Turn rate has tanked with new update

[Hummingbird]

With the new update the sustained turn rate of the Tomcat has decreased below EM chart values for some reason, so much so that the F-15 is actually matching the F-14 in sustainable load factor at 0.5-0.6 mach atm. There also seems there's an issue with stores drag, as if removing stores doesn't help with drag at all.

[Hummingbird]

[Hummingbird]

Interestingly performance at altitude doesn't seem much off, it's mainly at low altitude where about 0.4-0.5 G's is missing in sustainable load factor.

[jcdata]

It's porked

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

 

[TheBigTatanka]

That's a move in the right direction, isn't it? Wasn't it over performing before?

 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

 

[BreaKKer]

Show some tacview evidence of your findings. Chances are they are how they should be.

[Hummingbird]

That's a move in the right direction, isn't it? Wasn't it over performing before?

 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

 

No, it was performing basically spot on before. Now it's missing some 0.5-0.6 G's compared with the real life charts.

[TheBigTatanka]

Right on, thanks.

 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

 

[Hummingbird]

DCS F-14B, 55,678 lbs, 4x AIM-9 + 4xAIM-7, Std. ICAO (15 deg C), Sea level (unlimited fuel):

 

KTAS/Mach vs G's

450/0.68 = 7.00 G

425/0.64 = 6.65 G

400/0.60 = 6.25 G

350/0.53 = 5.25 G

300/0.45 = 4.60 G

250/0.38 = 3.70 G

200/0.30 = 2.70 G

 

 

 

RL chart values for same weight & load out but at 5 kft:

 

Mach vs G's

0.68 = 6.25 G

0.64 = 5.85 G

0.60 = 5.70 G

0.53 = 5.25 G (Same as the DCS F-14 at sea level !)

0.45 = 4.15 G

0.38 = 3.30 G

0.30 = 2.35 G

 

 

Based on this the expected RL performance at SL would be:

 

0.68 = 7.35 G (+0.35 G vs DCS)

0.64 = 6.95 G (+0.30 G vs DCS)

0.60 = 6.60 G (+0.35 G vs DCS)

0.53 = 5.85 G (+0.60 G vs DCS) !

0.45 = 4.75 G (+0.15 G vs DCS)

0.38 = 3.80 G (+0.10 G vs DCS)

0.30 = 2.75 G (+0.05 G vs DCS)

 

 

 

In short a our cat has suffered a noticable drop in performance above 0.45 mach (at 0.53 the difference is big), and a slight one below that, as compared with the real thing.

[Xenovia]

Good to know, hopefully HB can look into this and fix it

[Hummingbird]

Heatblur should be able to quickly test this and overlay the performance over the available charts, and then see if something funny is going on with thrust, drag or lift with decreasing altitude and/or with drag when removing/adding stores.

 

And yes hopefully they can fix this soon. Feels very odd how it's performing now, esp. the wild dip in turn performance above ~0.5 mach.

[IronMike]

Thank you Hummingbird, saw your remarks in the other thread as well. We're not sure what or why this happened, and are looking into it.

[Hummingbird]

Thanks IronMike, appreciate the quick response!

 

 

[Victory205]

Thank you Hummingbird, saw your remarks in the other thread as well. We're not sure what or why this happened, and are looking into it.

 

I knew this was going to happen when the anhedral was adjusted on the stabs.... ;)

 

[Hummingbird]

Update notes say:

• Adjusted F110 AB thrust below mach 0.7.
  
• Adjusted subsonic airframe drag per SME comments
  

Perhaps one of these had some unwanted effects? Or maybe something went wrong implementing them.

[Sonoda Umi]

Update notes say:

• Adjusted F110 AB thrust below mach 0.7.
  
• Adjusted subsonic airframe drag per SME comments
  

Perhaps one of these had some unwanted effects? Or maybe something went wrong implementing them.

 

I agree. It contributed some unexpected negative effects - the turning performance of F-14B is considerably downgraded, and not matches real life performance.

[eatthis]

 

I agree. It contributed some unexpected negative effects - the turning performance of F-14B is considerably downgraded, and not matches real life performance.

 

it drives me nuts when patch notes say adjusted x or y. WHIICH WAY HAS IT BEEN ADJUSTED???? lol

[Eldur]

 

it drives me nuts when patch notes say adjusted x or y. WHIICH WAY HAS IT BEEN ADJUSTED???? lol

 

IKR? I always do expect things to be worse when it says that - just to be positively surprised when it's gotten better and not to be disappointed when things get worse.

 

At least our SME does have an idea already and it's probably going to be addressed soon™.

[QuiGon]

 

it drives me nuts when patch notes say adjusted x or y. WHIICH WAY HAS IT BEEN ADJUSTED???? lol

 

Same!!! Whenever I read that something got "adjusted" it drives me mad, as I would like to know if it gut tuned down or up!

[Hummingbird]

 

Same!!! Whenever I read that something got "adjusted" it drives me mad, as I would like to know if it gut tuned down or up!

 

I did try asking before the patch went live, as I couldn't understand why thrust below 0.7 M had to be adjusted as the a/c was already perfectly matching the charts, but they must have missed it:

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...49#post7138149

 

I actually thought they might have increased thrust a bit and then adjusted L/D to take account for it, or vice versa.

 

But yeah, it would indeed be nice if they wrote in which direction or if at all their adjustment are meant to affect performance going forward.

[Skysurfer]

At least the A seems very draggy to me, any jet in DCS currently out-performs it in speed and accel.

[GGTharos]

At least the A seems very draggy to me, any jet in DCS currently out-performs it in speed and accel.

 

The TF-30's in the F14A provide 21000lbf thrust each, the F-110-400's in the F-14B provide 30000lbf each. You're basically lost 18000lbf in total, so sustained turn rates will suffer tremendously.

[captain_dalan]

With the new update the sustained turn rate of the Tomcat has decreased below EM chart values for some reason, so much so that the F-15 is actually matching the F-14 in sustainable load factor at 0.5-0.6 mach atm. There also seems there's an issue with stores drag, as if removing stores doesn't help with drag at all.

 

Can you check the maneuvering flap schedule or if they deploy at all? If memory serves, the hard wing's F-14 Ps profile closely resembles an F-15 one bellow mach 0.7. Also, can you check what would happen if you bring the maneuvering flaps down using the thumb-wheel? I'd test this myself, but it will be some hours before i can get to my DCS....

 

 

The TF-30's in the F14A provide 21000lbf thrust each, the F-110-400's in the F-14B provide 30000lbf each. You're basically lost 18000lbf in total, so sustained turn rates will suffer tremendously.

 

Actually, they will suffer a bit, but noting too dramatically. The excess power recovery rates on the other hand......well those are a different story.

 

At least the A seems very draggy to me, any jet in DCS currently out-performs it in speed and accel.

 

Subsonic acceleration is supposed to be bad. At least bellow 420 or so.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

At least the A seems very draggy to me, any jet in DCS currently out-performs it in speed and accel.

 

it is not a matter of comparing with other planes but to make things accurate to real life. I find the new A FM AMAZING! and more realistic than most other planes which feel overpowered so please, unless there are serious proofs of it not performing as it should let it alone.

[Hummingbird]

@captain_dalan I did check the flap/slat schedule, and it's the same as before, which actually wasn't entirely correct in that they don't extend at 0.58 M @ SL as they should, but instead at 0.50 M. But since performance before this patch was spot on, that doesn't explain the loss in peformance.

 

Based on the testing done so far it seems as though the root cause is a noticable reduction in thrust, whilst drag vs AoA might also have changed. The latter appears to have had an affect on how the aircraft feels in terms of feedback in the turn, atleast to me it definitely seem a lot less buffety..