing 'seat of the pants' element, and everyone eventually agrees that 'yeah, it's an issue with controllers' and moves on ?

 

From memory Lex said in his initial video that he found flying the F-18 off when using a game HOTAS, but I don't think he says there are major deficiencies in the FM - it just feels different on a computer.

 

Habu23 is pretty sure it's underpowered, but explicitly states that "I'm not going to cite documents but just take my word for it." - & though he does give a specific example of where he feels it should be able to achieve a particular performance but doesn't, even with a real pilot there's still a lot of room between 'flying a SIM with toy controls and no seat of the pants feeling', and 'flying the real thing' for misinterpretation to creep in.

 

It seems to me that because the sensations are so different, the only real way to test it is to check whether the model is or is not capable of meeting (or exceeding) the performance figures in comparison of in game performance against the -1.

 

Those discussions have been had over and over and the result is that the FM was changed early on in response to feedback, but now has been as it is for some time.

 

Regarding the comment that "So rumor has it some downgrading of performance was part of the commercial release. I am just parroting previous comments, I have no direct knowledge", as far as I know, that rumour that the FM was part of that limited modelling started with that comment in this thread...

Yes, some things weren't modelled, but the engine performance & FM have never been included in that list.

 

If we were talking about how easy it is to stall, or how a stall develops, or some edge of the envelope FM issue in that flight simulators often fall down on, I'd say go to the actual pilot & ask, but when it comes to climb rate, engine temp at some rpm, or fuel use per minute at some speed/temp/altitude - the only serious way to answer it is with a comparison to the -1 (or to the engine manufacturers specs, which E.D. have repeatedly said they have and use for comparison.

 

E.D. have from time to time been quite adamant that they were right about some aspect of an aircrafts' FM, only to admit they were wrong when presented with actual evidence of where the FM departs from available data. But - & quite rightly too or the FMs would change every week forever - their error had to be demonstrated using numbers, not gut feelings.

 

If people want the engine performance revisited, they'll have to show where it's wrong using numbers from the SIM and real life, not just go 'it feels off here".

 

That's a pain in the *ss for most people, and an actual pilot might feel it's not worth their while when they have (or had) the real thing, but gladly there are people like bbrz that are prepared to take that task on board.

 

Thanks.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

zhukov, I appreciate you summarizing my post but you really need to read it. Your making assumptions about a topic you don’t understand. Not saying that to be rude, it’s almost impossible to give definitive answers even for experienced practitioners.

 

As I said in my prior post, I was merely scratching the surface of a very complex question. Out of respect for Matt and ED, I am not going to cite specific issues or opine on issues they would rather I not. I enjoy DCS and would like it to stick around (despite my occasional bitching), but hopefully I can elaborate a bit.

 

The A-10C was made for the ANG and ported. There were conditions on that, though.

I do not know the facts of how this transition, and obviously haven’t seen any documents. Hypothetically, a situation like this adds an additional layer of complexity. Two parties can agree to whatever they want in a contract. Contractors are also subject to additional rules (where otherwise DDTC wouldn’t have jurisdiction). As I said, there could be administrative review fees associated with requests for review to change to specific core systems, or a blanket prohibition. We simply do not know.

 

Btw, as much as people like throwing around ''simulator'', it's a video game. Hard core. But still a video game.

 

Can you explain the difference between the two?

 

What if DCS were sold bundled with a TM Warthog, cougar MFDs, and buddyspike UFC? What about the guy on here with the full replica f/a-18 cockpit? If he sold that with a computer running the hornet module to a guy in Canada? Would any of those facts change your answer?

 

What if a dev working on the project received an email, opened an attachment and it was a -34 for the Hornet? How would that effect things? What if somebody posted something on their forums?

 

At what point does a game, or simulator, “replicate the operation of an individual crew station?”

 

Law is vague, and good lawyers are expensive. These are questions about functionality, not the label on the software. It’s a question of facts and circumstances. Does the fact that the French use the M2000 module for training purposes matter? What about statements from ex-pilots about realism, and the extent to which it teaches you to fly the real aircraft?

