Turn rate has tanked with new update

[IronMike]

@IronMike Any rough idea when we might be getting the performance fix?

 

Not sure when the next hotfix will be, we hope soon. We have also prepared a plethora of other fixes.

[IronMike]

 

I'm sure the contribution the SMEsone are giving is really exceptional and i thank them. On the other hand i find Paco's experience really interesting because it seems he had several opportunities to experiment full flaps vs F15 :)

 

I'd love for Paco to try it, too. Unfortunately it looks like this will have to wait till after Corona. However, I doubt he over-stressed flaps that often that it would bring new light in this issue. It is not like our SMEs don't have experience with overstressing flaps. It would be in general great to hear what Paco has to say, about everything, not only the flaps. I'll do you a favor though, I will ask him how often he did it, and what the outcome was, and if he is willing to reply, I will share it with you. However: I need to finish this campaign first, so please remind me after its release in case I forget.

[maxsin72]

 

I'd love for Paco to try it, too. Unfortunately it looks like this will have to wait till after Corona. However, I doubt he over-stressed flaps that often that it would bring new light in this issue. It is not like our SMEs don't have experience with overstressing flaps. It would be in general great to hear what Paco has to say, about everything, not only the flaps. I'll do you a favor though, I will ask him how often he did it, and what the outcome was, and if he is willing to reply, I will share it with you. However: I need to finish this campaign first, so please remind me after its release in case I forget.

 

It would be great! I think the favour it's not only to me but to everybody who loves the Cat, Thanks :thumbup:

[IronMike]

 

It would be great! I think the favour it's not only to me but to everybody who loves the Cat, Thanks :thumbup:

 

It's pretty much only for you, haha, but that is totally ok, dear friend. That others might benefit from it of course is natural, and who knows, we might learn something new. I'll just advise caution ahead, that it is very unlikely it will change anything regarding flap overstress damage. Just so you are not disappointed. It's a courtesy to you, because you like Paco that much. But again, our SMEs don't lack any of his experiences - and in the end it is and will always be their input we go by, because they also have hands on experience on our Tomcat, means they can compare the in game behavior to what it did in real life. :-)

Edited November 21, 2020 by IronMike

[maxsin72]

 

It's pretty much only for you, haha, but that is totally ok, dear friend. That others might benefit from it of course is natural, and who knows, we might learn something new. I'll just advise caution ahead, that it is very unlikely it will change anything regarding flap overstress damage. Just so you are not disappointed. It's a courtesy to you, because you like Paco that much. But again, our SMEs don't lack any of his experiences - and in the end it is and will always be their input we go by, because they also have hands on experience on our Tomcat, means they can compare the in game behavior to what it did in real life. :-)

 

Who knows? Perhaps Paco could also tell us some of the stories about duels between F14 and F15, it would be great!

I'll remind you for sure to contact him :D

[Hummingbird]

 

Not sure when the next hotfix will be, we hope soon. We have also prepared a plethora of other fixes.

 

Yeah hopefully you can squeeze it in for the semi regular wednesday update. Also please have a look at the CADC schedule for the maneuver slats/flaps, as currently they don't deploy in the 0-0.58 mach range as they should, but instead only 0-0.50 mach.

[Southernbear]

I suppose part of the reasons people have such strong reactions could be in part to ED not holding the same standards as Heatblur. I'm pretty sure this argument happened almost 1:1 in C.W. lemoine's Tournament event thread with the aircraft being limited not to use flaps and to G factors of the books, thankfully they changed it to 7.5 as per Grumman rather then the Navy's 6.5.

 

(Now I'll use the F/A-18 as an example but I'm sure there are other planes that have similar "quirks" that IRL wouldn't have been used the way we use them in this Sim.)

 

But in another way they also helped the Tomcat by limiting the paddle switch use in the F/A-18 and thats the smoking gun. Even without the flaps if you get 2 good pilots and not allow the F/A-18 to use it's paddle switch then not let the F-14 use it's flaps it will not only match it but in most situations be slightly better then the F/A-18 which is what we saw in that event with the finalists being in, guess what? F-14s.

 

I suppose the issue now in it's wider scope is as Heatblur has changed the flaps completely because they strive for realism but because ED doesn't hold the same standard there is no real penalty or negative for example a Bug pilots to abuse their Paddle switch constantly since we now don't have our Ace in the hole anymore.

 

U could even look at 2019?'s SATAL engagement where as quoted by one of the HB Dev's who was part of it said "a FC3 module that will not be named", just to be diplomatic, managed to snatch victory away from the F-14s which had made it to that stage of the competition just because of ease of use and simplicity of FC3 planes compared to not only a full fidelity module but the F-14 no less (Remember they had to also use Human RIOs for that event so no Jester).

