Jump to content

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


wilbur81

Recommended Posts

Wish ED would comment on this, as there have been no notifications of these changes, or why.

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's interesting is, before last week's OB update, it made sense in the Hornet to enter a merge at about 390-400 kts on the HUD as I could swing the nose around and utilize the Hornet's strong low-speed handling. Now, it seems like best practice is to enter the merge at like 450+ kts, which feels a bit more F-15-ey.

 

I'm no real pilot, though, so I'm just making guesses while I wait for Lex, GB, Mover, or the Devs to interject. :)

 

**Another test mission: MACH Test.miz

 

Starts with a clean hornet (with pylons) with 4500 lbs of internal fuel at 500 kts and maintains 2000 ft MSL.

 

Stable: Achieves M 1.17 top speed with max AB

Latest OB: Achieves M 1.08 top speed with max AB


Edited by wilbur81

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep . . .

 

Well, it appears my assumption of the overall parasitic and induced drag (alpha performance too) profiles have changed, and I believe they are quite considerable. No comment from ED either. Hmmm, without including these changes in the changelog makes me highly suspicious to a theory of the other aircraft's performance stated earlier in this thread. Which was probably stimulated by those complaining about the Bug and it's strengths. Too bad, back to the shelf till ED figures this out as this type of manipulation will not be handled well for those who have made sizable investments ($$$) into this flight simulator expecting ACCURATE RESULTS (confirmed through several public documents, and not some unconfirmed 'single' page performance chart <cough, cough, M2K>)! ED needs to come clean (ALL changes made, be above board) and get these modules performance's back on track!!!

 

Hmmm, where did I put that F4-BMS disc at? . . .


Edited by TGW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :)

 

For myself, never doubted that ED doesn't always mention each and every modification in the changelogs.

 

Specially stuff like this (FM modifications), which is directly related with the aircraft's performance are crucial, and obviously tend to stir up great levels of rant from the people.

 

Although I didn't try those changes yet, personally I'm not very fond of them, as anything which might restrain the Hornet's maneuverability specially at low speeds doesn't fit well on my book either...

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't noticed anything different on the Hornet FM, especially when it comes to BFM performance it feels the same as before. But i will do some tests and see if i can spot any differences.

 

Just give those tests in post #25 above a try and you'll see there's a significant change somewhere (FM, power, drag, something). :thumbup:

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, i don't see any change at all. STR, speed and acceleration numbers are the same as they used to be. I don't see a reason (and i'm too lazy) to revert back to an older version so i could do side by side comparison to be 100% sure, but there's no significant change for sure.

 

Just give those tests in post #25 above a try and you'll see there's a significant change somewhere (FM, power, drag, something). :thumbup:

Your stable track doesn't seem to playback correctly on OB, you have a video of it by any chance? Oh and don't accelerate tracks, it increases the chance they get corrupted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, i don't see any change at all.... I don't see a reason (and i'm too lazy) to revert back to an older version so i could do side by side comparison to be 100% sure, but there's no significant change for sure.

 

If you're not actually willing to do the work and test the two versions side by side, then you are not in a position to say "there's no significant change for sure."

 

I have both Stable and OB loaded on separate drives so I test them while both programs are open when switching back and forth. Doesn't surprise me that a Stable test track doesn't work on an O.B. platform. Are you using the latest OB? Again, my test results are displayed above for those who don't want to watch the tracks or want (or are too lazy :)) to actually do some testing.

 

I'll be the first to admit, though, that my testing is amateurish compared to what some others here would have the time or ability to execute... so please do. :thumbup:


Edited by wilbur81

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify something, as of a couple of days ago, stable and OB are the same build; you're still using the previous stable build, right, not the current one?

 

Good question: I'm using the latest OB build but not the latest Stable (I'd have to go back and check the number as I don't update Stable as frequently but I go with every new OB that comes out.)


Edited by wilbur81

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Wish ED would comment on this, as there have been no notifications of these changes, or why.

 

Hi

 

There were no flight model changes for the hornet in the last patch.

 

thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

 

There were no flight model changes for the hornet in the last patch.

 

thanks

 

Thanks for the official word. :thumbup: By "last patch" you mean the 7-15 OB patch? Since there have been some since to OB and Stable. Also, does that include no changes to pylon/weapons drag I assume? My testing between builds seemed pretty straight forward. Were my tests really that bad? Haha. ;)


Edited by wilbur81

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Thanks for the official word. :thumbup: By "last patch" you mean the 7-15 OB patch? Since there have been some since to OB and Stable. Also, does that include no changes to pylon/weapons drag I assume? My testing between builds seemed pretty straight forward. Were my tests really that bad? Haha. ;)

 

To be clearer for you, there have been no changes in FM and drag value for months.

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

 

There were no flight model changes for the hornet in the last patch.

 

thanks

 

"in the last patch" Ok. How bout in the last 5 patches then and this was shown in the changelog, correct?? 'Wording' has to be definitive and precise, when handling this type of matter . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am quite new to DCS:f-18 (only two months) and still trying to learn the basics but I have also realized a considerable change in the flight model. It easily looses energy in dog fights and I am not even able to cope up with mig-15's in 1to1 gunnery missions:) )

(ok maybe I am not a good pilot but I wasnt that bad a week ago)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like progress is being made towards a more realistic flight model. For months the hornet has been capable of turn rates well above what it should be able to do from performance charts.

 

About 6 months ago I made some EM diagrams for a few aircraft in DCS, and compared then to real world data. The hornet was grossly over-performing for the test conditions.

