[NO BUG] flight model

[Quid]

Mike, no one call your's Tomcat FM wrong. And especially how it feels.

I personally find it most enjoyable 4th gen fighter for flight. Like on tips of fingers.

But obviously here is something can be better.

In my noob opinion Tomcat have too much lift or not enough drag until 1.15 mach.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but chart seems so.

 

 

Well, that chart isn't particularly useful because it doesn't include any information at all about the aircraft; as TLTeo points out, you don't have an altitude, a weight, a drag index, weapon load, engine setting, etc. All it is is a snip of a doghouse with no context, so there isn't much to be gleaned from it. That said, posting the actual doghouse is asking for trouble (rule 1.16: "1.16 Posting images, file links, and file sharing links of military aircraft documents newer than 1980 is strictly prohibited on our forums. Such posts will be removed.")

[Freakerr]

My bad, need more words about chart and lines in it. Blue line - measured by script with same load, altitude and etc. Look at totmacher's post 12.

[Noctrach]

You're wrong. You need to check that the chart is at the same weight, drag index and altitude as whatever tests people are running in DCS.

 

 

From the looks of it, it seems like the chart implies that the most G the Tomcat can hold is 4. That is absolutely not true for a turn executed at low weight and sea level.

Chart is correct insofar that the lines are 2, 3, 5 and 7.5G

 

People shouldn't expect aircraft to match all charts perfectly though, all DCS FMs are off by a couple %, better or worse depending on altitude and config. This is not real life but merely a very close approximation.

Simply the fact that stores drag is generally wrong in DCS means that any charts that are not made with a clean aircraft should be taken with a massive pinch of salt as it is something none of the developers have complete control over.

 

As examples: Hornet turns a bit faster than what's been gleaned from RL charts, Viper turns a lot slower due to some FLCS issues, F-5 is close in some regimes and much too draggy in others. Some aircraft are really close with pylons but completely silly without. Etc. etc.

 

 

If you're losing fights on 1 deg/s, the problem is your gameplan, not the FM.

[FWind]

Exactly :) ! But dufferent of turn rate 1.3 deg/sec equal different ~1500kg (~3500 pounds) of weight!

Please see data with 59110 pounds gross weight:

 

[TABLE]IAS (km/h) TAS (km/h) turn rate (d/sec) turn time (sec) aoa ny mach roll pitch flaps noseflap stick Y

