Turn rate has tanked with new update

[Snappy]

 

The hotfix today was just some stuff ED wanted to push. As far as I know, the next F-14 patch will come next week. We were ready and hoping for a Wednesday patch this week but doesn't look like it's going to happen.

 

Thank you very much Fat Creason, appreciate the quick answer.

 

Kind regards,

 

Snappy

[wowbagger]

Open Beta - Public testing build

Currently version number: DCS 2.5.6.58125

Next update: Planned 16th December 2020

 

Stable patch notes

Open beta patch notes

 

Thank you

 

Last edited Today, 02:04 PM.

 

:cry:

 

 

[SgtPappy]

 

In 99% of cases it is exactly that. Also due to the lack of such attention to detail or "realism" on all other modules in DCS. You can pull and roll your heart out in the F15 or Mig-29 without anything ever breaking.

 

I admit I pulled a 14G orthogonal roll to dodge an AIM-7 online the other night while flying the F-15 and I feel horribly guilty! I really wish the F-15 and MiG-29 got their models fixed because that's insane! Maybe at least have the pilots pass out or something.

 

The HB F-14 is really awe-inspiring in detail. I can only wish the FC3 planes could at least be a bit better because otherwise the detailed planes like the Tomcat have to fight the aforementioned physics-breakers (and when I fly my F-15, it doesn't exactly feel good to accidentally cheat).

[GGTharos]

I admit I pulled a 14G orthogonal roll to dodge an AIM-7 online the other night while flying the F-15 and I feel horribly guilty! I really wish the F-15 and MiG-29 got their models fixed because that's insane! Maybe at least have the pilots pass out or something.

 

Your pilot didn't pass out because you spiked it to 14g, you didn't keep it there. Not that (AFAIK) the F-15 should be able to get up to that number anyway even if the airframe did not suffer. Also, a last-ditch ortho roll is a perfect spot to expect an over-g.

 

The HB F-14 is really awe-inspiring in detail. I can only wish the FC3 planes could at least be a bit better because otherwise the detailed planes like the Tomcat have to fight the aforementioned physics-breakers (and when I fly my F-15, it doesn't exactly feel good to accidentally cheat).

 

If a 14g spike is winning the fight, someone's BFM isn't doing so great. Frankly, this constant whining about airframe differences that make little difference in the end (but yes they do make a difference) also ignores the fact that you don't need more than a 6-7g loaded barrel roll to consistently evade just about any missile in DCS - I've seen perfectly break-able flankers do it in-game, think you can pull it off with a cat? As well, when the dogfight matures there won't be any 14g spikes because there won't be enough speed to achieve such a thing.

 

So how about we drop the 'accidental cheating' BS and g-tolerance whining - ED will get around to g-tolerances when they do. As usual, it takes them years to come back around to anything FC-related, and now that they're talking about 'MAC', I imagine it won't be until they get to that.

[Skysurfer]

 

The hotfix today was just some stuff ED wanted to push. As far as I know, the next F-14 patch will come next week. We were ready and hoping for a Wednesday patch this week but doesn't look like it's going to happen.

 

Oh well, guess we wait then. Is it safe to assume we won't be seeing the early A and IRIAF A this year since there are only like 2 big patches left for this year?

[SgtPappy]

 

Your pilot didn't pass out because you spiked it to 14g, you didn't keep it there. Not that (AFAIK) the F-15 should be able to get up to that number anyway even if the airframe did not suffer. Also, a last-ditch ortho roll is a perfect spot to expect an over-g.

 

 

 

If a 14g spike is winning the fight, someone's BFM isn't doing so great. Frankly, this constant whining about airframe differences that make little difference in the end (but yes they do make a difference) also ignores the fact that you don't need more than a 6-7g loaded barrel roll to consistently evade just about any missile in DCS - I've seen perfectly break-able flankers do it in-game, think you can pull it off with a cat? As well, when the dogfight matures there won't be any 14g spikes because there won't be enough speed to achieve such a thing.