 

What, exactly, does it mean for a game to be “developed using classified information?” Would the presence of classified information on a company’s email server support an inference that it was?

 

To quote from the article I linked previously:

 

classification of simulators is often dependent upon the classification of the simulated end-item. By way of example, to determine if a crew station simulator is classified under USML Category IX, one must first determine if the simulated end-item (i.e., the particular crew station) is classified under the USML. Similarly, to determine if the simulator is classified under ECCN 0A614, one must first determine if the simulator is classified under USML Category IX, which, in turn, requires determining if the simulated end-item is classified under the USML.

 

If that is clear to you, I recommend law school. A senior DC lawyer with good competency in AECA/ITAR will bill North of $1000/hr, not sure what you’re doing now but if you don’t charge $60 to read a 3 minute email you might consider it.

 

My point is just to lay off, there’s a reason there aren’t a ton of DCS competitors out there. Bitch about carrier pricing, slow development, or whatever you want. But on this one cut them some slack. Compared to other work they are doing, adding some thrust to the a-10 would be piece of cake. But I, for one, would rather they pay developers not lawyers.

 

Finally, as to the topic of this thread…

 

Yeah, because a random poster on the internet made a claim of superiority (no offense Habu) why bother with things like 'proof' or 'evidence', right? You know, I've never had an argument online that somebody didn't claim to be an expert on the topic. Saying it doesn't carry too much weight online (again, no offense to Habu) when it doesn't have the relevant data going with it.

 

My expertise in the a-10 is not equivalent with ITAR unfortunately, but I have seen the comment from several former pilots, and I’ve been fortunate enough to fly a lot of planes. I give the PIREPs a lot of credibility, particularly when you can view HUD footage of A-10s on youtube. More subjectively, my own flight time in high performance aircraft provides a base of knowledge to know its off. I have never flown an a-10, but I routinely hit 10Gs and have much more time inverted than any Hog pilot. Part of the problem is absurd configurations people use, but even relatively clean, DCS’ A-10 engine performance being what it is, our airspeed is always low. At 210-220 kts even a gentle pull will sound the horn.

 

I was going to post a link but don’t think I can. But there’s a video of an A-10 in Afghanistan Tag ab valley in 2008 providing CAS to some very stressed out boots on the ground. If you were to watch that vid, of note are:

 

  • t=:35 350kts IAS 2-3° nose down (let that sink in for a second) show of force, gentle 2G pull to 5° nose up, aggressive right stick into 5g peak/4g sustained turn through 180 degrees, with just a blip when pitch got a bit sloppy initiating the turn.
  • t=1:54 8° nose down gun run at 320 kts IAS, hard 4.5G pull to 23 nose up, roll ~80° into climbing turn though 180 degrees, dropping the nose level when IAS drops to 275 or so. Note that plane is accelerating in a 70-80° bank nose level.
  • t=2:20 Bonus USAF humor
  • t=4:30 Steep 23° nose down gun run at 330 IAS, 5g pull to 20 nose up with just a brief chop, roll left ~80°, hard right stick (still 20° nose up) to 70-80° right banking turn though 180 degrees leveling out +3000ft still at 220 kts.

 

Go try any of those in DCS and let me know how it works out

just a dude who probably doesn't know what he's talking about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just did a few other tests with a similar config Habu23 posted and a calculated DI between 4-6.

At S.L. IAS should be 320 and was 320.

At 10000ft it should be 285, DCS A-10 = 285.

Initial ROC close to 4000ft/min.

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I have never flown an a-10, but I routinely hit 10Gs and have much more time inverted than any Hog pilot.

2.At 210-220 kts even a gentle pull will sound the horn.

1. 10G in which plane? And please don't say an Extra or a similar toy plane. And what has inverted flying to do with it?

2. Quite a useless number without any weight info. What turn performance do you expect? Vst is almost 140kts at MTOW. At 2.2G the stall speed will be 210kts. That's exactly what I'm seing in the DCS A-10.