420 452,4 12,87 27,97 17,15 2,9 0,3758 76,11 9,48 0,2857 no data 0,6514

430 463,2 13,51 26,65 16,89 3,11 0,3848 75,69 7,76 0,2857 no data 0,6546

440 474 14,02 25,68 16,57 3,29 0,3937 75,61 6,53 0,2857 no data 0,6566

450 484,7 14,32 25,14 16,2 3,43 0,4027 75,72 5,81 0,2857 no data 0,6556

460 495,5 14,61 24,65 15,83 3,58 0,4116 76,01 5,3 0,2857 no data 0,6548

470 506,3 14,89 24,18 15,49 3,72 0,4206 76,35 4,89 0,2857 no data 0,654

480 517,1 15,16 23,75 15,17 3,86 0,4295 76,76 4,54 0,2857 no data 0,6535

490 527,8 15,43 23,33 14,84 4,01 0,4385 77,1 4,22 0,2857 no data 0,6509

500 538,6 15,61 23,06 14,47 4,14 0,4474 77,39 3,93 0,2857 no data 0,6445

510 549,4 15,7 22,93 14,12 4,25 0,4564 77,6 3,69 0,2857 no data 0,6368

520 560,1 15,78 22,81 13,79 4,36 0,4653 77,82 3,48 0,2857 no data 0,6295

530 570,9 15,86 22,69 13,47 4,46 0,4743 78,04 3,29 0,2857 no data 0,6223

540 581,7 15,94 22,58 13,16 4,57 0,4832 78,27 3,12 0,2857 no data 0,6152

550 592,5 16,03 22,46 12,87 4,68 0,4922 78,5 2,97 0,2857 no data 0,6085

560 603,2 16,04 22,44 12,56 4,77 0,5011 78,67 2,82 0,2857 no data 0,6006

570 614 15,99 22,52 12,19 4,85 0,5101 78,78 2,68 0,2857 no data 0,5911

580 624,8 15,95 22,57 11,88 4,92 0,519 78,91 2,57 0,2857 no data 0,5847

590 635,6 15,93 22,59 11,62 5 0,528 79,07 2,46 0,2857 no data 0,5792

600 646,3 15,94 22,58 11,4 5,09 0,5369 79,23 2,37 0,2857 no data 0,5746

610 657,1 15,97 22,54 11,22 5,19 0,5459 79,41 2,28 0,2857 no data 0,5708

620 667,9 16,02 22,47 11,07 5,29 0,5548 79,59 2,21 0,2857 no data 0,5675

630 678,6 15,26 23,59 11,99 5,1 0,5638 79,31 2,46 0 no data 0,6385

640 689,4 15,33 23,48 11,89 5,21 0,5727 79,52 2,39 0 no data 0,6368

650 700,2 15,43 23,33 11,83 5,32 0,5817 79,73 2,33 0 no data 0,6357

660 711 15,47 23,27 11,71 5,42 0,5906 79,9 2,26 0 no data 0,6333

670 721,7 15,47 23,27 11,56 5,5 0,5996 80,04 2,2 0 no data 0,63

680 732,5 15,44 23,32 11,42 5,57 0,6085 80,16 2,14 0 no data 0,6264

690 743,3 15,41 23,36 11,28 5,64 0,6175 80,27 2,08 0 no data 0,623

700 754 15,38 23,41 11,15 5,71 0,6264 80,37 2,03 0 no data 0,6196

710 764,8 15,35 23,46 11,03 5,78 0,6354 80,48 1,98 0 no data 0,6164

720 775,6 15,23 23,64 10,94 5,82 0,6443 80,53 1,95 0 no data 0,6187

730 786,4 15,16 23,74 10,86 5,88 0,6533 80,62 1,92 0 no data 0,6216

740 797,1 15,13 23,79 10,78 5,94 0,6622 80,72 1,88 0 no data 0,6249

750 807,9 15,07 23,88 10,7 6 0,6712 80,8 1,85 0 no data 0,6279

760 818,7 14,98 24,02 10,63 6,04 0,6801 80,86 1,82 0 no data 0,6307