 

So how about we drop the 'accidental cheating' BS and g-tolerance whining - ED will get around to g-tolerances when they do. As usual, it takes them years to come back around to anything FC-related, and now that they're talking about 'MAC', I imagine it won't be until they get to that.

 

I am in no way trying to shame anyone or anything so if that's how it came across, then I apologize. I think everyone just wants to see their favourite plane be the best it can be but I can see how this passion can sound like anger sometimes, I get that.

 

That said, the purpose of the post was moreso me simply feeling bad about doing something my plane should likely not have been able to do. I think it is just as valid as your opinion for me to express that I simply felt bad doing this Since to me, enjoyment of the game is as important as my opponent's - except hopefully I win the fight! Therefore I do not appreciate this being called whining when the attempt here was made to be an expression of guilt rather than an insult. Furthermore having a wish for an ideal game is not an unfair or irrelevant thing - I never gave a timeline or said it was straight up wrong that ED hasn't got there yet... If you're bothered by the frequency this gets mentioned, that is one thing (totally valid btw) but it isn't my responsibility to cater to that trigger by shutting up.

 

Moreover, I have tried time and time again against AI and friends online alike and I have intense difficulty pulling 7 G ortho rolls to defeat missiles. It has worked only against the S530 but I've had to over-G against the AIM-7 and have so far no luck against the new API AIM-54.

 

Am I doing something wrong? Probably but maybe I'll leave that to another thread.

[jmarso]

Sometimes you can do everything right and the missile gets you anyway. The technology gets a vote. ;)

[GGTharos]

I am in no way trying to shame anyone or anything so if that's how it came across, then I apologize. I think everyone just wants to see their favourite plane be the best it can be but I can see how this passion can sound like anger sometimes, I get that.

 

Regardless of what you want to express, it looks like disguised elitism. Furthermore, elitism without cause. But you're right, you can say whatever you want.

 

Moreover, I have tried time and time again against AI and friends online alike and I have intense difficulty pulling 7 G ortho rolls to defeat missiles.

 

It's a sustained 7g barrel roll, not a timed ortho-roll. I would expect a 7g ortho-roll to have some effect, but the missiles and more importantly the way damage is dealt in-game aren't quite up to par for this, I think. You'd need better seeker settling modeling, fuze modeling and better frag modeling to make a last-ditch roll 'do it's job'. I don't believe that the expectation is that you'd create a miss distance greater than the fuze most of the time, but rather that you'd expose your aircraft to it in such a way as to minimize damage.

 

As DCS is right now, the only thing you can attempt to do is create a miss-distance greater than the fuze range, and for that you need more g. Regardless, 7g target load is well inside the capability of an AIM-7 that's moving at certain speeds.

 

 

[SgtPappy]

 

Regardless of what you want to express, it looks like disguised elitism. Furthermore, elitism without cause. But you're right, you can say whatever you want.

 

 

Reading it again, I can see how that comes across. As always, text does not give an accurate representation of tone and most of us are liable to putting our own voice into it for better or for worse. What I want to make clear is certainly me saying "accidental cheating" is genuine guilt - not a shot on the complete inaccuracy or quality of the F-15 model. No sim does the F-15 better - but an unbreakable F-15 isn't something your opponents ignore.

 

It's a sustained 7g barrel roll, not a timed ortho-roll. I would expect a 7g ortho-roll to have some effect, but the missiles and more importantly the way damage is dealt in-game aren't quite up to par for this, I think. You'd need better seeker settling modeling, fuze modeling and better frag modeling to make a last-ditch roll 'do it's job'. I don't believe that the expectation is that you'd create a miss distance greater than the fuze most of the time, but rather that you'd expose your aircraft to it in such a way as to minimize damage.

 

As DCS is right now, the only thing you can attempt to do is create a miss-distance greater than the fuze range, and for that you need more g. Regardless, 7g target load is well inside the capability of an AIM-7 that's moving at certain speeds.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification, yet another thing I should practice - or should I? If it's not realistic I don't know if I want to create a bad habit!

