[NO FM CHANGES IN UPDATE] Flight Model/Engine Thrust Tweak?

[wilbur81]

Could be my imagination, but just took the Hornet out for BFM and general 'wring-out' and it seems that the 7-15 OB update this week may have included some Hornet FM or Engine Model tweaking? It seems to bleed energy a lot quicker and have less nose authority and maneuverability at low speeds than prior to the latest update.

 

In general, the Hornet seems to have less overall performance. Am I just imagining this? Just wondering if anyone who likes to BFM/max-perform the Hornet on a regular basis has noticed these (maybe imagined?) performance drops since last week's OB update?

Edited July 20, 2020 by wilbur81

[maxTRX]

I haven't tried BFM yet but I also imagined that in PA mode it took me longer to trim and the jet was a 'little' more ungainly :suspect:

[wilbur81]

I haven't tried BFM yet but I also imagined that in PA mode it took me longer to trim and the jet was a 'little' more ungainly :suspect:

 

Haven't tried any Carrier landings yet. But, man... she seemed to really fly like a pig today (slower acceleration, quicker energy bleed, poorer maneuverability below 150 knots, etc.) compared to how she flew a week ago before the latest OB. But again, maybe I'm just imagining it. Of course the Changelog didn't mention any flight model or engine changes to the Hornet, but we know how changelogs go. :)

[marcoacv]

I realized that too! The plane appears to have a gigantic drag.

[marcoacv]

Meanwhile after the update on the 15th, the F16 reaches mach1.4 at low altitudes with six 120 and two tanks.

[dundun92]

Meanwhile after the update on the 15th, the F16 reaches mach1.4 at low altitudes with six 120 and two tanks.

Video/Track please?

[majapahit]

Trapping is easier it seems, mission aborted, RTB, 4xMAV/center tank loadout, jettison all with TGP kept, easy trap with higher speed than before (~142 or something), next mission abort, RTB boat minus 1xAGM65, with fuel in center tank, A-A, TGP and 3xMAV on wings, easy trap higher speed than before no 'drop like a brick' below 'on speed' instances.

This is great?

[majapahit]

A test, mission abort, RTB boat, all station loaded, AG, AA, TGP and center tank, 20kts winds, 35kts OD, CASE I, 'on speed' groove 154kts, #3, by the book (sort of, can't help myself doing fast breaks).

This actually makes more sense, feels great, smooth as butter, no tendency to sink like a brick dunking, still harder than F-14, but who knows, this feels better, is this more realistic?

Edited July 22, 2020 by majapahit

[wilbur81]

still harder than F-14...

 

The Hornet is harder to land than the F-14?!?! Something's not right.

[majapahit]

The Hornet is harder to land than the F-14?!?! Something's not right.

F-14 is - a lot - more WIP than F-18 that is the lesser WIP, I'd say

[wilbur81]

Hey, fellas.

 

I did some very amateurish testing today as I still feel like the Hornet has lost performance with the update on 7-15 last week…which is mostly apparent in 1v1 BFM type conditions. I tested this mission (FM Test.miz) in both the latest OB version and Stable Version. Note that I’m using a clean Hornet, but with Pylons and Max internal fuel, with the same starting conditions (point on map, altitude, airspeed, ect.), weather, etc.

 

In the first test, I go from mission start (at max burner from the start) to 20 seconds in, past the EI hour as indicated on the HUD, to see what airspeed can be achieved in that time frame at full power, in both the OB and Stable. As you can see, in the Stable FM, the jet has a 5 knot advantage.

 

In the second test, I fly (at max burner from the start) to 12 seconds as indicated on the HUD and then execute a max pull to 90 deg pitch. As you can see, again, the Stable FM has about a 5 knot airspeed advantage at the end of 90 degrees of pitch.

(** side note: look at the rate of climb as well above the altitude box on the HUD. Obviously, the faster speed gives better rate)

 

5 knots doesn’t seem like much, but what I’m noticing is that, in a 1v1 BFM fight, that first pull is 5 knots more costly in the latest OB, and then the second and third pulls are exponentially more costly, resulting in a poorer performing BFM'ing Hornet than before the 7-15 O.B. update.

 

Maybe this change is pylon drag implementation? Maybe it is now more realistic? All I know is, this latest Oben Beta rendition of the Hornet seems like it’s taken a performance hit. I’m hoping that someone with more skill and time than I have can do some more definitive testing… or the Devs can tell us if changes were actually made and, if so, why? :thumbup:

Edited July 23, 2020 by wilbur81

[TGW]

Yes,

 

Something has (considerably) changed with the Hornet FM and the performance of some weapons. Have you noticed the following:

 

1.) The Bug doesn't turn like she used to. Thrust performance and induced drag are way off . . . .