770 829,4 14,87 24,21 10,56 6,08 0,6891 80,9 1,79 0 no data 0,6332

780 840,2 14,73 24,44 10,5 6,1 0,698 80,93 1,77 0 no data 0,6356

790 851 14,87 24,21 10,42 6,23 0,707 81,12 1,72 0 no data 0,6405

800 861,8 14,99 24,02 10,35 6,36 0,7159 81,29 1,67 0 no data 0,6452

810 872,5 15,08 23,88 10,29 6,48 0,7249 81,45 1,63 0 no data 0,6495

820 883,3 15,13 23,79 10,23 6,58 0,7338 81,58 1,6 0 no data 0,6536

830 894,1 15,16 23,75 10,17 6,67 0,7428 81,69 1,56 0 no data 0,6575

840 904,9 15,23 23,64 10,12 6,78 0,7517 81,82 1,53 0 no data 0,6618

850 915,6 15,41 23,36 10,06 6,94 0,7607 82,01 1,49 0 no data 0,667

860 926,4 15,57 23,12 10,01 7,1 0,7696 82,18 1,45 0 no data 0,6719

870 937,2 15,6 23,08 9,88 7,19 0,7785 82,28 1,41 0 no data 0,6739

880 947,9 15,67 22,98 9,74 7,31 0,7875 82,39 1,37 0 no data 0,6756

890 958,7 15,78 22,82 9,63 7,44 0,7964 82,52 1,33 0 no data 0,6784

900 969,5 15,81 22,77 9,43 7,55 0,8054 82,62 1,28 0 no data 0,6783

910 980,3 15,68 22,96 9,17 7,57 0,8143 82,63 1,25 0 no data 0,6751

920 991 15,38 23,41 8,88 7,51 0,8233 82,56 1,22 0 no data 0,6647

930 1001,8 15,38 23,41 8,74 7,6 0,8322 82,63 1,18 0 no data 0,6595

940 1012,6 15,43 23,32 8,59 7,71 0,8412 82,73 1,14 0 no data 0,6542

950 1023,4 15,39 23,39 8,42 7,77 0,8501 82,79 1,11 0 no data 0,6477

960 1034,1 15,04 23,94 8,24 7,68 0,8591 82,7 1,11 0 no data 0,6387

970 1044,9 14,68 24,53 8,07 7,58 0,868 82,59 1,1 0 no data 0,6296

980 1055,7 14,34 25,11 7,92 7,48 0,877 82,49 1,09 0 no data 0,6213

990 1066,4 14,02 25,68 7,79 7,39 0,8859 82,35 1,08 0 no data 0,6137

1000 1077,2 13,69 26,29 7,66 7,3 0,8949 82,29 1,08 0 no data 0,5585

1010 1088 13,29 27,08 7,51 7,16 0,9038 82,13 1,07 0 no data 0,5492

1020 1098,7 12,92 27,86 7,34 7,04 0,9128 81,98 1,07 0 no data 0,5397

1030 1109,5 12,62 28,53 7,17 6,94 0,9217 81,87 1,06 0 no data 0,5305

1040 1120,3 12,32 29,22 6,97 6,85 0,9307 81,69 1,06 0 no data 0,5205

[/TABLE]

 

 

NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1

[Kaiju]

Exactly ! But dufferent of turn rate 1.3 deg/sec equal different ~1500kg (~3500 pounds) of weight!

 

You have your answer

 

Anything that falls below a margin of 1.5 seconds is acceptable and negligable

 

:thumbup:

[FWind]

Exactly :) ! But dufferent of turn rate 1.3 deg/sec equal different ~1500kg (~3500 pounds) of weight!

Please see data with 59110 pounds gross weight:

 

[TABLE]IAS (km/h) TAS (km/h) turn rate (d/sec) turn time (sec) aoa ny mach roll pitch flaps noseflap stick Y