[Top Jockey]

As for the 13.3G thing, yes they were concerned due to the long but thing wings that at high G they would snap off...but that is not to say the F-14 is a 13G aircraft. Because it turns out the engines rip out of their nacelle before the wings snap off...and thats what they found out with those tests.

 

As visual damage effect / immersion feeling, would be outstanding to see this featured in DCS.

(Both for the Tomcat and other aircraft also.)

 

I mean we already have the wings ripped out animation featured, in the Tomcat and Flanker that I know of.

[Victory205]

 

Yes, I recently read Shattered Sword, and I now remember reading about that unique arrangement - but I'd forgotten about it until you mentioned it. That was an enlightening read; I hadn't realized just how different Japanese carrier doctrine was from US carrier doctrine of the time.

 

I had been wondering if it was a holdover from propeller aircraft days. Certainly engine torque would be more of a factor in something like, say, a Hellcat. Playing DCS WWII has really enlightened me a lot to handling characteristics of propeller aircraft that I had never really thought about from playing other sims that didn't model them to the same detail.

 

...

Interesting things to think about.

 

Good book, glad to see that people read around here. We seem to have an esoteric Heatblur Book Club going of late, they have me reading tomes from erudite authors from across the planet. It's awesome.

 

The carrier pattern, up to the angled deck era, was also flown much lower and tighter to the ship. Some of that is turn radius related due to lower speeds, but the down wind in WWII and Korea was flown at 200 feet. The F4U was so difficult to see around that the pattern was flown in a curve almost to the fan tail. Have a look at some of the WWII landing footage, you'll notice aircraft almost dragging their hooks in the water they are so low on downing in the background.

 

It's almost like they flew a level turn until over the ship, then paddles gave them a cut and BLAM! In reality, they lost about 100-120 feet during the final turn.

 

At the battle of Midway, some of the pilots had very few traps under their belts, and almost all were new to the SBD. It had only been around en masse for a few months. The strikes were a "charlie foxtrot" in a lot of ways, but Naval Aviators being innovative SOBs, with some even ignoring their flight lead, they still managed to get the job done.

 

A WWII Pacific sim would be the holy grail in my view. No realtime maps showing your position. You'd have a plotting board, weather brief, crude fighter direction, unknown enemy positions, fly for two hours to the enemy location and nothing in sight, make your decision. There would be a lot of running out of fuel and ditching, return to where the carrier was supposed to be and it's either not there, or burning from an enemy strike.

 

Now what?

 

 

[fat creason]

 

A WWII Pacific sim would be the holy grail in my view. No realtime maps showing your position. You'd have a plotting board, weather brief, crude fighter direction, unknown enemy positions, fly for two hours to the enemy location and nothing in sight, make your decision. There would be a lot of running out of fuel and ditching, return to where the carrier was supposed to be and it's either not there, or burning from an enemy strike.

 

Now what?

 

 

It seems we share this opinion! As does @Cobra847 :pilotfly:

[Eldur]

Why the standard pattern is to the left is supposed to be due to engine torque, but I'm not convinced. Additionally, most pilots with a center mounted control stick are more comfortable turning to the left, since their hand is essentially on the right side of the stick, and pushes rather than pulls. Most pilots, find that it is easer to fly formation looking over your throttle hand than your stick hand, and even the Blue Angels thought that flying the left wing was more difficult than the right wing. How that translates to side sticks is beyond me.

 

Pilots when called to "break", also have a tendency to break left, all things being equal. I thought that one had merit.

 

Spudknocker did a video on that topic a while ago...

 

 

And it's not just a DCS thing apparently

[Nexus-6]

 

Good book, glad to see that people read around here. We seem to have an esoteric Heatblur Book Club going of late, they have me reading tomes from erudite authors from across the planet. It's awesome.

 

The carrier pattern, up to the angled deck era, was also flown much lower and tighter to the ship. Some of that is turn radius related due to lower speeds, but the down wind in WWII and Korea was flown at 200 feet. The F4U was so difficult to see around that the pattern was flown in a curve almost to the fan tail. Have a look at some of the WWII landing footage, you'll notice aircraft almost dragging their hooks in the water they are so low on downing in the background.