 

Now as a glass half full person I would personally turn this around into a positive and say that after this change, if you manage to shoot down a F/A-18 or any other plane that has these kind of "quirks" in BFM or ACM then that makes you automatically the better pilot in that engagement. It also means they no longer have any leg to stand on if they try and tell you your wrong because YOU did it legitimately.

 

Remember boys and Girls, Tom Cruise didn't need no silly gamey Flap strats to beat Viper in the A-4 or the Russians in their Mig 28s, He just needed Kelly McGillis, Grumman engineering and the wibbly wobbly vibes of Scientology!

[IronMike]

...and the wibbly wobbly vibes of Scientology!

 

He healed them all. Especially Brooke Shields.. :sorcerer:

 

[Kula66]

silly gamey Flap strats

 

You completely fail to acknowledge that full flaps and G over 7.5 were used in training ACM by fleet pilots ... there is plenty of evidence to support this. I expect we'll see the 14 break apart at 7.51G next!

 

PS> And don't talk to me about competitive play ... the 54 is currently banned in SATAL and I've just had to pull out of another comp because of the state of the 14Bs FM after the latest patch :( It's a mess.

[Southernbear]

 

You completely fail to acknowledge that full flaps and G over 7.5 were used in training ACM by fleet pilots ... there is plenty of evidence to support this. I expect we'll see the 14 break apart at 7.51G next!

 

PS> And don't talk to me about competitive play ... the 54 is currently banned in SATAL and I've just had to pull out of another comp because of the state of the 14Bs FM after the latest patch :( It's a mess.

 

I mean I'm all ears if this was the case as I'm sure HB would be too, if nothing else your evidence would be a good read if you could provide it.

[Sideburns]

 

You completely fail to acknowledge that full flaps and G over 7.5 were used in training ACM by fleet pilots ... there is plenty of evidence to support this. I expect we'll see the 14 break apart at 7.51G next!

 

 

Yes, we would be interested to see the "plenty of evidence to support this" if you please? What is your basis for this statement?

[Hummingbird]

 

You completely fail to acknowledge that full flaps and G over 7.5 were used in training ACM by fleet pilots ... there is plenty of evidence to support this. I expect we'll see the 14 break apart at 7.51G next!

 

PS> And don't talk to me about competitive play ... the 54 is currently banned in SATAL and I've just had to pull out of another comp because of the state of the 14Bs FM after the latest patch :( It's a mess.

 

Aux flaps at 7.5 G?? Yeah... no.

 

 

Having wings & maneuver devices in auto is all you need to be most effective in the F-14. This aux flap exploit simply wasn't used at the speeds & G's you guys are claiming, esp. since it wouldn't be needed at all in order to beat the other US fighters in mock fights. At the speeds where aux flaps are viable (225 kts and below), the F-14 is already vastly better in auto than the F-15 or F-16, both of which don't like going that slow.

[Skysurfer]

Yeah like, the NATOPS CLEARLY!!! states various limits for AUX flaps, one being 2G's, symmetric. Period and no discussion, exceed that and you're now a test pilot.

[HAAUK]

end of the day, I maintain the Tomcat will always be my Favourtie plane and I appreciate the sheer effort by HB to Produce the module...

 

However, I do question the phillsophy to keep the Tomcat as close to IRL as possible especially when ED has shown to clearly not give any cents about it.

 

end of the day, DCS has a very strong multiplayer demographic, IMHO, it does't make sense to be the only guy flying a ultra-realistic module while all the other modules are space-ships with infinite seeking photon torpedos (an exxageration, but case in point).

 

and this is just my view as someone who treats DCS as a sim-game.

[Kula66]

Ok, I'll rephrase that for the benefit of some:

 

... sometimes full flaps and at other times G over 7.5 (OBVIOUSLY, not at the same time) ...

[Skysurfer]

end of the day, I maintain the Tomcat will always be my Favourtie plane and I appreciate the sheer effort by HB to Produce the module...

 

However, I do question the phillsophy to keep the Tomcat as close to IRL as possible especially when ED has shown to clearly not give any cents about it.

 

end of the day, DCS has a very strong multiplayer demographic, IMHO, it does't make sense to be the only guy flying a ultra-realistic module while all the other modules are space-ships with infinite seeking photon torpedos (an exxageration, but case in point).

 

and this is just my view as someone who treats DCS as a sim-game.

 

Well, that is a whole other rabbit hole to go down. The fact that we still have mostly FC3 planes on red mixed together with the rest and missiles using different API's is another aspect. I also think it's up to the developer to make the module as realistic as they desire - especially when it comes to airframe overstress or internal system damage Heatblur are at the top of the game. Like how about the JF-17 outsustaining the 16 on release, having unnotchable radar and the Viper having an AESA currently that is seeing farther than the Tomcat. And if you really knew what you were doing you'd beat an F-16 with it's 9G's adhering to 6.5 G's in the Tomcat. G's aren't everything, turn rates arent everything. I see most people yanking sticks like crazy and pulling insane alpha to get those high aspect snapshots all the time instead of getting into the control zone and into a good guns track and shooting position. DCS development can be very frustrating at times as essential things tend to be broken or not working quite a lot so you can't simply enjoy and play the game in a PvP scenario all the time but I am sure once it's all done and polished it'll be well worth the struggle.