420 452,4 12,87 27,97 17,15 2,9 0,3758 76,11 9,48 0,2857 no data 0,6514

430 463,2 13,51 26,65 16,89 3,11 0,3848 75,69 7,76 0,2857 no data 0,6546

440 474 14,02 25,68 16,57 3,29 0,3937 75,61 6,53 0,2857 no data 0,6566

450 484,7 14,32 25,14 16,2 3,43 0,4027 75,72 5,81 0,2857 no data 0,6556

460 495,5 14,61 24,65 15,83 3,58 0,4116 76,01 5,3 0,2857 no data 0,6548

470 506,3 14,89 24,18 15,49 3,72 0,4206 76,35 4,89 0,2857 no data 0,654

480 517,1 15,16 23,75 15,17 3,86 0,4295 76,76 4,54 0,2857 no data 0,6535

490 527,8 15,43 23,33 14,84 4,01 0,4385 77,1 4,22 0,2857 no data 0,6509

500 538,6 15,61 23,06 14,47 4,14 0,4474 77,39 3,93 0,2857 no data 0,6445

510 549,4 15,7 22,93 14,12 4,25 0,4564 77,6 3,69 0,2857 no data 0,6368

520 560,1 15,78 22,81 13,79 4,36 0,4653 77,82 3,48 0,2857 no data 0,6295

530 570,9 15,86 22,69 13,47 4,46 0,4743 78,04 3,29 0,2857 no data 0,6223

540 581,7 15,94 22,58 13,16 4,57 0,4832 78,27 3,12 0,2857 no data 0,6152

550 592,5 16,03 22,46 12,87 4,68 0,4922 78,5 2,97 0,2857 no data 0,6085

560 603,2 16,04 22,44 12,56 4,77 0,5011 78,67 2,82 0,2857 no data 0,6006

570 614 15,99 22,52 12,19 4,85 0,5101 78,78 2,68 0,2857 no data 0,5911

580 624,8 15,95 22,57 11,88 4,92 0,519 78,91 2,57 0,2857 no data 0,5847

590 635,6 15,93 22,59 11,62 5 0,528 79,07 2,46 0,2857 no data 0,5792

600 646,3 15,94 22,58 11,4 5,09 0,5369 79,23 2,37 0,2857 no data 0,5746

610 657,1 15,97 22,54 11,22 5,19 0,5459 79,41 2,28 0,2857 no data 0,5708

620 667,9 16,02 22,47 11,07 5,29 0,5548 79,59 2,21 0,2857 no data 0,5675

630 678,6 15,26 23,59 11,99 5,1 0,5638 79,31 2,46 0 no data 0,6385

640 689,4 15,33 23,48 11,89 5,21 0,5727 79,52 2,39 0 no data 0,6368

650 700,2 15,43 23,33 11,83 5,32 0,5817 79,73 2,33 0 no data 0,6357

660 711 15,47 23,27 11,71 5,42 0,5906 79,9 2,26 0 no data 0,6333

670 721,7 15,47 23,27 11,56 5,5 0,5996 80,04 2,2 0 no data 0,63

680 732,5 15,44 23,32 11,42 5,57 0,6085 80,16 2,14 0 no data 0,6264

690 743,3 15,41 23,36 11,28 5,64 0,6175 80,27 2,08 0 no data 0,623

700 754 15,38 23,41 11,15 5,71 0,6264 80,37 2,03 0 no data 0,6196

710 764,8 15,35 23,46 11,03 5,78 0,6354 80,48 1,98 0 no data 0,6164

720 775,6 15,23 23,64 10,94 5,82 0,6443 80,53 1,95 0 no data 0,6187

730 786,4 15,16 23,74 10,86 5,88 0,6533 80,62 1,92 0 no data 0,6216

740 797,1 15,13 23,79 10,78 5,94 0,6622 80,72 1,88 0 no data 0,6249

750 807,9 15,07 23,88 10,7 6 0,6712 80,8 1,85 0 no data 0,6279

760 818,7 14,98 24,02 10,63 6,04 0,6801 80,86 1,82 0 no data 0,6307

770 829,4 14,87 24,21 10,56 6,08 0,6891 80,9 1,79 0 no data 0,6332

780 840,2 14,73 24,44 10,5 6,1 0,698 80,93 1,77 0 no data 0,6356

790 851 14,87 24,21 10,42 6,23 0,707 81,12 1,72 0 no data 0,6405

800 861,8 14,99 24,02 10,35 6,36 0,7159 81,29 1,67 0 no data 0,6452

810 872,5 15,08 23,88 10,29 6,48 0,7249 81,45 1,63 0 no data 0,6495

820 883,3 15,13 23,79 10,23 6,58 0,7338 81,58 1,6 0 no data 0,6536

830 894,1 15,16 23,75 10,17 6,67 0,7428 81,69 1,56 0 no data 0,6575

840 904,9 15,23 23,64 10,12 6,78 0,7517 81,82 1,53 0 no data 0,6618

850 915,6 15,41 23,36 10,06 6,94 0,7607 82,01 1,49 0 no data 0,667

860 926,4 15,57 23,12 10,01 7,1 0,7696 82,18 1,45 0 no data 0,6719

870 937,2 15,6 23,08 9,88 7,19 0,7785 82,28 1,41 0 no data 0,6739

880 947,9 15,67 22,98 9,74 7,31 0,7875 82,39 1,37 0 no data 0,6756

890 958,7 15,78 22,82 9,63 7,44 0,7964 82,52 1,33 0 no data 0,6784

900 969,5 15,81 22,77 9,43 7,55 0,8054 82,62 1,28 0 no data 0,6783

910 980,3 15,68 22,96 9,17 7,57 0,8143 82,63 1,25 0 no data 0,6751

920 991 15,38 23,41 8,88 7,51 0,8233 82,56 1,22 0 no data 0,6647

930 1001,8 15,38 23,41 8,74 7,6 0,8322 82,63 1,18 0 no data 0,6595

940 1012,6 15,43 23,32 8,59 7,71 0,8412 82,73 1,14 0 no data 0,6542

950 1023,4 15,39 23,39 8,42 7,77 0,8501 82,79 1,11 0 no data 0,6477

960 1034,1 15,04 23,94 8,24 7,68 0,8591 82,7 1,11 0 no data 0,6387

970 1044,9 14,68 24,53 8,07 7,58 0,868 82,59 1,1 0 no data 0,6296

980 1055,7 14,34 25,11 7,92 7,48 0,877 82,49 1,09 0 no data 0,6213

990 1066,4 14,02 25,68 7,79 7,39 0,8859 82,35 1,08 0 no data 0,6137

1000 1077,2 13,69 26,29 7,66 7,3 0,8949 82,29 1,08 0 no data 0,5585

1010 1088 13,29 27,08 7,51 7,16 0,9038 82,13 1,07 0 no data 0,5492

1020 1098,7 12,92 27,86 7,34 7,04 0,9128 81,98 1,07 0 no data 0,5397

1030 1109,5 12,62 28,53 7,17 6,94 0,9217 81,87 1,06 0 no data 0,5305

1040 1120,3 12,32 29,22 6,97 6,85 0,9307 81,69 1,06 0 no data 0,5205

[/TABLE]

 

 

 

4xAIM-9+4xAIM-7, 55620 Pounds, Drag Index 44

2XAIM-9+2xAIM-7+2xAIM54+2x280GAL, 59695 Pounds, Drag Index 102

Edited June 26, 2020 by FWind

[HDpilot]

Maybe I should be a bit more clear on this: there is nothing wrong with the FM

Either the FM is correct or not. Your F14 turn rate doesn't match any of the 55620 gross weight maneuvering or specific excess power diagrams with auto flaps. It turns too fast with too high g.

---------------------

Anything that falls below a margin of 1.5 seconds is acceptable and negligable

Would it also be acceptable and negligable if it turned 1,5sec too slow?

----------------------

Then, add 3° turnrate with flaps deployed, this comes from grumman, but there are no charts for flaps.

+

I would also like to add that what Fat Creason means, is no charts, no hard data. However, we know from our SMEs and Grumman reports that the flaps deployment would drastically increase its turnrate below 250kts (and it is said at around 3° or even more per second, but that is a guesstimate). This was an overall accepted feature in general, and the flight model gives if you take it. Ofc there are penalties for that, which are modeled as well.

Nice guesstimate (the whole FM seems to be the same)

Devices on auto already give us ~2°/ sec following the charts

and:

and the best possible sustained turn rate speed is well above the maximum full-flap deployment speed.

lets see:

Вот 100%

that was good :megalol:

 

Have a look here (if you like it in general and have time)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140024&page=471

A in phys. and aerodynamics issues very erudite user (called AAK) show us a possible example to calculate the required thrust based on aerodynamic quality and gross weight/wing load.

Its anytime better than guesstimate and not to know, right?

The truth is that we don't know

--------------------------------------

(You need to compare with the Ps=0 curve on the EM chart, in case someone did not know.)

In-depth knowledge, wow

--------------------------------------

if you fly with 1% or 15% fuel and no loadout, yes you get a turning monster.

None of the charts are modeled there, but using Gillcrist's description of the less-powerful F-14A's show, that looks about correct.

It is better to try to calculate (based on performance charts and n=L/W for exaple) than to believe in fairy tales. Following charts, at sealevel the sustained autoflaps load factor at M 0,5 and 15% of fuel should be ~ 6-6,5g and not 7,8g.

----------------------------------------

No one does that anyway....If you think it is, please go ahead and "win" in BFM with 1% or 15% percent fuel... A complete null-argument.

???? What a nonsense, if you start at 50% you will have 15% after a while. Depending on the situation, you will have an unfair advantage on the finishing line. That happens daily in the DCS "reality".

 

 

When will the DM be corrected? The Tomcat still pull up to 18g shortly without damage.

Or that was also verified by the Iranian sheikh?

Edited June 28, 2020 by HDpilot

[Airhunter]

Either the FM is correct or not. Your F14 turn rate doesn't match any of the 55620 gross weight maneuvering or specific excess power diagrams with auto flaps. It turns too fast with too high g.

 

May I ask what your background is? Genuinely curious for various reasons. Which charts are you using to compare this to? (navy ducument designation please).

Edited June 28, 2020 by Airhunter

[Kaiju]

The Tomcat still pull up to 18g shortly without damage.

 

 

18G !!! :lol::lol::lol:

 

 

The F14 wings broke before (average 10G)

 

 

Have you done the same kind of analysis, even as simplistic as you do for the F14 (without real data) for the FM of the F18, F16, F15, Mig29, Su27-33 which are them really absurd ?

Edited June 28, 2020 by Kaiju

[HDpilot]

May I ask what your background is? Genuinely curious for various reasons. Which charts are you using to compare this to? (navy ducument designation please).

NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1 F-14BD Performance charts 15 Sep 1990

And what is your background?

18G !!!

Damn, the free trial had a different DM!

Agree its not a mega, no, its a giga, no, its a TERALOL!!!!!!!

No real data??? OK, then it can only be 18G!!! Hahaha, hihihihi, huhuhu...........

[Quid]

Either the FM is correct or not. Your F14 turn rate doesn't match any of the 55620 gross weight maneuvering or specific excess power diagrams with auto flaps. It turns too fast with too high g.

 

 

I’m wondering how much of this is as a result of incorrect stores drag compared to the actual jet itself.

 

 

---------------------

Would it also be acceptable and negligable if it turned 1,5sec too slow?