 

It's almost like they flew a level turn until over the ship, then paddles gave them a cut and BLAM! In reality, they lost about 100-120 feet during the final turn.

 

At the battle of Midway, some of the pilots had very few traps under their belts, and almost all were new to the SBD. It had only been around en masse for a few months. The strikes were a "charlie foxtrot" in a lot of ways, but Naval Aviators being innovative SOBs, with some even ignoring their flight lead, they still managed to get the job done.

 

A WWII Pacific sim would be the holy grail in my view. No realtime maps showing your position. You'd have a plotting board, weather brief, crude fighter direction, unknown enemy positions, fly for two hours to the enemy location and nothing in sight, make your decision. There would be a lot of running out of fuel and ditching, return to where the carrier was supposed to be and it's either not there, or burning from an enemy strike.

 

Now what?

 

 

An F6F with a well modeled PTO would be a beautiful thing.

[IronMike]

 

:cry:

 

 

Yes, unfortunately it seems we will have to wait till the 16th for the next patch. We were hoping to get all our fixes + campaign before that to you.

[Skysurfer]

 

Yes, unfortunately it seems we will have to wait till the 16th for the next patch. We were hoping to get all our fixes + campaign before that to you.

 

Can't you just post a .zip file with them for SP flying? Or is the Tomcat now a hangar-queen again until the 16th? The absurdly broken drag really puts me off from flying it right now.

[Whiskey11]

 

Can't you just post a .zip file with them for SP flying? Or is the Tomcat now a hangar-queen again until the 16th? The absurdly broken drag really puts me off from flying it right now.

 

I've relegated the -A to the A2G mission anyway with the Pilot LANTIRN mod being a godsend which works in multiplayer. I get some odd looks, but given the -A developed quite the reputation for that role, I wont complain! :D

[maxsin72]

 

Yes, unfortunately it seems we will have to wait till the 16th for the next patch. We were hoping to get all our fixes + campaign before that to you.

 

Is it possible to ask to ED to anticipate the patch day or to let to HB a his own patch day due to the numerous fixes that are necessary? Almost a month with the broken drag and the others problems it's really long :cry_2:and you have already fixed many stuff, thanks

[Wildwind]

 

Good book, glad to see that people read around here. We seem to have an esoteric Heatblur Book Club going of late, they have me reading tomes from erudite authors from across the planet. It's awesome.

 

The carrier pattern, up to the angled deck era, was also flown much lower and tighter to the ship. Some of that is turn radius related due to lower speeds, but the down wind in WWII and Korea was flown at 200 feet. The F4U was so difficult to see around that the pattern was flown in a curve almost to the fan tail. Have a look at some of the WWII landing footage, you'll notice aircraft almost dragging their hooks in the water they are so low on downing in the background.

 

It's almost like they flew a level turn until over the ship, then paddles gave them a cut and BLAM! In reality, they lost about 100-120 feet during the final turn.

 

At the battle of Midway, some of the pilots had very few traps under their belts, and almost all were new to the SBD. It had only been around en masse for a few months. The strikes were a "charlie foxtrot" in a lot of ways, but Naval Aviators being innovative SOBs, with some even ignoring their flight lead, they still managed to get the job done.

 

A WWII Pacific sim would be the holy grail in my view. No realtime maps showing your position. You'd have a plotting board, weather brief, crude fighter direction, unknown enemy positions, fly for two hours to the enemy location and nothing in sight, make your decision. There would be a lot of running out of fuel and ditching, return to where the carrier was supposed to be and it's either not there, or burning from an enemy strike.

 

Now what?

 

 

Yeah, seemed like Yorktown was the only carrier who really had her act together at Midway (I think she was the only one of the three that had actually seen battle prior to Midway?), though she got sunk for her trouble. Enterprise's dive-bombers managed to get the job done through sheer determination... and Hornet's air wing never even found the target.