Edited by bbrz

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people want the engine performance revisited, they'll have to show where it's wrong using numbers from the SIM and real life, not just go 'it feels off here".

 

It's not really possible due to 1.16 - I'm also sure ED have access to the same documents I have.

 

Just did a few other tests with a similar config Habu23 posted and a calculated DI between 4-6.

It might be close enough but I usually test clean airframes due to the known problems with drag and/or weight of some external stores.

 

At S.L. IAS should be 320 and was 320.

At 10000ft it should be 285, DCS A-10 = 285.

Initial ROC close to 4000ft/min.

 

I don't have access to A-10C performance charts but have compared DCS's A-10C (clean) to the A-10A (clean) at similar weights.

 

It was fairly easy to test i.e. takeoff ground roll, max climb to optimum cruise altitude (time/fuel/distance), optimum cruise (alt/speed), etc.

 

As I remember, the DCS A-10C was behind in some of the A-10A figures suggesting it was a little draggy or under powered (IIRC 20 - 40 slow @ 320 KTS GS @ 32,000 ft).

 

It certainly didn't contradict the anecdotal reports of underpowered engines, but the main features/limitations of the A-10C seem well modelled, so perhaps compromises had to be made when implementing the FM and IMHO +/- 10% isn't bad (-30/300).

 

Note: That doesn't mean there might not be issues with some A-10C loadouts/configurations.

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 64GB DDR4, RTX4070 12GB, 1+2TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 4+1TB SSD, Winwing Orion 2 F-15EX Throttle + F-16EX Stick, TPR Pedals, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I remember, the DCS A-10C was behind in some of the A-10A figures suggesting it was a little draggy or under powered

 

What makes you say that? How do you know it's not the A-10A that's overpowered in DCS?

 

Quite interesting thread so far, and big thanks for all those who took the time to do actual comparisons and provide solid data.

 

If I might just ask one thing of you guys: Could you also state which version of DCS you ran for the test? Just "Stable" or "OB" should be enough, unless you're on a really old version.

 

With the 2.5.5 OpenBeta there were rumors that the aircraft was suddenly a lot more powerful, but I don't think I've read any hard evidence yet, just a lot of gut feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides the increased thrust, I noticed that there is more delay on the throttle work. So I'd like to learn more about this:

 

The aircraft manual says:

"Engine acceleration time from IDLE to MAX thrust will beapproximately 10 seconds at sea level."


Edited by Gruw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you say that? How do you know it's not the A-10A that's overpowered in DCS?

I think you misunderstand, I used the RL 1988 A-10A performance charts, as AFAIK the A-10C charts aren't available.

 

It's entirely possible the A-10C has a dirtier airframe / higher DI than the A-10A, but I suspect they are close enough for rough comparison.

 

Note: I was doing a full flight plan / flight test to get a better feel for future 'back of the envelope' flight plans - but an advantage of using Tacview is being able to go back after and measure things like the ground roll, climb time/distance, etc. and compare them to the real and estimate an equivalent DI/GTW for the observed behaviour.

 

I wasn't looking for bugs, as I consider the A-10C a mature product, just looking for a better understanding of the modelled A-10C.

 

Also note, my tests would have been done in 1.2.x and 1.5.x, I don't recall doing a full A-10C flight plan in 2.5.x as my old data is sufficiently accurate for mission planning.

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 64GB DDR4, RTX4070 12GB, 1+2TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 4+1TB SSD, Winwing Orion 2 F-15EX Throttle + F-16EX Stick, TPR Pedals, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like it's performing, based on bbrz.

 

Regarding the 'rumor', it wasn't my intent to start a defacto urban legend, merely presenting a 'possibility' based on known concessions that were made. If it wasn't part of it, it wasn't part of it.

 

Flight experience in other aircraft is good, for general principles of flight, but irrelevant when discussing an unrelated aircraft. If you have 4000 hours in F-16s, that's great, but is no more relevant a reference point for A-10s than a guy with 4,000 hours in Cessna 172. A common argument I hear is 'I fly airliners professionally, planes are blah blah'. Unrelated experience is unrelated, even if it is tangentially in the same category.

 

As for the legalese regarding contract agreements, I think Skootch and I are in agreement. As for the 'simulator' aspect of it, in the US at least, if it doesn't have an FAA rating, which that dude's F-18 pit does not, nor do any of the components he's using, it is by definition NOT a 'simulator' in the strictest sense. My home build is as good or better quality as some professional tools I've seen pilots using for actual training... but their stuff has a FAA rating and mine doesn't.

 

So... yeah, I don't care how you dress it up, or what toys you play it with, DCS is still a game by any definition. Also, while it's highly complex, true commercial grade sims (the kind they use in the pods for rl pilot ratings etc) generally have more processing power available than some dude with a 5-10 year old CPU and Nvidia 760 GPU... They also operate without the security, data, and licensing prohibitions that sometimes are issues here, like with ECM/IFF etc that have to be very generically simulated.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstand, I used the RL [A-10A $documentation], as AFAIK the A-10C charts aren't available.

 

Oh, okay, gotcha. Yeah, I completely misread that part.

 

It's entirely possible the A-10C has a dirtier airframe / higher DI than the A-10A, but I suspect they are close enough for rough comparison.

 

To the best of my knowledge, their performance should be next to identical, because it's the exact same airframe with the exact same engines between the A and C models. I don't think stuff like the GPS antenna and some changes to the avionics will create a noticeable difference.

 

Also note, my tests would have been done in 1.2.x and 1.5.x, I don't recall doing a full A-10C flight plan in 2.5.x as my old data is sufficiently accurate for mission planning.

 

If I get the chance, I'll try to do some comparisons between 2.5.4 and 2.5.5 before 2.5.5 moves to the stable branch. Maybe that's the key to the secret after all, why it underperformed slightly in your tests and was 100% spot on in bbrz's. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. 10G in which plane? And please don't say an Extra or a similar toy plane. And what has inverted flying to do with it?

2. Quite a useless number without any weight info. What turn performance do you expect? Vst is almost 140kts at MTOW. At 2.2G the stall speed will be 210kts. That's exactly what I'm seing in the DCS A-10.

 

Not sure why you’re trashing extras, they’re well engineered and certainly no toy. I’ve seen a EA-18 grinning ear to ear after a ride in a 300l, pure stick and rudder fun with a silent radio. To answer your question, I compete in IAC advanced in a su-29 (partnership owned). Airframe is certified to 12G with a roll rate >400 deg/sec. We can’t sustain like fighters but hit much higher peak, especially negative (outside maneuvers are all the rage lately with course designers). Inverted thing just a jab at hog and her flight characteristics.

 

I’m not sure what you’re asking in 2.? I have run afoul rule 16 too many times and didn’t want to post the video link, but the HUD video found with the search terms I provided show performance that exceeds the dcs model. From video alone cannot say if it’s drag or thrust, but the a-10 in dcs I fly does not accelerate from 260kts in ~70 degree bank level turn.

 

Zhukov- you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. If you are really that passionate about the subject I’m happy to answer questions or discuss further but PMs would be more appropriate.

 

Traveling and on phone so don’t recall (and can’t scroll) who posted- but we’re discounting 1000s of hours flight time in a different just because it’s a different type? I get the 40hr 172 thing, but I’m gonna value the opinion of an experienced hornet pilot on flight characteristics of the hog, especially if they’ve studied it some, over a sim superstar quoting the -1... planes are planes, to a certain extent (extreme examples of C172 and 747 notwithstanding).

just a dude who probably doesn't know what he's talking about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still love reading the "I saw this video thing" lol. Doesn't feel right and accelerate from 260kt like in this video.

 

So many of you basically think the natops / available information is all false and ED should have just guessed at and played with to suit a pilot for DCS.

 

Thanks bbrz for doing some real testing. Even if all the documents and graphs must be wrong.

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Not sure why you’re trashing extras...

2. Inverted thing just a jab at hog and her flight characteristics.

3. I’m not sure what you’re asking in 2.?

4. the a-10 in dcs I fly does not accelerate from 260kts in ~70 degree bank level turn.

5. a sim superstar quoting the -1

1. Where did I trash the Extra? I said it's a toy, like the Su-26/29/31 etc. due to their low weight, size and Vne etc.

2. That was a 'jab'? LOL, but why?

3. A convenient way not having to admit that you are wrong, and/or having the wrong expectations.

4. Luckily it doesn't. At 70° AOB the g-load is 2.9 and the lowest point at the Tagab valley is 5500ft.

If you are able to read/and or believe the -1, even at a lower 5000ft, ISA conditions and DI 0, the maximum sustained G-load is 2.9 between 260-265kias. What magic performance do you expect?

5. Oh, another 'jab' I guess. I don't know why you are suddenly getting personal, but ususally that's a sign that the attacker knows that he's wrong ;)


Edited by bbrz

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Where did I trash the Extra? I said it's a toy, like the Su-26/29/31 etc. due to their low weight, size and Vne etc.

2. That was a 'jab'? LOL, but why?

3. A convenient way not having to admit that you are wrong, and/or having the wrong expectations.

4. Luckily is doesn't. At 70° AOB the g-load is 2.9 and the lowest point at the Tagab valley is 5500ft.

If you are able to read/and or believe the -1, even at a lower 5000ft and ISA conditions and DI 0, the sustained G-load is 2.9G at a maximum of 265kias.

Again, what performance do you expect? 70° AOB alone doesn't mean anything.

5. Oh, another 'jab' I guess. I don't know why you are suddenly getting personal, but ususally that's a sign that the attacker knows that he's wrong ;)

 

First to the prior post and reference to "this video thing" - the video is HUD camera from an A-10C flight making several gun runs in Afghanistan, The complaints here aren't about climb performance (I'm not even complaining, just explaining). Thus, arguably the video is a better source as it provides real world performance data and allows you to hear the stall warning, judge energy loss during typical attack runs and escape maneuvers. I cited timestamps with airspeed, g load, bank angle, etc., to allow comparison to A-10 in DCS performance. I find this more compelling than -1 style performance charts (density altitude, runway length, etc.), but admittedly there are variables we don't know (throttle position, load, fuel state). Your mileage may vary, I personally found it interesting.

 

Moreover - Though I agree with the opinion, this is a dead horse. The Hog driver that posted previously in this thread, the reddit IAmA A-10 pilot, and the other hog pilot pireps have all said the same thing. In fact, I've not heard anyone with actual A-10 time disagree. Again, I find that compelling.

 

All that said, I frankly do not care. Matt has stated that its not going not going to change, and its fun as is. I'm glad we're getting updated model for free, and have nothing to complain about. In retrospect, I am not sure how I even got sucked into arguing US export laws with a European non-lawyer, but perhaps someone benefited by learning why certain inaccuracies exist or systems aren't modeled in DCS. Despite an ED employee currently awaiting trial, and a lawyer good enough to be half-retired in my early 40s citing specific laws to the contrary, its still up for debate apparently.

 

bbrz - That jab wasn't meant for you, and nor was my argument personal. I don't know ATP culture, but those of us that like to fly alone or at more than 1.5g tend to talk a little shit. You might be unaware, but an actual A-10 will fall out of the sky inverted, as it lacks the fuel feed systems required.

 

As to your third point, you literally said "quite a useless number without any weight info." I provided lots of numbers, as did other posters, and have no idea what you're referencing. Please be more precise regarding what you disagree with in the future if you want a meaningful response.

 

Again, I entered this conversation to explain ITAR, not complain about A-10 performance. I now regret getting involved, as its an hour or so of my life I can't get back. That said, my response was not personal. I have frequently seen players argue with ex-hornet pilots, now knowing who they are. I find it funny, but also an important distinction between knowledge derived from manuals and sims and real world flight hours.

 

*edited out some unnecessary, gj deleting reply dude

 

Have a good day, I certainly will


Edited by sk000tch

just a dude who probably doesn't know what he's talking about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently on TDY and have not flown DCS: A-10C since probably the April or May time frame. If the drag indexes were incorrect for stores, that's an easy kill for the cause of the reduced performance. My issues previously were with ITT's and fuel flows as a cause but I will revisit those in game and post again when I return home. 15 Celsius at sea level are good test parameters.

 

 

 

I fully admit that not citing source documents, the internet factor, and going with feel alone will raise eyebrows, I get it, and thanks for listening to me. To put you all at ease, Wags has verified my credentials. I want you all to know that sim devs and fans should probably pay more attention to intangibles like "feel" at least as a consideration if you want the best experience. Power limitations over time for WW2 German engines immediately come to mind, where you always see discrepancies between technical orders and testimonies. SME consultation by DCS and other sims has probably been invaluable for a lot of the WW2 modules.

 

 

 

I'll get back to you all, thanks for the good and promising testing!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find it interesting that the aircraft seems to hit the numbers here. The drag factors for ordnance are in the natops, so could also be tested, perhaps some are out a little here and there.

 

The ITT is out and is out in the flight manual. We don't know why it is with the installed engines this way? Would this include giving the engines more rated power with the higher ITT and fuel flow....? Possibly yes.

 

Like Yo-Yo has stated. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2868802&postcount=117

"What is the thrust in the DCS - 8900 or 9065 lb" I wopuld like to mention that 9065/8900 = 1.019, i.e. the discussed difference is less than 2%, so, for example the difference in max speed for these two numbers is less than 1%...."

 

Why do the engines do this? Why was this allowed? How much more power do they have when installed?

 

Yo-Yo only has the documents that he has to go off to set these engines up to.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2868806&postcount=118

 

Does the real A-10 aircraft out outperform the specs and performance graphs? Possibly yes. Tho I would think if out so much that some things would have been corrected in those documents, unless deemed insignificant.

 

To me you would need the engineers report to know how and why you see what you see in the cockpit and know how much more power this generates compared to rated thrust 8900 or 9065 lb. ED would than be able to model in what exactly is happening to the engines once installed.

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently on TDY and have not flown DCS: A-10C since probably the April or May time frame. If the drag indexes were incorrect for stores, that's an easy kill for the cause of the reduced performance. My issues previously were with ITT's and fuel flows as a cause but I will revisit those in game and post again when I return home. 15 Celsius at sea level are good test parameters.

 

 

 

I fully admit that not citing source documents, the internet factor, and going with feel alone will raise eyebrows, I get it, and thanks for listening to me. To put you all at ease, Wags has verified my credentials. I want you all to know that sim devs and fans should probably pay more attention to intangibles like "feel" at least as a consideration if you want the best experience. Power limitations over time for WW2 German engines immediately come to mind, where you always see discrepancies between technical orders and testimonies. SME consultation by DCS and other sims has probably been invaluable for a lot of the WW2 modules.

 

 

 

I'll get back to you all, thanks for the good and promising testing!

 

Agree on feel, with obvious limitations of sim considered.

 

Presumably if you've got a lot of a-10 time you've got numbers in your head for IAS and FF/ITT at a range of conditions. I would think a clean vs. typical load comparison would determine whether drag from munitions or racks is off. With that eliminated, if straight and level numbers are off its either drag or thrust. If S&L numbers are where you'd expect, but you are bleeding more speed TLT or climbing turn, that narrows it down.

 

We don't do emergency training in DCS because, well, its a sim. But you would certainly be familiar with simulated engines out glide. Be a little hard to tell whether the speed was optimal, but it might give further hint to whether its something wonky with induced drag or thrust.

 

I think we are all pretty sure the TF34s are just a bit conservatively modeled, probably less than we think though. As you said it just feels like more... miss an entry speed and it gets magnified throughout a maneuver, my hunch is its a similar effect, but am quite curious to hear what you think.

just a dude who probably doesn't know what he's talking about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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