 

 

Fair point; I think there would be complaints. Right now, the F/A-18 is off by about 2°/sec too high max STR compared to publicly available data at SL, but it doesn’t seem like many virtual Hornet drivers are clamoring for it to change. If it was too low, though, they probably would.

----------------------

 

 

 

+

Nice guesstimate (the whole FM seems to be the same)

Devices on auto already give us ~2°/ sec following the charts

and:

lets see:

that was good

 

 

He’s not talking about maneuver flaps, he’s talking about full flaps. Maneuver flaps add about 2°/sec at 5,000 feet compared to when they’re not functioning. The testing done here with full flaps at 280 knots is definitely above their limit and probably would push the rate up further.

 

Have a look here (if you like it in general and have time)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140024&page=471

A in phys. and aerodynamics issues very erudite user (called AAK) show us a possible example to calculate the required thrust based on aerodynamic quality and gross weight/wing load.

Its anytime better than guesstimate and not to know, right?

 

You assume the entire thing is a guesstimate? Certain elements would have to be for any military aircraft, but that’s a pretty flagrant accusation.

 

It is better to try to calculate (based on performance charts and n=L/W for exaple) than to believe in fairy tales. Following charts, at sealevel the sustained autoflaps load factor at M 0,5 and 15% of fuel should be ~ 6-6,5g and not 7,8g.

 

None of the Tomcat's charts in the 1.1 are modeled for 15% fuel, nor clean, nor at sea level. The lightest chart for the Tomcat assumes a 4-4 loadout and about 54% fuel and the lowest it goes is 5,000 feet. In the situation Gillcrist wrote about, the F-14A had no stores, about 10% fuel, was on the deck, loaded 8.5g at 350 and accelerated to 400 by turn's end. The pilots he spoke to, who flew it, would have known how much “g” they loaded with the max g pointer on the gauge pointing at 8.5.

 

???? What a nonsense, if you start at 50% you will have 15% after a while. Depending on the situation, you will have an unfair advantage on the finishing line. That happens daily in the DCS "reality".

 

 

And probably run out of gas and be forced to eject unless you’re right next to base. But that doesn’t matter in DCS. This is the thing I don’t get – the demand to make things realistic, then do unrealistic things with the jet, then bitch.

 

 

This whole thing kicked off because of testing the F-14 in utterly ridiculous configurations followed by “ZOMG 1+ 7uRnZ Too G00D!!111!one!!one!” Why are you testing the jet at 1% fuel? For the test configurations with stores, my question is (as I asked above): are the drag values of the stores accurate? They seem to get adjusted a fair amount.

 

When will the DM be corrected? The Tomcat still pull up to 18g shortly without damage.

Or that was also verified by the Iranian sheikh?

 

 

I’ve never even once gotten that high without losing the wings. Maybe it does need to be tweaked, but anything higher than ~12.5 and they separate.

[Golo]

...This is the thing I don’t get – the demand to make things realistic, then do unrealistic things with the jet, then bitch...

 

 

:megalol:

[Noctrach]

The amount of armchair experts on this forum trying to hide their ineptitude at BFM behind half-baked, pseudo-intellectual bitching is crazy.

 

No. If they bumped the turnrate down 2 degrees a second to give you that desired +1.5 second on the turn circle the jet would still be perfectly fine and would still beat you in a fight. Especially if the pilot doesn't mind breaking it.

 

If you're complaining about these kinds margins you should be complaining for every jet on every DCS forum, since this is well below the average error.

You should then follow this up by accepting your BFM gameplan is trash because you haven't gotten beyond nose-to-tail, pull and hold.

 

Play the damn game. Learn, improve, overcome.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Noctrach

[IronMike]

We don't reply to blatant insults, unsubstantiated accusations and claims without even giving a number for comparison, as well as quotes from forums which have probably not even been experienced by the complaining person themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

I will answer to only one question: yes, if it was up to 1.5 seconds slow that, too, would be an acceptable and negligable margin.

[HDpilot]

He’s not talking about maneuver flaps, he’s talking about

 

"SMEs and Grumman reports that the flaps deployment would drastically increase its turnrate below 250kts (and it is said at around 3° or even more per second, but that is a guesstimate)"

 

 

None of the Tomcat's charts in the 1.1 are modeled for 15% fuel, nor clean, nor at sea level.

If this is a problem, it is a reason not to create an FM

 

the demand to make things realistic, then do unrealistic things with the jet, then bitch.

