Turn rate has tanked with new update

[Shimmergloom667]

4 hours ago, illegal1984 said:

 

To be honest, flight models are messed up across the board on DCS. There are AOA shots people are getting off that are simply absurd.

 

 

And on what rigorous ingame testing and comparing to what is known to the public domain do you base this, oh sagely one? 

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Shimmergloom667 said:

And on what rigorous ingame testing and comparing to what is known to the public domain do you base this, oh sagely one? 

No need for testing or data. It's proven whenever one lose a MP dogfight

[Shimmergloom667]

50 minutes ago, draconus said:

No need for testing or data. It's proven whenever one lose a MP dogfight

 

Ah of course, how could I forget??

[fat creason]

4 hours ago, draconus said:

No need for testing or data. It's proven whenever one lose a MP dogfight

 

If you come into this thread armed only feelings, you're not being helpful at all. There are maybe 2 people in this entire thread that have contributed to any type of real discussion.

[Cobra847]

I think most of which needs to be said has already been said in this thread; but do keep in mind, at all times that:
 

• We don't spend hundreds of hours in tweaking, changing, fixing, improving just because. We do it because we either have a discrepancy in data vs performance, SME feedback is pointing us in a specific direction, or we, ourselves, feel that something isn't appropriately modeled.
• These things take a lot of time and I'm sure we will continue to tweak for quite a while to come. As fat_creason has mentioned; we've diverged some changes into a separate branch to avoid more incremental changes in the release branch.
• Some changes may have unforeseen effects in other parts of the FM - that's the nature of this kind of development. Constructive critique is most welcome!
• FMs are hard - but we're confident we have it right in many areas. Do keep that in mind.
• We would never intentionally gimp or downgrade any part of the flight envelope or the aircraft. Likewise, we'd never do the inverse. The only thing we care about is performance, and how closely we match it to the real thing and make it fit with SME feedback (and trust me, we get a LOT of SME feedback)

Edited February 12, 2021 by Cobra847

[TLTeo]

20 minutes ago, fat creason said:

 

If you come into this thread armed only feelings, you're not being helpful at all. There are maybe 2 people in this entire thread that have contributed to any type of real discussion.

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm, he's not the CSGO guy after all

[fat creason]

31 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm, he's not the CSGO guy after all

 

Crap! I took the bait! Was not taking into account the poster when I wrote that.

Edited February 12, 2021 by fat creason

[Victory205]

Well, if you insist on referencing names as if they are the burning bush- I know all three of those guys, one’s dead, one’s a grifting egomaniac (think Trump), and one of them, the most respected in the community of the three, I talk with regularly.

 

Okie didn’t use full flaps outside of the normal envelope. Same with the MCB CB and the air source. There was no reason to do so. I’ve talked about how full flaps were used within the placarded envelope as have others, and what the problems were. Okie was also the Maintenance Officer in the largest F14 squadron in the world and knew the consequences. 

 

I’m only interested in the truth, as is the team, and we are all adamant about getting the module as right as it can be, given the limits of the DCS engine and available resources.

 

The hero/celebrity worship is tiresome. A long time ago I was setting up the cockpit on a sunny morning at KLGA, when a little kid with a cute little mullet style haircut burst into the cockpit, standing between the seats at the center console, pointing and jabbering at the buttons and lights, smiling the entire time, giddy with excitement. He jumped into my lap as we gave him the standard lights test show, and made the airplane talk while I chatted with his mom, who had joined us, quiet and shy, standing there in the doorway. She was very interested in learning to fly, and as she pointed out features to her little three year old bundle of energy, it was obvious that she was familiar with many of the controls and indicators in the cockpit of a jet airliner. We spent about ten minutes chatting pleasantly, talking about flying and kids. I remarked about how cool her son was and how he seemed to love airplanes. We were a couple of parents sharing the joy of being parents. I wished her well, encouraged her about flying, and gave her precocious little boy a hug before they left.

 

The little boy’s name was Maddox, and his mom’s name was Angelina, and they both learned to fly, she even bought an airplane. Nice lady, just a regular mom, like all of the other moms out there. 

 

It is a mistake to worship humans.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Victory205

[eatthis]

sooooo is the fm accurate or not?

[fat creason]

1 hour ago, eatthis said:

sooooo is the fm accurate or not?

 

Crap, I just realized I copy pasted the wrong flight model from FMs.com, it's really a 757! Been fooling you the whole time!

Edited February 12, 2021 by fat creason

[IronMike]

19 minutes ago, fat creason said:

 

Crap, I just realized I copy pasted the wrong flight model from FMs.com, it's really a 757! Been fooling you the whole time!

 

 

When everyone knows that it should actually fly like a turkey. Should've downloaded it from birdsandinsectfms.com ...

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2021 by IronMike

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, eatthis said:

sooooo is the fm accurate or not?

 

 

No, Eatthis - making it easy for both of us, by assuming you meant "100% accurate". If it was 100% accurate, we wouldn't have to tweak it. Is it very close though? Yes. Is it getting even closer? Yes.

 

As Cobra mentioned above, we're making some good progress in adjusting a many things, one that suffers a bit along the way is performance now, but it will get back. It is not in the scope of unflyable or horribly wrong, or completely unwinnable, etc... which is why there is no reason to rush to fix something sloppy, when it can be tuned proper. Please give fat creason the time to make his magic work, and everyone will be happy again.

By constantly feeding this thread, at this point we're taking away focus from tuning the FM, to accommodating your understandable desire to want to know more. I may kindly just throw in, that everything has been said really in this regard. Please be so kind and have a bit patience with us to sort it out. Thank you all ever so kindly!

[maxsin72]

If possible, please fix also max speed. It's impossible to past mach 2.2 also over 35.000 feet, thx.

Edited February 13, 2021 by maxsin72

[IronMike]

3 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

If possible, please fix also max speed. It's impossible to past mach 2.2 also over 35.000 feet, thx.

 

 

 

Thank you. We'll look into it, that all goes hand in hand with performance.

[Hummingbird]

@HeatblurDevTeam, I'll hold back with the testing until you guys give the go ahead then.  

[fat creason]

2 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

@HeatblurDevTeam, I'll hold back with the testing until you guys give the go ahead then.  

 

I would generally refrain form testing until you see the patch notes saying that we updated the drag/thrust etc... Only difference right now is the fixed partial deployment of the maneuvering devices. Once drag and thrust are fixed I'll show some plots or videos that prove it, but you don't have to take my word for it if you don't want to. 

[captain_dalan]

11 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

@HeatblurDevTeam, I'll hold back with the testing until you guys give the go ahead then.  

Nothing's really changed mate. At least since the last time we discussed it.

On 2/12/2021 at 5:33 AM, Skysurfer said:

 

And you know this how and based on what data? Even a F-16? The published charts speak a very different picture as far as the raw numbers go. 

 

Not arguing that the cat isn't currently underperforming, but so are various other jets in DCS and that by a pretty substantial amount.

At low speeds? Especially an F-16.

[Skysurfer]

6 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Nothing's really changed mate. At least since the last time we discussed it.

At low speeds? Especially an F-16.

 

Well, if a 16 gets slow with you he gives up all his advantages (mainly G and sustained). This is where the gameplan/pilot skill come into play. If you max perform both jets the 16 ain't hearing a peep from the Tomcat, simple as that.

[Hummingbird]

4 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

 

Well, if a 16 gets slow with you he gives up all his advantages (mainly G and sustained). This is where the gameplan/pilot skill come into play. If you max perform both jets the 16 ain't hearing a peep from the Tomcat, simple as that.

 

Once both FMs are accurate to real life performance then the F-14B & F-16C Blk.52 are going to be very tough matches for each other in a guns only dogfight, it basically coming down to who'ever can suck the other into his/her favorite domain. 

