FM after latest patch

[IceFire]

Hornet still gets FM tweaks every now and then almost a year in. May not be reported but I notice them.

[Mking]

I say the same give more time for fine tune. a good wine needs time too cheers

[Hummingbird]

No it does not. Sustained turnrate will be around 16°/sec at about mach 0.6 and 5g. Maybe you are talking about turn rate at corner airspeed but that woulde be 22°/s at 6.5G. I really can't understand where you get the 19°/s @ 6.7g from.

 

I am talking about sea level performance where'as you're focused on performance at 5,000 ft, which you got rather wrong btw.

 

At 5,000 ft and M 0.6 the sustainable load factor is 5.7 G:

 

With that data it is easy to calculate the sustainable G's & rate at sea level, which is around 6.7 G's and 18.6 deg/sec (19 deg/sec is at M 0.57) at M 0.6. [speed for max STR moves back with decreases in altitude]

Edited April 11, 2019 by Hummingbird

[captain_dalan]

At 55,600 lbs with 4x AIM-9 + 4x AIM-7's the real F-14B is able to sustain ~6.7 G at M 0.6 @ SL (~19 deg/sec).

 

It isn't. It's supposed to be 6.5g at 0.6 mach SL.

 

Where do you have these numbers from? The 1.1 doesn't nearly give these values for a sustained turn in that configuration.

 

It does have the numbers, you are just probably reading the wrong page (as i am assuming Hummingbird does).

 

I think you are a little too optimistic on that

Sustained turnrate will be around 16°/sec 5.2g @5K and 14°/s 5g @10k. Getting another 1.5g and 3° turnrate more at SL does seem too much

 

You are right. It's not that simple. A linear increase in thrust doesn't always mean a linear increase in sustained g capability. The lift and the drag (especially the drag) tends to increase faster with the increase in alpha (which you need to increase the rate of turn)

[Hummingbird]

It isn't. It's supposed to be 6.5g at 0.6 mach SL.

 

I get 6.6-6.7 G's, an increase of 0.9-1 G from M 0.6 performance 5,000 kft (5.7 G).

[lunaticfringe]

What is happening during early access that FM should be changed?

 

A previously mentioned minor shortchange on the top end. They'll resolve that, then adjust the small difference made in the subsonic area while keeping things aligned around M 2.

 

These aren't gross changes, but minor adjustments. And the heart of the envelope, like I said, is always brought back once the current area of concern is tightened down. Give it a bit.

[Hummingbird]

You are right. It's not that simple. A linear increase in thrust doesn't always mean a linear increase in sustained g capability. The lift and the drag (especially the drag) tends to increase faster with the increase in alpha (which you need to increase the rate of turn)

 

No he really isn't. The sustainable load factor is 5.7 G's at M 0.6 @ 5,000 ft.

 

At SL this should translate to about 6.6-6.7 G's at the same Mach number. We see the exact same happen on the F-16 & F-15 charts.

[Hummingbird]

A previously mentioned minor shortchange on the top end. They'll resolve that, then adjust the small difference made in the subsonic area while keeping things aligned around M 2.

 

These aren't gross changes, but minor adjustments. And the heart of the envelope, like I said, is always brought back once the current area of concern is tightened down. Give it a bit.

 

Copy that, I also have confidence they will bring back the subsonic performance, I just hope it's sooner rather than later as the Cat is rather tame atm :P

 

It's very disheartening to see a similarly loaded Eagle happily follow your turn at 0.5-0.7 Mach, speeds at which I should be rather comfortably outturning him :)

[FWind]

A previously mentioned minor shortchange on the top end. They'll resolve that, then adjust the small difference made in the subsonic area while keeping things aligned around M 2.

 

These aren't gross changes, but minor adjustments. And the heart of the envelope, like I said, is always brought back once the current area of concern is tightened down. Give it a bit.

What is the Top end？:thumbup:

[Sonoda Umi]

Actually, the FM needs further adjustments, i.e. the top speed unable to reach M2.3+ at 40,000ft, but it shall be buff not Nerf.

[Eldur]

I don't understand why the devs are adjusting the FM at the moment, was there some problem with how the Cat performed in previous patches? It seemed to be right on the money and I've heard no complaints or seen no particular irregularities with the flight model?

 

The only issue I know of was the fact that it couldn't do M 2.34, but just ~ 2.15 for most people while some claim to have done as much as 2.4.

 

Oh, and, it's hardly possible to cruise at mil above 45k ft. I could go up further with pulling the wings back forward with the emergency handle though. That is since HB removed it's weird "space flight" capability.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Eldur

[captain_dalan]

I get 6.6-6.7 G's, an increase of 0.9-1 G from M 0.6 performance 5,000 kft (5.7 G).

 

No he really isn't. The sustainable load factor is 5.7 G's at M 0.6 @ 5,000 ft.

 

At SL this should translate to about 6.6-6.7 G's at the same Mach number. We see the exact same happen on the F-16 & F-15 charts.

 

That is not how it works. First you need to calculate how much lift you need to generate 6.7g at mach 0.6 SL. Then you find what angle of attack you need to generate that lift. Then find the drag coefficient for that angle of attack and calculate the induced drag at 6.7g mach 0.6 at SL. How that you have your lift and drag, you can calculate your lift-to-drag (the Cl and Cd were really enough for this). Now check your thrust to weight at mach 0.6. Is it enough, more or less to generate 6.7g at mach 0.6 SL?

