Patch/Hotfix Dec 23rd 2020 Feedback Thread

[Uxi]

45 minutes ago, IronMike said:

 

No, it turned just right. The current reduction in turn rate is an unwanted regress. I think this isn't quite clear to some.

 

PS: not meant to shout at you, btw, I hope it didnt look like that, just accentuated it so it doesn't get missed.

 

Oh I read that wrong, sorry.  Thanks for the update!

[Skysurfer]

Ok, I guess this is the best place to report this. Just did a few quick and dirty testflights and the TIT spiking causing the engines to catch fire is still not fixed as of this patch. The transsonic drag at lower altitudes is mostly where it was before, you can now reach around M1.2 on the deck up to 7k feet, clean, two external tanks and full fuel or less. However, during some tests higher up I did encounter the TIT spike bug/issue. Firstly, there seems to be fairly excessive drag approaching Mach 1.1 - as if the aircraft was at a lower altitude and struggling to break this barrier. Secondly, there seems to be an altitude band (between roughly 32000 to 40000 feet) where approaching Mach 1.1 will cause the TIT to spike way up to 1500C or higher and the stall lights to come on for both engines. Unless you get out of burner within 2 seconds your engines will catch fire. I was able to reproduce this fairly reliably, both in level flight or when accelerating to Mach 1.3+ at 20000 feet and then pitching up through 30000 feet, around M1.1 I would get said TIT spike, same goes with going down. Sometimes however I was able to accelerate through M1.1 at 32000 feet and two external tanks without a problem, reaching around M1.6 with no TIT spike. More often than not however you get this excessive drag around M1.1 and subsequent engine issues within the beforementioned altitude band. Below, I have saved and attached some track files (however those can be broken and unreliable since it's the DCS track system).

 

 

Furthermore, I will attach various screenshots of the main instruments showing the flight paremeters which cause said TIT spikes as well as instances where I was able to reach fairly high speeds without problems in some cases.

 

First instance, 29k feet, slight descent, Mach 1.6 with two external tanks, no missile racks/rails. TIT within limits.

 

Second instance, climbing through 31k feet, zone 5 AB, same configuration and comparable fuel. Not the needle being seemingly stuck around M1.1.

 

Same climb, 35k feet, just passing M1.1, TIT spiking past limits, STALL lights both on.

 

Rapidly descending from 41k feet, zone 5, around 36k feet and just M1, same TIT spike can be observed.

 

Another test, this time accelerating to M1.6 below 30k feet and steeply pitching up, climbing through 35k feet in zone 5 and M1.1.

 

Rolling over from 30k feet and diving down to the deck in zone 5 AB. No TIT spike can be observed and the jet gains mach quite reasonably.

 

Noteworthy as well. When you do an air-start upon loading in you get two L and R oil HOT caution lights on the caution and warning panel. These go away after just a few seconds.

 

Conclusion: It seems like the new engine/compressor STALL model introduced this issue. It definitely does not happen below 30k feet on a standard day. I have not played with temps too much to see if that changes anything. This issue can be observed together with the fairly high drag around M1.1, the engines in zone 5 AB and beforementioned altitude or maybe temperature band between 32k and 41k feet. Some of my guesses would be that this might have something to do with the OIL/FUEL or AIR/FUEL heat exchangers having a bug at certain altitudes (if you guys model those), speeds and in max AB. This could be related to said drag-wall around M1.1 at those altitudes as well. There were instances where I got this TIT spike around Mach 0.8 and lower, with alpha on the jet around 36k feet as well. I also observed that once you have had this TIT spike happen 1-2 times within the same flight and having rolled back the engines in time to prevent damage, a subsequent attempt at repruducing it magically clears the M1.1 drag issue and you are able to reach Mach 1.6 and M2.3+ within the beforementioned altitude band with no spike in TIT. I have not touched the 14B since the A came out and don't know if it is affected by this as well.

 

Regardless, something seems really bugged and this needs to be fixed as quickly as possible as me as well as many others dont see ourselves flying the 14A in any combat scenario until this is resolved. I think it's safe to say that this as well as the turnrate issue should be priority #1 going into the next year and all focus should be put into resolving this. 

I hope my quick and dirty tests will help you guys track this one down and if needed I am willing to assist with further data and tests. 

F14ENGINEISSUE.trk F14ENGINEISSUE2.trk F14ENGINEISSUE3.trk

Edited December 23, 2020 by Skysurfer

[MBot]

I can also confirm the temperature spike at 1.1M, 30'000 ft. Caucasus map, 12°C at sea level. I can't consistently reproduce yet, but happened multiple times after a carrier launch, climb to 37'000 at M0.9 and pushover to accelerate through the trans-sonic zone. At about M1.1 the temperature spikes and depending on how fast you accelerate, the engines blow or return to normal at M1.2.

 

Thanks for the trans-sonic drag fix. Does this conclude drag fixes, or is the AIM-54 ordinance drag something that will still be adjusted?

[Skysurfer]

8 minutes ago, MBot said:

I can also confirm the temperature spike at 1.1M, 30'000 ft. Caucasus map, 12°C at sea level. I can't consistently reproduce yet, but happened multiple times after a carrier launch, climb to 37'000 at M0.9 and pushover to accelerate through the trans-sonic zone. At about M1.1 the temperature spikes and depending on how fast you accelerate, the engines blow or return to normal at M1.2.

 

Thanks for the trans-sonic drag fix. Does this conclude drag fixes, or is the AIM-54 ordinance drag something that will still be adjusted?

 

I feel like down low the drag is pretty believable now but like you know around 32k feet the drag at 1.1 seems pretty excessive and almost like a wall. It also only happens when your TIT spikes as a result, if it doesnt occur you accelerate through that area normally. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Skysurfer

[Wizard_03]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

 

Could you check the OAT you had at the time it happend and see if it happens again with the same OAT (and tell me the OAT pls)? And if you don't mind, try the same temp/loadout etc in Caucasus. Thanks!

 

OAT = temperature, to be more precise, simply the temp in your mission setting.

Ok the temp setting was 20C in ME, I have not had a chance to try mission in the Caucasus yet, but I just re-tried my NTTR mission with the same settings: OAT - 20C (80% fuel, with 2xAim-54C on station 6/3, 2xAim-7MH, 2xAim-9Ms, 2xTanks emptied during the mission, with the rear phoenix pylons on 4/5 removed.) and I couldn't reproduce the spike. I'll try the Caucasus and report back. Also this was a cold start mission.

 

I could be mistaken, but I think when it happened before I had less the 1G on the jet, I was trying to unload when I noticed it, But when I tried this time I replicated the exact same situation as before and I couldn't get it to happen even when pushing over at .9M in zone 5.

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Wizard_03

[Calinho]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

 

 

Would you mind trying it one more time in the PG map, if you have it, please, and set the temp at 0°? I would appreciate it a lot, thank you.

 

 

 

NV map = NTTR?

 

 

I created a mission in PG map: F-14A, no loadouts, 70% fuel, oat minimum for PG is 14.3 °

Resut: Zoom climb to 35k feet, unable to pass mach 1.2, engine fire at 35k feet with full burner, TIT spiked to maximum before fire.

 

track and print attached

f-14a PG fire oat 14.3.trk

[near_blind]

If it'll help. I experienced the double engine fire on the Caucasus map. Temperature was -7 degrees C. I air started at 25,000 feet and Mach .85 with four sparrows, four sidewinders and two fuel tanks, full fuel. Accelerated in MIL until Mach .9, then engaged burner. I accelerated to ~Mach 1.12 in a shallow climb before my engines exploded at 26,000. I don't have a track but I can go recreate the scenario if one is desired. 

 

Sparrows work good though!

[Fliegerkalle]

5 hours ago, IronMike said:

Added hog to VF-11 droptank on B version. 

 Hi it is may only a small issue with the livery , but i can not see the hog on the droptank - is this also seen Or not by other players?

 

Sorry reporting this , but i want at least mentioned it 

 

BR Fliegerkalle 

[IronMike]

Thank you guys, those are all great reports! Very much appreciated!

@transonic drag: I think fat creason will tweak it maybe just a little bit more, but in general the behavior you are experiencing now is to be expected and pretty close to what it should be, or maybe as close as one can get it, that is something for fat creason and our SMEs to decide.
Depending on payload, you will be able to push through 1.1 also higher up, unless you carry lots of phoenixes. It just takes very long in the A. If you want to see its performance, you best see it clean, since stores drag doesnt affect it. Once you get past 1.2 she will be accelerating faster again. This effect is wanted and pretty close now, even with stores.  

Around 20k, with 2x2x2/xt and fairly full, you will get her to around M1.45 or somewhere between 1.6 to 1.8 clean, depending on fuel weight.

We will be looking into stores drag together with ED, but we cannot do it on our own. We believe the drag for tanks is also slightly too high atm, so we will start there first. One of our main issues with stores drag is, that we cannot change the drag between wing pylons and tunnel stations. The tunnel stations and sunk in aim7s should produce almost no drag. A bit of an issue is that these numbers are not easy to get by, but we are considering to actually re-do windtunnel tests for the stations in questions and take it from there. But, no promise on this yet, it is both very costly and time consuming. Either way, this issue also exists with the B, only that you feel it way less with the F110s and maybe did not notice it, while in the A it is very much noticeable. It is definitely something that we want to solve long-term.

The engire fire unfortunately got a bit more confusing again... We need to find the reason why that TIT spike happens, and temperature settings now do not seem to affect it, or less than it briefly looked. According to our code the spike is "impossible", lol, but that's how it often goes. We'll get behind it, I hope rather sooner than later.

Thanks again for the great reports and feedback.

 

[Skysurfer]

I think the stores drag is less of a concern if you guys can find a good enough compromise within the realms of DCS. I dont think anyone expects to get to Mach 1.8 ot even 2 in a fully laden cat. The above tests were all done clean with 2 external tanks. At 29k feet I was able to get to M1.6 with the tanks still on, higher up however there seems to be even more drag for some reason and the plane struggles to get past 1.1, as well as the obvious TIT spike and subsequent problems with that. This shouldn't be happening from a pure physics perspective as with increasing alt. the air gets thinner and colder (normally). I really think this is somehow related to the new TF30 compressor stall code, mach lever etc. since this TIT spike is always accompanied by the stall lights and horn going off. 

[captain_dalan]

13 hours ago, IronMike said:

 

 

 

 

If nothing chaned, which is likely, it will be around .3 to .4G slower during a sustained turn.

I noticed the same in the A. It seamed to be lagging exactly 0.4g in the 300-350 knots area just like the B model. Do you think the issue might be related? Store drag? Intake drag?

P.S. i haven't had the chance to run any tests since the new patch released. I just installed it, but it's 3 AM here and i have a lot of work for tomorrow.

Edited December 24, 2020 by captain_dalan

[RustBelt]

Almost sounds like the compressor is just giving up and letting the combustion event move forward in the engine. What's the Transonic modeling like? Are you getting some kind of weird negative pressure in the intake or something? 

[UWBuRn]

What is the expected behaviour for a 54C fired in SARH mode when the lock is lost? Should it steer in some direction or just go straight?

 

I just fired a 54C on a PvE server (that's why i have no track or ACMI) in PDSTT at 25 miles, lost lock, couldn't reaquire, started looking at the missile, it was more or less following the bandit with a 1.6G turn, then it did some left right "wobbling" and then lost the lock and went straight: i had the impression it went pitbull and then went after some chaffs.

 

I was expecting the missile just to go straight unless the lock could be reacquired.

 

I also have the impression that AIM-7 (used M version) are still somewhat off, on two occasion i fired at around 12 miles and they just went straight.

 

On the bright side, TTI is working fine and it's very helpful in engagements.

[CanopyJettison]

Does anybody have the following issues fixed?

 

• Livery fixes for VF-102 and 103 Hi Vis. 

• Small fixes to A liveries. 

• Added hog to VF-11 droptank on B version. 

• Fixed mirroring issues on Last Ride and Grim Reapers liveries. 

This was written in the changelog by BIGNEWY

I done see any of those fixes.

 

mirroring issues on VF 101, 102 and 103 still existing.

No hog on VF 11 droptank visible for me.

[T-O-A]

Am 24.12.2020 um 00:37 schrieb Fliegerkalle:

 Hi it is may only a small issue with the livery , but i can not see the hog on the droptank - is this also seen Or not by other players?

 

Sorry reporting this , but i want at least mentioned it 

 

BR Fliegerkalle 

I didnt see it.

 

Also the mirroring issues are the same for me.

 

Is there anybody, who could see the hog on the tank?

And anybody where the mirroring issues were gone?

[RustBelt]

Y'all clear your metashader and FXO files?

Edited December 25, 2020 by RustBelt

[Ravacoon]

4 hours ago, RustBelt said:

Y'all clear your metashader and FXO files?

 

Hey buddy,

yes i did. Still no changes. Still "wrong" sides and no Red Ripper Head on the Droptanks :(

[IronMike]

We just confirmed that for some reason the livery fixes did not make it. Likely the files were not pulled properly or something of the sorts, since they have been committed. Can happen, our apologies, it will be in the next patch then.

We hope you enjoy your holidays.

[Moorhuhn]

7 hours ago, IronMike said:

We just confirmed that for some reason the livery fixes did not make it. Likely the files were not pulled properly or something of the sorts, since they have been committed. Can happen, our apologies, it will be in the next patch then.

We hope you enjoy your holidays.

No problem.

Thanks for feedback.

We'll wait for the next patch.

 

Happy holidays and stay healthy.

[Whiskey11]

On 12/23/2020 at 6:09 PM, IronMike said:

Thank you guys, those are all great reports! Very much appreciated!

@transonic drag: I think fat creason will tweak it maybe just a little bit more, but in general the behavior you are experiencing now is to be expected and pretty close to what it should be, or maybe as close as one can get it, that is something for fat creason and our SMEs to decide.
Depending on payload, you will be able to push through 1.1 also higher up, unless you carry lots of phoenixes. It just takes very long in the A. If you want to see its performance, you best see it clean, since stores drag doesnt affect it. Once you get past 1.2 she will be accelerating faster again. This effect is wanted and pretty close now, even with stores.  

 

Really?  After this latest patch, I jumped in the -A again in the Caucus Free Flight Mission (used to do the cold start as well), and with the default 2 sidewinder, 2 AIM-7MH, and 2 external tanks loadout, at 36k feet I burned through over 12000lbs (a Hornet's worth ) of gas at ~Mach 1.1 before I emergency jettisoned the stores and instantly the speeds started climbing rapidly until I nearly ran out of fuel (was able to land at Sokhumi with about 700lbs of fuel).  I finished this acceleration around Mach 2.2.  So in roughly 5klbs of fuel, clean, I went from Mach 1.1 (where I burned ~12000lbs of fuel), dumped the two AIM-7's and two external tanks, and shot up quite rapidly to 2.2 before cutting it around 1400lbs to land at Sokhumi with 700lbs.  

I know the -A lacks thrust, but sparrow's on the wing pylons are relatively low drag, and the fuel tanks are obviously higher drag but it seems odd to ditch those items and instantly gain the ability to rocket off. I would have figured the -A in this configuration would still breach 1.1 fairly easily given the relatively low weight.  I'm not expecting to be able to carry 4 Phoenixes to that speed in that configuration though...

I have not experienced the engine fires on that mission, the temperatures did climb, but never broke into the "time to yeet the fan blades" mode like they did previously.  

[QuiGon]

The stores drag on the A seems indeed to be very excessive and much higher than on the B, which shouldn't be the case as it's the same airframe and same stores.