[Skysurfer]

26 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

 

Once both FMs are accurate to real life performance then the F-14B & F-16C Blk.52 are going to be very tough matches for each other in a guns only dogfight, it basically coming down to who'ever can suck the other into his/her favorite domain. 

 

*Blk. 50

 

And yes, agreed. Obviously charted numbers aren't everything there is to it, even though the 16C Blk 50 (GE F110-129) has a clear advantage in sustained with medium to clean loads. The 14B/D does have some advantages in INST rates at higher alts since it's not alpha limited like the Viper but it gets pretty dicey once you approach the lift limit or Alpha_crit.

[captain_dalan]

13 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

 

Well, if a 16 gets slow with you he gives up all his advantages (mainly G and sustained). This is where the gameplan/pilot skill come into play. If you max perform both jets the 16 ain't hearing a peep from the Tomcat, simple as that.

I was simply referring to the guy's comments on rating the turns at low speeds with the F-14.

Besides, if the store drag effect for a similar ordnance is in the same ballpark as on the F-15 (conformal Sparrows, Winders on pylons), the comparative rates are still a wash with the PW F-16C (about 16 deg/s VS 16.5 deg/s) and a slight disadvantage against the GE F-16C (about 16 deg/s VS 17.25). And you have to be pushing almost mach 0.9 and close to 9g to rate that high in the Viper. Not gonna do wonders for either your turn radius or you g-fatigue. This all at 10000ft, just to make sure we're on the same page.

Of course STR isn't the end-all of ACM, and we haven't even mentioned vertical performance and unloaded energy recovery, but the comment was addressed to the rating anyways.

Edited February 15, 2021 by captain_dalan

[Skysurfer]

42 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

I was simply referring to the guy's comments on rating the turns at low speeds with the F-14.

Besides, if the store drag effect for a similar ordnance is in the same ballpark as on the F-15 (conformal Sparrows, Winders on pylons), the comparative rates are still a wash with the PW F-16C (about 16 deg/s VS 16.5 deg/s) and a slight disadvantage against the GE F-16C (about 16 deg/s VS 17.25). And you have to be pushing almost mach 0.9 and close to 9g to rate that high in the Viper. Not gonna do wonders for either your turn radius or you g-fatigue. This all at 10000ft, just to make sure we're on the same page.

Of course STR isn't the end-all of ACM, and we haven't even mentioned vertical performance and unloaded energy recovery, but the comment was addressed to the rating anyways.

 

 

I dont know where you got those numbers from but they are wrong. Unless you can provide me the source or DM me the particular chart. There are no "clean config" charts for the B/D Tomcat. As far as the Viper goes, you need to calculate your drag index and weight, then take the conservative one from the chart. (DI influencing your E-regain). When we're talking ACM and energy re-gain, climb rates etc. the Viper clearly has the edge too, assuming equal pilot skill and correct gameplan. Let alone once HOBS comes into play. Feel free to continue this via DM if you so desire, just to not clutter up this thread. 

[Hummingbird]

Well, if we assume 50% fuel and the typical A/A load out, i.e. 4x AIM7 + 4x AIM9 for the F-14B/D, and 4xAIM120 + 2xAIM9 for the F-16C, then their max sustained rates are actually almost identical (14.1 vs 14.2 dps @ 10 kft), they just occur at very different speeds.

 

The F-14's max STR happens around M=0.6, where'as it occurs around M=0.85 for the F-16C.  In a dogfight this means that the F-14 has the advantage that its max STR turn is a tighter radius lower G turn, and hence the F-16 shouldn't stay in the horizontal with the F-14. as that will eventually let the F-14 reverse in behind it.

 

Meanwhile since the F-16's max STR happens at a noticably higher speed it has the advantage of being able to more easily transition into the vertical with a significant speed advantage, and hence an F-14 flying at its max STR will find it nigh impossible to follow a faster flying F-16 suddenly switching to the vertical.

 

EDIT: 14.1 & 14.2 dps, not 16.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Hummingbird

[captain_dalan]

6 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

 

I dont know where you got those numbers from but they are wrong. Unless you can provide me the source or DM me the particular chart. There are no "clean config" charts for the B/D Tomcat. As far as the Viper goes, you need to calculate your drag index and weight, then take the conservative one from the chart. (DI influencing your E-regain). When we're talking ACM and energy re-gain, climb rates etc. the Viper clearly has the edge too, assuming equal pilot skill and correct gameplan. Let alone once HOBS comes into play. Feel free to continue this via DM if you so desire, just to not clutter up this thread. 

Nah, we are talking clean birds now, zero drag index. And as there aren't such charts for the F-14, we reduce the weight to what a clean bird would be, and then start from there. For the stores drag, we assume it's going to be similar to the F-15 (the weakest part of the estimate), but not that far fetched. Besides the stores drag for this configuration isn't that high. We see from the F-15C clean and 4x4 config how much performance is lost in total, and how much of that loss can be attributed to stores drag. We adjust the F-14 clean values for that and we have a rough (very rough) estimate of how much performance should be gained at 10000ft, if the F-14 was clean and at 50% internal fuel. Hence the "about" 16 deg/s. Can't tell exactly how much, because we don't know the exact influence of the drag.

Meanwhile the F-16C charts for a clean plane are given in the HAF. 0 index, 10000ft, full AB. And mind you, this is a Viper in landing configuration, with only 22000pds gross weight, or less then 3000pds of fuel. Depending on which variant of F-16 we are in, and we add weight for internal gun, pilot, oil..... this can be as little as 500pds of fuel. The Viper we have in DCS would be over 25000pds with 50% fuel. That means STR adjustment by -2.25deg/s. So a max turn rate of 15deg/s for the GE Viper and 14.25deg/s for a PW Viper.

The F-14B in DCS is also heavier. Adjust for the added weight and we get 15.1 deg/s for a clean bird at 10000ft. I mean, it IS a wash.

[Skysurfer]

3 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Nah, we are talking clean birds now, zero drag index. And as there aren't such charts for the F-14, we reduce the weight to what a clean bird would be, and then start from there. For the stores drag, we assume it's going to be similar to the F-15 (the weakest part of the estimate), but not that far fetched. Besides the stores drag for this configuration isn't that high. We see from the F-15C clean and 4x4 config how much performance is lost in total, and how much of that loss can be attributed to stores drag. We adjust the F-14 clean values for that and we have a rough (very rough) estimate of how much performance should be gained at 10000ft, if the F-14 was clean and at 50% internal fuel. Hence the "about" 16 deg/s. Can't tell exactly how much, because we don't know the exact influence of the drag.

Meanwhile the F-16C charts for a clean plane are given in the HAF. 0 index, 10000ft, full AB. And mind you, this is a Viper in landing configuration, with only 22000pds gross weight, or less then 3000pds of fuel. Depending on which variant of F-16 we are in, and we add weight for internal gun, pilot, oil..... this can be as little as 500pds of fuel. The Viper we have in DCS would be over 25000pds with 50% fuel. That means STR adjustment by -2.25deg/s. So a max turn rate of 15deg/s for the GE Viper and 14.25deg/s for a PW Viper.

The F-14B in DCS is also heavier. Adjust for the added weight and we get 15.1 deg/s for a clean bird at 10000ft. I mean, it IS a wash.

 

Again, those are a LOT of assumption and not facts. The cleanest charts for a Tomcat are 4 Sparrows in the tunnel, 4 AIM9's on the wing stations + LAU7/38x4 - also make sure to reference the maneuver flaps auto charts and not the ones where they are disabled. You can not somehow deduce the performance of a Tomcat from making made up estmates from an F-15. 

 

Below I'll attach the two comparable configurations where there is actual factual data for.

 

Now, I am not saying a B/D Tomcat won't win against a Viper, it sure gets close to its performance at some altitudes and weights and has a better radius at slow speed but as always it all comes down to who actually is in the plane and how well he understands his situation. The Viper can really use that vertical and really turn up its own asshole in terms of radius when needed. The 9G level gameplan until blackout is surely not the way.