 

But that's the long route. Why don't you open page 190 in your performance manual and tell me at what mach point does the Ps=0 for 6.5g intersect the 0 altitude line? :book:

[Cobra847]

I don't understand why the devs are adjusting the FM at the moment, was there some problem with how the Cat performed in previous patches? It seemed to be right on the money and I've heard no complaints or seen no particular irregularities with the flight model?

 

We were within very small margins of error on launch, but if we feel we can get it just a bit closer, we will. There is always room for improvement, even with a 10y old FM.

 

We have an automated testing system that we use to adjust with. This gives us a good overview of performance and where the model can be nudged in the right direction.

Validation against these tests happens every build.

[captain_dalan]

We were within very small margins of error on launch, but if we feel we can get it just a bit closer, we will. There is always room for improvement, even with a 10y old FM.

 

We have an automated testing system that we use to adjust with. This gives us a good overview of performance and where the model can be nudged in the right direction.

Validation against these tests happens every build.

 

Haven't had the chance to fly this beauty as much as i would like (RL issues), so i have no idea how close she was to the published data before or after the change. Is she "safe" for intended use? As in, if i was to use her now in BFM, now much deviation should i expect (roughly)?

[fat creason]

As Cobra stated, we’re in the middle of making some FM updates based on a new large subset of automated tests we’ve recently created. These tests will help us match the data even closer than before. I plan on making a post detailing these updates once they’re complete. Beyond that you may see some subjective handling qualities tweaks based on SME feedback, but nothing else is anticipated that will affect raw performance numbers.

 

Ideally, we would like to have the FM’s objective performance numbers with the F110 as close as possible to our data sources before working on the TF30 thrust model. Changes in lift and drag will affect performance that usually results in needed changes to thrust, and we’re trying to avoid having to change both thrust models later down the line. Essentially we want to eliminate the airframe itself as a source of error before we’re having to maintain two thrust models on the same airframe.

 

Hold your sticks and whip out your EM charts after I’ve made the update.

Edited April 11, 2019 by fat creason

[captain_dalan]

As Cobra stated, we’re in the middle of making some FM updates based on a new large subset of automated tests we’ve recently created. These tests will help us match the data even closer than before. I plan on making a post detailing these updates once they’re complete. Beyond that you may see some subjective handling qualities tweaks based on SME feedback, but nothing else is anticipated that will affect raw performance numbers.

 

Thanks for the heads-up! Much appreciated :thumbup:

Can you please make it a sticky as well? Seams like a good idea to be aware of these.

 

Also, i just spent about half an hour with the old FM (pre update). She seams right for the most part (in the subsonic region, 0-20000ft), except for some spikes around 5g (between mach 0.4 and 0.8 depending on altitude). It should be noted that my stick discipline can be inconsistent at times.

 

Gonna run the updater now and see if there are any changes.

 

Keep up the good work, i love what you guys have done with her so far :thumbup:

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

As Cobra stated, we’re in the middle of making some FM updates based on a new large subset of automated tests we’ve recently created. These tests will help us match the data even closer than before. I plan on making a post detailing these updates once they’re complete. Beyond that you may see some subjective handling qualities tweaks based on SME feedback, but nothing else is anticipated that will affect raw performance numbers.

 

Ideally, we would like to have the FM’s objective performance numbers with the F110 as close as possible to our data sources before working on the TF30 thrust model. Changes in lift and drag will affect performance that usually results in needed changes to thrust, and we’re trying to avoid having to change both thrust models later down the line. Essentially we want to eliminate the airframe itself as a source of error before we’re having to maintain two thrust models.

 

Awesome feedback, thanks for the info!!

[jcdata]

Look at the FF curves.. look at the Psub to get your FN.

 

 

Typically. 5k' change in altitude usually adds almost 2 degrees of rate. The 14's CV seems to drop even lower speeds as you descend

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[captain_dalan]

Just updated and ran a short run only at sea level (it's way past midnight here) and oddly enough, she feels more inline subsonic right now. A went through my checkpoints and they seam fairly accurate up to mach 0.8. It is the supersonic portion that seams under powered now (at least this low). In the combat configuration she is barely supersonic. Going through the mach number seams slower and more difficult (just 4x4, no bags) and sustaining above 4g above mach 1.0 is a no go, let alone 5.

[sdflyer]

I’ve seen several pilots tried DCS planes just to express their dissatisfaction with flight model. While I understand limitation of flight simulation to me F-14 flight model was exaggerated mess from day one :)

 

My TM Warthog doesn’t deliver anything that I can relate to real life stick and rudder flying LOL May be in universe of hardcore simmer it’s something that make sense, but in my case I’m totally frustrated. Lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[turkeydriver]

I thought after this patch I could accelerate better and get back some energy lol. Maybe less thrust but better acceleration?

[IceFire]

Edited April 12, 2019 by IceFire

[104th_Maverick]

to me F-14 flight model was exaggerated mess from day one

 

Based on what? Your extensive experience flying Tomcsts in real life?

[Ohgr]

Here we go, the "I sat in a cessna once" pilots who know more than everyone!

[Strikeeagle345]

I’ve seen several pilots tried DCS planes just to express their dissatisfaction with flight model. While I understand limitation of flight simulation to me F-14 flight model was exaggerated mess from day one :)

 

My TM Warthog doesn’t deliver anything that I can relate to real life stick and rudder flying LOL May be in universe of hardcore simmer it’s something that make sense, but in my case I’m totally frustrated. Lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk