Jump to content

Patch Dec 17th Feedback Thread


IronMike

Recommended Posts

Just now, Hummingbird said:

@IronMike

 

Did a quick test and I can confirm that the F-14 is still seriously underperforming in sustained turn rate:

 

DCS vs RL, 55,600 lbs, 4x4 AIM7 & AIM9 @ SL

400 KTAS (M 0.60) = ~6.2 G vs 6.5 G  

332 KTAS (M 0.50) = ~5.2 G vs 5.7 G

 

That's 0.3-0.5 G missing at just those two speeds.

 

I have to admit this puzzles me. It seems like you're not testing and comparing your FM to the available charts before you ship it, which annoys me as we've been waiting a long time for this to be fixed now.  Sorry for being negative like that, but it's just how I honestly feel about it. 

 

Please fix this soon.

 


Thank you, yeah what a bummer. We honestly thought we had that fixed. Our apologies. Not sure why it isn't, even during testing it seemed fine.

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

@IronMike

 

Did a quick test and I can confirm that the F-14 is still seriously underperforming in sustained turn rate:

 

DCS vs RL, 55,600 lbs, 4x4 AIM7 & AIM9 @ SL

400 KTAS (M 0.60) = ~6.2 G vs 6.5 G  

332 KTAS (M 0.50) = ~5.2 G vs 5.7 G

 

That's 0.3-0.5 G missing at just those two speeds.

 

I have to admit this puzzles me. It seems like you're not testing and comparing your FM to the available charts before you ship it, which annoys me as we've been waiting a long time for this to be fixed now.  Sorry for being negative like that, but it's just how I honestly feel about it. 

 

Please fix this soon.

 

Yep. Tested this myself. At first i didn't want to believe the reports coming in, but i'm positive now. Both F-14's, A and B now under perform. Are you guys sure your changes made it to the latest patch? Maybe ED botched it up again?
 



EDIT: got ninja'd by @IronMike!


Edited by captain_dalan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, captain_dalan said:

Yep. Tested this myself. At first i didn't want to believe the reports coming in, but i'm positive now. Both F-14's, A and B now under perform. Are you guys sure your changes made it to the latest patch? Maybe ED botched it up again?



I doubt ED botched anything, not sure why. I mean, .3 and .4 G is not that much off, we might have missed it in testing, too. Test reports showed as ok though. It might also be just an itineration in Creason's work, as he is still tuning stuff, and he was happy with the test results relative to that. I didnt test myself this time, since I was busy finishing the campaign, and I didnt talk to him today yet. Either way, we'll try to bring it back to where it should be asap.

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IronMike said:



I doubt ED botched anything, not sure why. I mean, .3 and .4 G is not that much off, we might have missed it in testing, too. Test reports showed as ok though. It might also be just an itineration in Creason's work, as he is still tuning stuff, and he was happy with the test results relative to that. I didnt test myself this time, since I was busy finishing the campaign, and I didnt talk to him today yet. Either way, we'll try to bring it back to where it should be asap.

I agree, it's not much, but that also depends on where in the envelope it is. At 300-350KIAS, SL to 5000ft, that 0.4 g can cost you up to 2 degree of STR. And even 1.5 degree can mean a lot. Could it possibly be something you guys don't have any control of? Like some of the ordnance-store drag? Does that get added to the craft per piece of ammunition or per pylon-mount type?

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

0.3 to 0.5 G is quite a lot IMHO, it quickly adds up to quite a lot of degrees lost after just a couple of turns, which is crucial in a dogfight.

 

It's also esp. painful to witness when before the last two patches the F-14 was spot on performance wise, so we know it CAN be made accurate to within 0.1 G.

 

 

Also just noticed that the maneuver flaps/slats still don't begin deploy until 0.5 mach, when it should be 0.58 according to the CADC schedule. Bug reported previously here: 

 

 


Edited by Hummingbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where'd all those dudes-seemed like the whole community bearing down on me- that materialized out of nowhere last year to spam "The F14 could sustain 7G at ~330kts. The Hornet could only sustain 5.2 at ~ the same speed." when I was salty and REEEing about getting clapped on the reg by F14B's 1v1 guns.


Edited by Ur_A_Cop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ur_A_Cop said:

Where'd all those dudes go that were spamming "The F14 could sustain 7G at 330kts. The Hornet could only sustain 5.2." last year?

 

 

We'll get it back, Cop, don't worry. We believe now that actually part of the patch didn't get pulled prior to the update, we might have missed the 3rd party lock with part of the upload. Which is why it would make sense that it seemed fine during testing in our testbuilds, and now again didn't. A hotfix might be coming soon, so all should be well again then.

  • Like 2

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

 

 

We'll get it back, Cop, don't worry. We believe now that actually part of the patch didn't get pulled prior to the update, we might have missed the 3rd party lock with part of the upload. Which is why it would make sense that it seemed fine during testing in our testbuilds, and now again didn't. A hotfix might be coming soon, so all should be well again then.

 

Why does this seem to happen with Heatblur so much. I think this is the 4 or 5th time this year. There some kind of Time zone problem or? 

 

Also, it feels like the first thing you folks may want to think about now when problems get brought up you thought were fixed is that the fix didn't actually happen. Like top of the flow chart at this point. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

 

Why does this seem to happen with Heatblur so much. I think this is the 4 or 5th time this year. There some kind of Time zone problem or? 

 

Also, it feels like the first thing you folks may want to think about now when problems get brought up you thought were fixed is that the fix didn't actually happen. Like top of the flow chart at this point. 

 

 

Yeah, no, lol.

It actually turned out this wasn't the case, only with the engine fires, which got added last minute, and we hoped they got pulled. Which is unfortunate from our POV, since now it means it is a bug that needs to be fixed, rather than something that has been fixed and got missed. 

Why it happens that we miss some things? Because our work schedule and ED's work schedule differ and we try to get in fixes even last minute, etc. We make several Tomcat builds per week in general, and we try to squeeze in as much as we can, because if we don't, you have to wait another month for a fix and we cannot not work on stuff for 2 weeks per month. The schedule is not very favorable, but ofc, understandable that ED takes precedence here. It allows more testing on core game issues, but our process, including testing is separate. For us it would be best to release smaller fixes more frequently (and basically without a schedule, like is usus in the industry in general: fixes come, when they are ready). I still see no reason why the community would want a schedule at all. Testers need a schedule, devs need a schedule, but players imo do not. That's my 2 cents.

  • Like 2

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ok to leave some stuff for next time if it means actually knowing what did or didn't make it into the patch. It just requires getting in that schedule cycle. 

 

Also, yall have a LOT of other stuff still outstanding you can do 2 weeks a month that isn't patching. Just saying.

 

Unfortunately ED has proven they can't be trusted with shorter patch intervals. So unfortunately it is what it is unless they finally get real version control and 3rd parties can just push their own patches. But again, that would mean REAL modularity, not whatever ED is doing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was clearly pointed out how crappy my description of what I suspected was a still an issue with the B flight model, and stated HB needed some kind of clearly outlined description of the issue using statistical/performance data from flight recording software etc.

 

The main issues with this process for me is:

 

1) I don't know what it was supposed to be for the real F14B

2) any official F14B documentation or charts describing its IRL performance characteristics have some how become very hard for me to find the past month despite them being common place, easy to find, and readily available when all these dudes wanted to show my how I was superduper wrong and what a tool I was last year following me REEEEEing in a Tomcat thread about getting clapped in 1v1 guns bfm on the reg in the FA18 by F14Bs .


Edited by Ur_A_Cop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RustBelt said:

It's ok to leave some stuff for next time if it means actually knowing what did or didn't make it into the patch. It just requires getting in that schedule cycle. 

 

Also, yall have a LOT of other stuff still outstanding you can do 2 weeks a month that isn't patching. Just saying.

 

Unfortunately ED has proven they can't be trusted with shorter patch intervals. So unfortunately it is what it is unless they finally get real version control and 3rd parties can just push their own patches. But again, that would mean REAL modularity, not whatever ED is doing.

 

 

Well, that's what we do anyway. In this case the upload for 1 item just came a couple hours too late, we didnt know ED had started building yet, etc... That's not really a concern in the workflow. Equally as we do not sit around twisting thumbs for 2 weeks ofc. But if you feel you could maybe still hit an upload, and it looks like it did last minute, a) you will ofc want to try and b) you might not notice that it didnt succeed in the end. That's not the norm.

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's just, always assume ED did it wrong until proven otherwise? Could save a lot of back and fourth with customer feedback. 

 

It's a Science thing, Prove what you think happened DID happen, then problem solve from there, may save you a lot of headaches. Especially with some of the Cough UrACOP Cough feedback providers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ur_A_Cop said:

I think it was clearly pointed out how crappy my description of what I suspected was a still an issue with the B flight model, and stated HB needed some kind of clearly outlined description of the issue using statistical/performance data from flight recording software etc.

 

The main issues with this process for me is:

 

1) I don't know what it was supposed to be for the real F14B

2) any official F14B documentation or charts describing its IRL performance characteristics have some how become very hard for me to find the past month despite them being common place, easy to find, and readily available when all these dudes wanted to show my how I was superduper wrong and what a tool I was last year following me REEEEEing in a Tomcat thread about getting clapped on the reg in the FA18 by F14Bs.

 

 

I'll try and grab the em chart later, Cop, and show you the P=0 on the curve, so you can check what it should be. ATM it is indeed too slow, your gut feeling wasn't wrong.

 

Just now, RustBelt said:

I guess it's just, always assume ED did it wrong until proven otherwise? Could save a lot of back and fourth with customer feedback. 

 

It's a Science thing, Prove what you think happened DID happen, then problem solve from there, may save you a lot of headaches. Especially with some of the Cough UrACOP Cough feedback providers.

 

I appreciate your kind suggestions. 🙂

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny in a painfully ironic way because it's like I'm being gaslighted by the community, or the very least the dudes in the DCS F14 threads.

 

I got all irrational salty and had a REEEE about HB F14B Tomcat performance in a Tomcat thread last fall 2019 because I was very aggro about getting clapped in the FA18 by F14Bs on the reg. That post of mine seemed to get almost unanimous response from the DCS Tomcat community saying how accurate the flight model was at that point, and this was all supported by what seemed very official and sound charts and documentation. IIRC the thread went on for 20-30 pages of dudes making fun of me and refuting my unfounded inaccurate claims.

 

Now a year later, I'm trying to use these same arguments which were used last fall to refute my unfounded claims of the F14B flight model in 2019-albeit in maybe much more thickskulled manner because I'm trying to do it without the charts and siting of official documentation which as disappeared due to those posts being removed from the forum or individual users taking them down- and dudes are losing their minds again about how wrong, stupid and irrational I am.


Edited by Ur_A_Cop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ur_A_Cop said:

I funny in a painfully ironic way because it's like I'm being gaslighted by the community, or the very least the dudes in the DCS F14 threads.

 

I got all irrational salty and had a REEEE about HB F14B Tomcat performance in a Tomcat thread last fall 2019. That post of mine seemed to get almost unanimous response from the DCS Tomcat community saying how accurate the flight model was at that point, and this was all supported by what seemed very official and sound charts and documentation. IIRC the thread went on for 20-30 pages of dudes making fun of me and refuting my inaccurate claims.

 

Now a year later, I'm trying to use these same arguments which were used last fall to refute my unfounded claims of the F14B flight model in 2019-albeit in maybe much more thickskulled manner because I'm trying to do it without the charts and siting of official documentation which as disappeared due to those posts being removed from the forum or individual users taking them down- and dudes are losing their minds again about how wrong, stupid and irrational I am.

 

 

No one called you either wrong nor stupid, Cop. But yes, you may have presented yourself a bit in an irrational manner. 🙃 It's all good.

And yes, it was very accurate, now it is bugged. We'll fix it again.

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

 

No one called you either wrong nor stupid, Cop. But yes, you may have presented yourself a bit in an irrational manner. 🙃 It's all good.

And yes, it was very accurate, now it is bugged. We'll fix it again.

No one made fun of me this year, at least if they did the posts were removed/hidden. But last year, I was mocked and the joke of the community for quite a long time until it was determined that thread was a excrement display and deleted by the admin. Although it was due last year, because-based on the citations supporting the accuracy of the F14B FM I was shown within that HBF14B thread last fall which have conveniently become very hard to find or totally vaporized into thin air-as far as I can tell I was misinformed and very very wrong.