 

2.) AIM-9X is easily defeated now?

 

3.) T-Pod can't guide a Paveway-II bomb to hit the broadside of a barn now (in some cases), wth? Very evident, in sea missions. I thought it may have been a server problem, but is happening on all servers . . .

 

These subtle changes you're making are really starting to miff people. This aircraft is nothing like it was last year, in terms of performance. Looks like it's going to be "put on the shelf", and some other combat sim take it's place until ED can figure out what they're doing here . . . Too bad, it 'was' a very respectable module. Not sure what you guys have done, but with all the 'new' additional features you've been adding, you've definitely shaved some other areas to make it 'equitable' . . . meh . . . too bad . . .

Edited July 23, 2020 by TGW

[Snappy]

Yes,

 

Something has (considerably) changed with the Hornet FM and the performance of some weapons. Have you noticed the following:

 

1.) The Bug doesn't turn like she used to. Thrust performance and induced drag are way off . . . .

 

Maybe its just closer to the real aircraft, i.e. more realistic now? It used to outrate sustained everything in DCS (including the F-16 which performs apparently close the numbers) except the f -14 , which was somewhat suspect , as the Hornet is not exactly famous for being an awesome 2C rate fighter.

 

Regards,

 

Snappy

Edited July 23, 2020 by Snappy

[wilbur81]

Maybe its just closer to the real aircraft, i.e. more realistic now? It used to outrate sustained everything in DCS...

 

This is the question. Is it closer to reality or not? Rate is one thing, but it seems now that the low-speed handling the Hornet was so famous for seems to have deteriorated as well. But, again, there needs to be more comprehensive and professional testing than what I've provided above.

[Snappy]

What would be even more informative was if we finally got the comprehensive performance graphs - real vs DCS, which Nick Grey announced were coming some 7 month ago on Hoggit, so that every user can compare reality versus DCs performance for himself.

 

Quote:

"In Q1 of 2020, we plan to make available all our CFD calculations, performance graphs and data sets for most of our missiles and AC in DCS. We have set ourselves a hard target of delivering to you the most reliable and precise missile FM and guidance laws in order to put any uncertainty or lack of clarity to bed. This work is being done with the assistance of all our SME's and 'friends' in industry and while not all data is openly available, our aerodynamics and missile specialists will deliver a very scientific report for those of you who wish to cross-examine our calculations and findings in detail. Our goal is to move closer and closer to reality where and when possible and to deliver enhanced combat realism and customer satisfaction. That goes for airframe aerodynamics, engines and systems as well." End of Quote.

 

Well Q1 is not happening obviously, not that that is much of a surprise.

 

regards,

 

Snappy

Edited July 23, 2020 by Snappy

[marcoacv]

Dear Friend

 

Video/Track please?

 

 

Dear friend, I know you have the modules mentioned above and I'm sure you can do this test. Simply accelerate the viper with six 120s and then the F-15.

[jmarso]

The Hornet is harder to land than the F-14?!?! Something's not right.

 

I'm finding this to be true as well, although to be honest I fly the 'Cat a helluva lot more than the hornet.

 

I think the biggest issues with the Hornet when it comes to the pattern are the low aspect ratio wing (compared to a 'Cat with 20 degrees of sweep), and the slow power response on the engine. Angle of bank changes in the pattern in the Hornet seem to have more effect on lift, and then the slow power response when you adjust with power turns it into a game of chasing throttles settings around. I also notice when I make a power change in the Tomcat, when I set an RPM value it stays there. In the Hornet, I set an RPM value, and when I cross-check it a few seconds later it seems to have gained or lost a couple percent, which is not insignificant in that jet.

 

To me, the engine response is the biggest problem in the hornet- it just seems godawful slow to spool up. Getting low in close in the Hornet is a damn death sentence- you're gonna hit the ramp.

[Syndrome]

Meanwhile after the update on the 15th, the F16 reaches mach1.4 at low altitudes with six 120 and two tanks.

Dear friend, I know you have the modules mentioned above and I'm sure you can do this test. Simply accelerate the viper with six 120s and then the F-15.

 

I have the modules and ran this test. Couldn't break mach 1 at low alt with 2 bags and six 120. Did you dive from 50k ft?

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by Syndrome

[maxTRX]

This morning I did a quick BFM test in a Hornet against a Mig29S.

 

I could not see any changes in performance (clean jet, 7k lbs.of fuel at the start of the fight, between 18k and 10k feet). I tried loaded turns, pirouettes, sustained g turns. It felt the same to me. The only thing I thought was different was the energy bleed after letting the a/s build up past 470, 480. Before, it was hard to get rid of extra knots even at max g once I let the a/s get away.

Now, it happens quicker.

Take it with a grain of salt though... the previous tests were done a while ago and from what I remember at lower altitude, so... just another amateurish opinion to add to confusion:D

 

Now, I also fired couple of Amraams and 9x's and they worked fine. Someone mentioned some issues in another thread. I didn't see any so far. Both 120's followed midcourse guidance, went active. The first one ran out of steam (which I expected) the second killed the bandit.

 

The heaters were fired at extreme angle and ripped the bandit apart.

 

Back to FM.

The PA mode is still screwed up. Mostly FCS but it also 'felt' maybe a tiny bit sluggish... I don't know any more:doh:

 

It would certainly be helpful if any changes no matter how small were reported so we can play test pilots:)

Edited July 23, 2020 by Gripes323

[wilbur81]

It would certainly be helpful if any changes no matter how small were reported so we can play test pilots:)

 

100% agree. :thumbup:

 

I'm thinking about posting a little BFM test mission here that people can run on both Stable and latest O.B. so that they can see any differences that may now exist. I'll probably do, like, 6 engagments GUNZO and see how many of the 6 I can win using both versions of DCS.

 

I did a pitch test today between the two versions with the same mission/conditions... full AB from start; max stick deflection at 10 seconds; hold until the jet no longer adds degrees of pitch. In Stable, the jet kept pitching through 63 (ish) degrees before all positive nose movement was lost. In the latest O.B., it hit the wall at 55 degrees. It seems that something has definitely changed. I might be noticing more than most people here because I only exclusively fly the Hornet and I'm a sucker for guns-only BFM ( and have been since 2003 LOMAC :)).

Edited July 23, 2020 by wilbur81

[dundun92]

Dear friend, I know you have the modules mentioned above and I'm sure you can do this test. Simply accelerate the viper with six 120s and then the F-15.

Im not the one suggesting this. Ive never been able to hit mach 1.4 on the deck unless I dived from alt. If you think otherwise, the burden of the proof is on you.

[TGW]

100% agree. :thumbup:

 

I'm thinking about posting a little BFM test mission here that people can run on both Stable and latest O.B. so that they can see any differences that may now exist. I'll probably do, like, 6 engagments GUNZO and see how many of the 6 I can win using both versions of DCS.

 

I did a pitch test today between the two versions with the same mission/conditions... full AB from start; max stick deflection at 10 seconds; hold until the jet no longer adds degrees of pitch. In Stable, the jet kept pitching through 63 (ish) degrees before all positive nose movement was lost. In the latest O.B., it hit the wall at 55 degrees. It seems that something has definitely changed. I might be noticing more than most people here because I only exclusively fly the Hornet and I'm a sucker for guns-only BFM ( and have been since 2003 LOMAC :)).

 

@wilbur81 +1!

[DLEGION]

eh… i had the feeling, but told myself i just imagined it.

now i see this and i feel a bit better.

anyway this ED behaviour of sneak in downgrades and make no patch notes about that, really makes me think they have something to hide.

i dont get the reason…. the only coming to my mind is to make other planes shine… but thats really too ridicolous to be true.

Plus , real pilots like Mover, Gownky ecc, keeps telling that F18c is way more fast at accelerating, less draggy, and more manouvrable… for god sake why they keep downgrading it, and without info ??

i dont get it.

[wilbur81]

eh… i had the feeling, but told myself i just imagined it.

now i see this and i feel a bit better.

anyway this ED behaviour of sneak in downgrades and make no patch notes about that, really makes me think they have something to hide.

i dont get the reason…. the only coming to my mind is to make other planes shine… but thats really too ridicolous to be true.

Plus , real pilots like Mover, Gownky ecc, keeps telling that F18c is way more fast at accelerating, less draggy, and more manouvrable… for god sake why they keep downgrading it, and without info ??

i dont get it.

 

Tests, tests... let's publish tests. :thumbup: Try my mission posted earlier in this thread (post #11). Perform some good tests and replicate them in both versions and post results. :)

[wilbur81]

So, it looks like there have been significant changes to the Hornet FM since this latest O.B. not mentioned at all in the changelogs:

 

I flew (Results and tracks below) a break turn with max stick deflection starting at roughly 460 kts at a heading of about 016 for a full 360 degrees of turn at max AB. Both screens show the final bearing after completing the turn.

 

STBL Turn Test.trk

 

OB Turn Test.trk

 

Please note the final AOA readings too... which make sense but are a BIG difference. Note also "Max G" in the HUD. Not sure if that is a product of my own spastic initial pull being inconsistent or a new FCS tweak in the latest OB? It's telling, though, that the current G and Max G pulled are equal in both scenarios.

 

Feel free to use the "Take Control" option and try some tests yourself. I sure wish they'd publish major changes to the FM...as Wags mentioned today: FM changes are a big deal. :thumbup:

Edited July 24, 2020 by wilbur81