 

About realism:

I think by now it should be clear that this module strives for realism like few others and has more in depth SME input than most likely any other single module sim product known so far. :)

 

Why are you testing the jet at 1% fuel?

Who?

 

I’ve never even once gotten that high without losing the wings.

trial version, 50% fuel, sealevel, initial speed ~400-450kts up to 18g, 14-15g with full flaps

 

We don't reply to blatant insults

 

I am sorry if you feel offended on behalf of your "FM", but I didn't say "The truth is that we don't know"

You should actually have a "number for comparsion"

bye bye

 

p.s.

I will answer to only one question: yes, if it was up to 1.5 seconds slow that, too, would be an acceptable and negligable margin.

Such a coincidence that it turn faster

Edited June 28, 2020 by HDpilot

[Airhunter]

NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1 F-14BD Performance charts 15 Sep 1990

And what is your background?

 

Damn, the free trial had a different DM!

Agree its not a mega, no, its a giga, no, its a TERALOL!!!!!!!

No real data??? OK, then it can only be 18G!!! Hahaha, hihihihi, huhuhu...........

 

You haven't answered my question regarding your background (you probably don't want to either). What chart (document page) are you referencing for your tests specifically? How are you getting the telemetry from DCS and how are you flying said tests? (Please dont tell me you are using an external autopilot like that other guy). What hardware are you using? (HOTAS setup).

 

Last time I checked going anywhere above 12G's will damage your INS and break the jet, wings will snap at 13 and you'll be a mission kill either way. If you somehow manage to pull 18 G's by an abrupt pull on the stick for a fraction of a second then, well that might be a DCS-ism and has literally no use whatsoever in any imaginable scenario of flight envelope.

 

Even certified full flight simulators the NAVY, other militaries and civilian operators use, usually have a descrepancy of around 5% compared to the real thing, even with a full proper control loading setup with AFU's. Keep in mind DCS is a desktop simulator and apart from the visual and aural feedback there is no way of feeling load factors on both the jet, your body, flight stick loads (in the case of hydromechanical systems) or various other aerodynamic factors such as buffet, sideslip and atmospheric influences. Even with said knowledge and posession of the mentioned performance data stated in the perf. manual and your conducted tests on sustained rates and G's, how would said knowledge be applied in any useful and most importantly, consistant manner? Are you now a god of DCS BFM and can beat anyone in any plane at will just because you have a perceived 1,5-2° advantage? Or do you simply live in your little theoretical world with numbers, making yourself believe that?

 

Lastly, the "haha, hihi and huhu's" only show your level of maturity and seriousness. Nothing personal, just an observation.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Airhunter

[IronMike]

trial version, 50% fuel, sealevel, initial speed ~400-450kts up to 18g, 14-15g with full flaps

 

 

 

 

As for turn rate: show us a track or video and we will take a look. Else please stop with your unsubstantiated accusations. The FM is not wrong, even if you believe it is. There is a margin of error, and as I said, it is both acceptable and negligable.

 

 

 

If you spike once into around 15G that is possible. But I doubt you can reproduce pulling 14-15G or pulling 18G 10/10 on the initial pull. If you can, then this is a bug. Instead of throwing tantrums, please show us the proof and we will fix it. that simple.

 

But please take your aggressive tone and attitude elsewhere, or this discussion will be over. Thank you.

 

Also, if you do not own the tomcat, you are obviously complaining because you think that we made it "OP" in order to give it an advantage. This is yet another accusation, we most certainly will not stand for. Nothing could be further from the truth. So if your intention is to help us improve something we could, then please be our guest. If you just come here to unload your frustrations, then please let it be. It will not get you anywhere.

[Airhunter]

As for this statement:

 

trial version, 50% fuel, sealevel, initial speed ~400-450kts up to 18g, 14-15g with full flaps

 

With landing (AUX) flaps extended the operational limit is 0 to 2.0 G's (in both roll and pitch). With maneuver flaps extended the limit is 5.2, non rolling. So congrats, you broke the jet. Said scenarios, speed and load factor regimes you mention are way outside the envelope and have no real performance data for them (because nobody ever went there). Somehow if I bust those limits (not nearly by the magnitudes you mentioned), running the latest open beta of DCS, the flaps will jam, (asymmetrically in the worst case), something else will break or snap and render the jet useless. I wonder why.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Airhunter

[TLTeo]

Yea the jet always breaks much sooner. Plenty of people have claimed the opposite since the Tomcat's release, but curiously nobody has shown proof.