 

Dances

 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my Stable version in the tests above is the last 2.5.5 branch of Stable (kept by me because of its better overall FPS performance :)) . So, Hornet FM/Engine stuff must have been changed within some version of 2.5.6.

 

In the latest Open BETA (v 2.5.6.52437), starting with a clean Hornet (with pylons) at 40,000ft and 400kts, with max AB, full internal fuel and A/P set to BARO hold, the jet took 5 m. and 17 s. to hit Mach 1.63 and it never exceeded Mach 1.66 in level flight.

 

In Stable version 2.5.5.41371 (the last Stable version of 2.5.5), the jet achieved Mach 1.75 in the same amount of time and topped out at 1.76 in level flight. See screens below.

Screen_200727_114222.thumb.jpg.15414ed1897043117e59d5aeb5bffef5.jpg

 

So, again, there were apparently some fairly significant changes made somewhere during iterations of 2.5.6.

 

**another little test and question: A clean jet with pylons and only 4000lbs of internal fuel cannot achieve Mach 1.2 at 5,000 ft MSL. It only achieved Mach 1.12. (and at 10,000ft MSL, Mach 1.19.) Is the real Block 20 that draggy and under-powered? I'm not saying any of this is unrealistic, just surprising to little, uneducated me. And when any jet in DCS takes a bit of a performance hit in an update without any word from the devs, it's bound to get the attention of those who love that particular jet and how it's been performing up to the (stealthily made) change(s).

 

But I'll take realistic over what I like any day of the week...and realistic is what I like. :thumbup:


Edited by wilbur81

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like progress is being made towards a more realistic flight model. For months the hornet has been capable of turn rates well above what it should be able to do from performance charts.

 

About 6 months ago I made some EM diagrams for a few aircraft in DCS, and compared then to real world data. The hornet was grossly over-performing for the test conditions.

 

Dances

 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

 

Would you like to share which unclassified documentation you based the Hornet's 'over-performance' with? Would you like to share your EM data that you created so it can be peer reviewed for accuracy? Please also list the 'real world' documents you used for your comparisons. Were your testing methods by the use of scripts (very accurate) or, were they 'hand flown' (non-precise) to arrive at the assumption(s) you have made?

 

 

 

 

@wilbur81 +2 :)


Edited by TGW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 6 months ago I made some EM diagrams for a few aircraft in DCS, and compared then to real world data. The hornet was grossly over-performing for the test conditions.

 

Really would like to see that real world data you used as well.

 

So, my Stable version in the tests above is the last 2.5.5 branch of Stable

 

Well that explains few things. In 2.5.6 drag for pylons was added which explains differences in top speed and FCS weight bug was fixed which explains your turn test results. So yeah you're right, just 5 months late. :D

 

**another little test and question: A clean jet with pylons and only 4000lbs of internal fuel cannot achieve Mach 1.2 at 5,000 ft MSL. It only achieved Mach 1.12. (and at 10,000ft MSL, Mach 1.19.) Is the real Block 20 that draggy and under-powered?

 

According to the GAO report, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my Stable version in the tests above is the last 2.5.5 branch of Stable (kept by me because of its better overall FPS performance :)) . So, Hornet FM/Engine stuff must have been changed within some version of 2.5.6.

 

In the latest Open BETA (v 2.5.6.52437), starting with a clean Hornet (with pylons) at 40,000ft and 400kts, with max AB, full internal fuel and A/P set to BARO hold, the jet took 5 m. and 17 s. to hit Mach 1.63 and it never exceeded Mach 1.66 in level flight.

 

In Stable version 2.5.5.41371 (the last Stable version of 2.5.5), the jet achieved Mach 1.75 in the same amount of time and topped out at 1.76 in level flight. See screens below.

 

So, again, there were apparently some fairly significant changes made somewhere during iterations of 2.5.6.

 

**another little test and question: A clean jet with pylons and only 4000lbs of internal fuel cannot achieve Mach 1.2 at 5,000 ft MSL. It only achieved Mach 1.12. (and at 10,000ft MSL, Mach 1.19.) Is the real Block 20 that draggy and under-powered? I'm not saying any of this is unrealistic, just surprising to little, uneducated me. And when any jet in DCS takes a bit of a performance hit in an update without any word from the devs, it's bound to get the attention of those who love that particular jet and how it's been performing up to the (stealthily made) change(s).

 

But I'll take realistic over what I like any day of the week...and realistic is what I like. :thumbup:

 

 

So, can I get my money back?

| VR goggles | Autopilot panel | Headtracker | TM HOTAS | G920 HOTAS | MS FFB 2 | Throttle Quadrants | 8600K | GTX 1080 | 64GB RAM| Win 10 x64 | Voicerecognition | 50" UHD TV monitor | 40" 1080p TV monitor | 2x 24" 1080p side monitors | 24" 1080p touchscreen |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really would like to see that real world data you used as well.

 

Well that explains few things. In 2.5.6 drag for pylons was added which explains differences in top speed and FCS weight bug was fixed which explains your turn test results. So yeah you're right, just 5 months late. :D

 

According to the GAO report, yes.

 

I've kind of been assuming pylon drag as I know this is something they've been talking about for quite a while, but was pylon drag mentioned in any changelogs? Also, what is "the GAO report?"


Edited by wilbur81

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another random thing worth mentioning; make sure your axis curves are set to the same value in your 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 installations for testing, otherwise you're not providing the same inputs to the sim.

 

 

Actually, this would have no bearing on the performance of the jet (assuming you have allowed full output to the control surfaces) as the curves function only provide a logarithmic (a finer response on smaller inputs) output to the control surfaces. So, unless you have damped the output to something less than 100%, then this would make no difference in flight performance measurement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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