[GGTharos]

end of the day, DCS has a very strong multiplayer demographic, IMHO, it does't make sense to be the only guy flying a ultra-realistic module while all the other modules are space-ships with infinite seeking photon torpedos (an exxageration, but case in point).

 

You don't have a case or a point, but go on blaming losses on things that aren't true if it makes you feel better. Every single aircraft currently sold has a solid FM, issues aside (they all have issues), and the missile simulation new vs old FM/API changes things little. The F-14 itself has problems with its own weapons in DCS, how's this the fault of other modules?

 

Here's your case in point: You're flying an older airframe with older weapons and systems vs. much more advanced ones. What are you expecting exactly?

[FWind]

Ok, I'll rephrase that for the benefit of some:

 

... sometimes full flaps and at other times G over 7.5 (OBVIOUSLY, not at the same time) ...

Well..............

AIAA-81-2461 Fleet Flight Loads Survey monitoring and analysis techniques

and

Statistical analysis of aircraft maneuvering data

[Hummingbird]

Ok, I'll rephrase that for the benefit of some:

 

... sometimes full flaps and at other times G over 7.5 (OBVIOUSLY, not at the same time) ...

 

G's over 7.5 were pulled many times, and the aircraft had no problems with that, the airplane possessing the same ultimate load limit as the F-15, and was tested even further. But using full flaps was for landing only, using it during heavy maneuvering was playing dice with the aircraft. So really, just leave the aux flaps to when you're landing.

[Wizard_03]

Yeah if you have to break the jet every time to win, your really not a good pilot period. Because they're plenty of turkey lovers out there that can both win and stay within the aircraft's limitations.

[Kula66]

So really, just leave the aux flaps to when you're landing.

 

I think we all get that, but that's not really the point ... were Aux flaps used by some USN pilots during mock ACM? If yes, did they break during mock ACM? Probably. Was there a risk of them breaking over 225kts as stated in NATOPS? Sure. What was the safety factor builtin into the NATOPs figure? No idea, but probably a lot more than the amount in this weeks 'correct' implementation.

 

'G's over 7.5 were pulled many times' ... yes I know. I was using it as an example of what may come next in HBs development cycle - go to 7.51G and the wings fall off, because of the often repeated mantra of 'it says in NATOPS' ... I was using it as an example of where what it says in NATOPS being a safety/maintainability related figure, and it had a significant safety margin built into to, like-wise, I would expect that Aux flaps figure to have some reasonable safety margin.

 

[Skysurfer]

 

I think we all get that, but that's not really the point ... were Aux flaps used by some USN pilots during mock ACM? If yes, did they break during mock ACM? Probably. Was there a risk of them breaking over 225kts as stated in NATOPS? Sure. What was the safety factor builtin into the NATOPs figure? No idea, but probably a lot more than the amount in this weeks 'correct' implementation.

 

'G's over 7.5 were pulled many times' ... yes I know. I was using it as an example of what may come next in HBs development cycle - go to 7.51G and the wings fall off, because of the often repeated mantra of 'it says in NATOPS' ... I was using it as an example of where what it says in NATOPS being a safety/maintainability related figure, and it had a significant safety margin built into to, like-wise, I would expect that Aux flaps figure to have some reasonable safety margin.

 

And this is where you are wrong.

[GGTharos]

 

I think we all get that, but that's not really the point ... were Aux flaps used by some USN pilots during mock ACM? If yes, did they break during mock ACM? Probably. Was there a risk of them breaking over 225kts as stated in NATOPS? Sure. What was the safety factor builtin into the NATOPs figure? No idea, but probably a lot more than the amount in this weeks 'correct' implementation.

 

'G's over 7.5 were pulled many times' ... yes I know. I was using it as an example of what may come next in HBs development cycle - go to 7.51G and the wings fall off, because of the often repeated mantra of 'it says in NATOPS' ... I was using it as an example of where what it says in NATOPS being a safety/maintainability related figure, and it had a significant safety margin built into to, like-wise, I would expect that Aux flaps figure to have some reasonable safety margin.

 

You get a safety figure of 130% to 150% so at minimum deformation would not start until 9.7G and the wings would fall off at 11.2 or so, that's if you use 7.5 as the design limit. HB aren't silly, they know what they're doing.

[Kula66]

GGT, you are missing the point completely ... I'm deliberately using the 7.5 limit as an example of something silly!

 

[Kula66]

And this is where you are wrong.

 

That's highly likely ...