 

Of course, US carriers surviving damage the Japanese assumed would sink them was something of a recurring theme, especially for the Yorktown-class. They thought they'd sunk Yorktown at Coral Sea, then after three days of emergency repairs she sailed for Midway, where they thought they'd sunk her again, and she'd been patched up so well that the second strike didn't even realize they were hitting the same carrier they'd already hit. Then there was Enterprise, who the IJN would believe they had sunk three times over the course of the war and she refused to die. "Enterprise vs. Japan," indeed.

 

Compare that to Akagi, who was sunk by one direct hit and one near miss astern (albeit a fairly devastating near miss, since the record seems to indicate that it wrecked her rudders). One of the things that really struck me about Shattered Sword was how tragically flawed the design of the Japanese fleet carriers was, from a damage control perspective.

 

On the subject of a WWII Pacific theater sim, I'd love to see that! Navigation would definitely be a challenge, though; I suspect a lot of players would not be willing to do the manual work (though some certainly would). If I remember correctly, the US carrier aircraft had a radio system that could home in on the carrier, but most of the pilots hadn't been trained on how to use it yet at Midway?

[dehowie]

 

Can't you just post a .zip file with them for SP flying? Or is the Tomcat now a hangar-queen again until the 16th? The absurdly broken drag really puts me off from flying it right now.

 

Bit of a huge pity that a brand new aeroplane is so broken out of the gate that we are all parking it against the fence.

If there is a fix it should be expedited over and above any other fixes as a seperate patch just to get the F14's back flying.

Are we sure this Tomcat wasnt built by Boeing??? lol

[Hummingbird]

One of the nerds I fly with sometimes said that on Friday he was watching tacviews and the F14B was getting a sustained turn rate of 21-22 degrees per second using the auto/maneuver flaps at 300 knots and some change. He told me after the last update the B is getting about 3-4 degrees per second less.

 

A fix is on the way

[Victory205]

Unless you have mastered the art of flying from the deck of a ship at sea, go practice your carrier landings. Great opportunity to do that. The aircraft is handling well around the boat.

 

Lots of time and effort is going into getting the complex performance numbers correct.

[Zad Fnark]

 

Yeah, seemed like Yorktown was the only carrier who really had her act together at Midway (I think she was the only one of the three that had actually seen battle prior to Midway?), though she got sunk for her trouble. Enterprise's dive-bombers managed to get the job done through sheer determination... and Hornet's air wing never even found the target.

 

Of course, US carriers surviving damage the Japanese assumed would sink them was something of a recurring theme, especially for the Yorktown-class. They thought they'd sunk Yorktown at Coral Sea, then after three days of emergency repairs she sailed for Midway, where they thought they'd sunk her again, and she'd been patched up so well that the second strike didn't even realize they were hitting the same carrier they'd already hit. Then there was Enterprise, who the IJN would believe they had sunk three times over the course of the war and she refused to die. "Enterprise vs. Japan," indeed.

 

Compare that to Akagi, who was sunk by one direct hit and one near miss astern (albeit a fairly devastating near miss, since the record seems to indicate that it wrecked her rudders). One of the things that really struck me about Shattered Sword was how tragically flawed the design of the Japanese fleet carriers was, from a damage control perspective.

 

On the subject of a WWII Pacific theater sim, I'd love to see that! Navigation would definitely be a challenge, though; I suspect a lot of players would not be willing to do the manual work (though some certainly would). If I remember correctly, the US carrier aircraft had a radio system that could home in on the carrier, but most of the pilots hadn't been trained on how to use it yet at Midway?

 

A very interesting part of Shattered Sword is in the appendix. The part about an actual Japanese invasion of the island. They basically didn't bring enough troops for the job, and IJN doctrine made any ship to shore support problematic. They likely would have been beaten off.

 

[eatthis]

the germans and italians had a habit of claiming the ark royal had been sunk too. 4 or 5 times iirc lol

[veenee]

Unless you have mastered the art of flying from the deck of a ship at sea, go practice your carrier landings. Great opportunity to do that. The aircraft is handling well around the boat.

 

Lots of time and effort is going into getting the complex performance numbers correct.

 

It's also a good oportunity to learn some RIOing...