[Raubritter]

With very short and sharp movements of the stick you can see 17-18g in the information line dks. The only way. When this track in TacView will show no more than 10-11g.

I just showed where they get these values.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Hummel

[Quid]

"SMEs and Grumman reports that the flaps deployment would drastically increase its turnrate below 250kts (and it is said at around 3° or even more per second, but that is a guesstimate)"

 

 

Read the whole line – “what Fat Creason means, is no charts, no hard data” followed by the need to use SMEs and Grumman reports about flaps. This is the landing flaps, not maneuver flaps; the Tomcat’s charts include one set with the maneuver flaps inoperable, and one set with the maneuver flaps operating on auto. They do not include how full flaps adjust the max lift and Ps lines, hence the need for SME input, developer data and approximation.

If this is a problem, it is a reason not to create an FM

 

No, it means you need other sources for your FM. It also means you saying “Following charts, at sealevel the sustained autoflaps load factor at M 0,5 and 15% of fuel should be ~6-6,5g and not 7,8g.” is inaccurate. There is no chart for that, nor any chart for clean/DI=0 unless you’re using another source (e.g., and official engineering report or something). What I was quoting was based on an actual profile flown and written down in a book by a former fighter pilot. You can say something “should” be one way, but then you actually do it and it’s another. Something’s either wrong with your assumptions, your variables, your math, or alternatively, maybe the accelerometer broke and the jet didn’t hit 8.5g in reality; I suppose it’s possible?

Who?

 

 

I’m guessing you didn’t read anything on page 1 or 2, where the videos provided that kicked off this entire “conversation” were trying to show the jet to be overpowered by flying at 1% fuel (set to unlimited so it could get around the circle without losing both motors to fuel starvation) and another at about 15% fuel that matched up closely to the F-14A profile on almost no fuel remaining.

 

 

trial version, 50% fuel, sealevel, initial speed ~400-450kts up to 18g, 14-15g with full flaps

That's pretty nuts; how did you get fast enough to load 14-15g with full flaps?

[Kaiju]

It is amazing to see that those who try here to change the FM of the Tomcat, do not even have it. However, the FM of an F18 which holds in the air like a helicopter it does not matter or a Su27 which gear down in full dogfight.

 

The others developpers changed anything ? so why would Heatblur do it without evidence and for people who don't have it ?

[captain_dalan]

Hey guys. I haven't flown her in over a month maybe, at least not for real. That means the last 3 patches at the very least. And despite the huhuhuhihihhi guy sounding extremely immature, i decided to go on and test the core of the envelope tonight, you know, the benefit of a doubt. Just to see if his claims are based on anything tangible.

 

So i did some math, based on the charts, standard atmosphere at 15 degrees C, sea level, 15% fuel, 4x4 Sp Sw load. And i got about 6.1-6.2 sustained g's at 330 knots. Hopped in the Tomcat and got 6.7-6.8. Ok nothing as dramatic as 7.8. Knowing that lift and drag curves might be a bit tricky at higher alpha, i decided to go with a number the charts do list, that is 50% fule, 4x4 at sea level. Changed the mission accordingly and flew again. This times at 3 break points, 2 listed in the charts mach 0.45 and mach 0.6, as well as the mach 0.5. The g-goal was 5.0, 6.5 and 5.5 accordingly. To my surprise, she was capable of sustaining 5.5, 6.9 and 6.0. So the core of the envelope does appear to be about 0.5g off at 0.45 and 0.50 mach, and 0.4g at 0.6 mach. How much of it is stores influences and how much other factors, i can't say.

 

I'll try and make a video of it all and post it here. 0.5 g isn't as sensational as the OP may have wanted it, but it is still a significant oscillation, one i would like to see corrected if possible (we know some sacrifices must be made to make the entirety of the envelope as close to the real thing). :thumbup:

[Freakerr]

1.5 seconds limit is ok difference if we speaking about 30 seconds turn. Like 30.7 instead 29.3. Not awesome, not fail. Good enough for digital combat simulator. But here it is 9% of the turn rate.

And my personal opinion 9% gap is too much to be fully satisfied as user or development. For example I hope you woudn't ignore if awg-9 doppler filter has 9% lower filter settings. Here is the same. This is not major problem, but it still require minor polish.

As DCS F-14 pilot I hope you take care about it.

And even if another module have bigger gap, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try make yours better.

[captain_dalan]

 

Here's that quick vid