 

But again it is funny, in a painfully ironic way, that the past month I've said in a new but relatively identical themed F14 forum thread the F14B flight model feels like it's significantly underperforming compared to the past year then I essentially get the same negative responses from forum members in the new F14 thread despite the fact I'm making a poor attempt in trying to say what seemed to be the cohesive, unified, and unanimous opinion of those dudes who were highly critical of me last fall who had pointed out how wrong I was with-as far as I could tell-detailed official and scholarly citations posted in the old deleted F14B thread that have conveniently or inconveniently depending on how you look at it become very hard to find.

 

IDK if that's making sense or not. Maybe I'm not being articulate enough to convey what I'm trying to say. 


Edited by Ur_A_Cop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ur_A_Cop said:

No one made fun of me this year, at least if they did the posts were removed/hidden. But last year, I was mocked and the joke of the community for quite a long time until it was determined that thread was a excrement display. Although it was probably due last year, because as far as I can tell I was wrong.

 

But again it is funny, in a painfully ironic way, that the past month I've said the F14B flight model feels like it's significantly underperforming compared to the past year in a new but relatively identical forum thread then I essentially get the same negative responses from users in the thread despite the fact I'm now saying what seemed to be the cohesive, unified, and unanimous opinion of those dudes who were highly critical of me last fall which had pointed out how wrong I was with-as far as I could tell- detailed official and scholarly citations in the former F14B thread I mentioned earlier.

 

IDK if that's making sense or not. Maybe I'm not being articulate enough to convey what I'm trying to say. 


We do get it Cop. That's how things just turn around sometimes, Murphie's law, or whatever... No need to overthink it, really. No need to listen much to others, either. We take every input seriously, and if the tone is off, I will let you know, haha, as you noticed. There's not much else to it. The important thing for you to remember: we do take your input seriously. 🙂

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IronMike said:

 

 

Yeah, no, lol.

It actually turned out this wasn't the case, only with the engine fires, which got added last minute, and we hoped they got pulled. Which is unfortunate from our POV, since now it means it is a bug that needs to be fixed, rather than something that has been fixed and got missed. 

Why it happens that we miss some things? Because our work schedule and ED's work schedule differ and we try to get in fixes even last minute, etc. We make several Tomcat builds per week in general, and we try to squeeze in as much as we can, because if we don't, you have to wait another month for a fix and we cannot not work on stuff for 2 weeks per month. The schedule is not very favorable, but ofc, understandable that ED takes precedence here. It allows more testing on core game issues, but our process, including testing is separate. For us it would be best to release smaller fixes more frequently (and basically without a schedule, like is usus in the industry in general: fixes come, when they are ready). I still see no reason why the community would want a schedule at all. Testers need a schedule, devs need a schedule, but players imo do not. That's my 2 cents.

I haven't been in the software development business for that long, but i kinda agree with you.....well, not kinda, all the way actually.
Too bad though, that we seam to be some of the few that lament this new schedule thingy. 😞

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alphabet_Ghost said:

Found new bug , launch 54 in tws-auto mode and press PLM switch , missile will go active ( not sure if it will DL update fly towards to target , looks not but need more test)

 

 

Could you check please if you get that at far ranges as well, or if range related at which range it stops doing that (if it does stop)? Thank you!

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before Thursdays patch Aim-54s would not go active if the TWS track is lost before TTI 16

After the latest patch Aim-54s can still go active without being supported by a TWS track until TTI 16

 

1st Test

Target size set to small via the Jester menu

Aim-54C fired at 24nm TTI is 48 seconds

Radar then set to silent via the Jester menu

TWS track file is lost at TTI 38 seconds

Aim-54C goes active and hits the target

 

2nd Test

Target size set to small via the Jester menu

Aim-54C fired at 43nm TTI is 86 seconds

Radar then set to silent via the Jester menu

TWS track file is lost at TTI 70 seconds

Aim-54C goes active and hits the target

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMdGZPGIU4&feature=youtu.be

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyGbHBzmo2s&feature=youtu.be

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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