[Skysurfer]

They said the ext. fuel tank drag is a little too high right now. Problem is you cant have different drag values for missiles based on their station. A Sparrow in the semi conformal tunnel station will have less drag than on the wing pylon station. But yeah it does seem like drag overall is pretty whack. The Tomcat has been and still mostly is a hangar queen for me this year until they fix all the game-breaking bugs. Honestly dont see it getting out of EA and rid of most the bugs and issues by the end of next year.

[IronMike]

3 hours ago, QuiGon said:

The stores drag on the A seems indeed to be very excessive and much higher than on the B, which shouldn't be the case as it's the same airframe and same stores.

 

Has exactly the same drag, it just feels like that because the TF-30s are weaker. But defo something that needs to be solved long term together with ED. Unfortunately, as you might imagine, we cant just increase engine power to counter it...

[QuiGon]

29 minutes ago, IronMike said:

 

Has exactly the same drag, it just feels like that because the TF-30s are weaker. But defo something that needs to be solved long term together with ED. Unfortunately, as you might imagine, we cant just increase engine power to counter it...

I see, I really hope ED will bring more drag configuration options in the future, so that drag can be adjusted for the same kind of stores on different pylons, like in the Tomcat's tunnel.

[UWBuRn]

Had some time to do some more testing, nothing systematic but i flew plenty of time on some PvE server with many different situations plus some SP.

 

Overall, in my opinion, this is the best update of the Tomcat since a long time:

• All the last changes brought in in the last 3 months seem to work coherently, the target size settings now helps mitigating the AI starting evasive maneuvers before pitbull and the working TTI is very helpful for deciding when to break off and keep the distance
• I never experienced Jester going crazy bashing buttons or switching to RWS just after firing
• Exiting TWS-A after firing seems more consistent (some update ago was rather messy)
• I spent some time comparing AIM-7 behaviour on F-14 and F-18, they seem more or less the same, some difference i noticed before was probably related in some shot taking place at short distance in PSTT mode (probably after PAL), with the missile going straight for a moment and then steering as if the target was not illuminated by Flood mode
• I know this is on ED side, but something has changed on the AIM-54 guidance (don't know if in the hotfix or in the patch of the 17th), they seem to maneuver violently bleeding a lot of energy and i've definitely seen more AIM-54 running out of energy than before (and i never shooted near Rmax)
• Probably for the first time since Tomcat release, AIM-54C outperform AIM-54A Mk.60, the better chaff rejection of the C and the guidance behaviour described above more frequently happening on the A (probably again related to chaff rejection) make the C behave more consistently, plus you have the smokeless engine

From a more tactical point of view:

• Against the AI, always setting the target size to large helps countering the early maneuvering that tends to screw up TWS, against lone targets i had a quite high PKs (i would say around 80%, mostly shooting at mid-high alt, 30-40nm, AI at pretty dumbish level i guess)
• Having to prefer the AIM-54C with a little shorter legs i had to fire closer to 30 nm than to 40 nm to have enough energy; if they missile fails, you are more or less in the "weak spot" for the Tomcat (with Jester, at least), outside PAL range and with the target at the distance where the time consuming steps to tell Jester where to look at usually end up in failing to re-engage the target; i need to try again forcing myself at shooting at longer ditance to see how it goes
• Trying to perform PDSTT engagements ends many times with Jester losing lock: i don't have enough experience in the back seat to know the tricks of ho to keep lock in edge cases, but i keep reading here and there that a capable RIO should be able to do so... Jsester for sure it's not. Even disabling the option to swith automatically from PDSTT to PSTT and commanding him to switch while most appropriate doesn't seems to help. I want to stress that with difficuilties with a stable STT i only refer to favourable conditions (targets above or high alt engagements, where clutter should not be too much of a problem)
• Even with all the limitations, i still prefer TWS for AIM-54 shots, the ARH terminal phase is just too good to not be used plus, as said, PDSTT (with Jester) has its slice of limitations too
• AIM-7 are garbage (also on F-18), probably it was too much time since i used them at mid ranges and maybe they changed somewhat since them but i was unable to score any hit outside 12 nm at mid altitude
• There's a large performance gap between the A and B 'Cats: with a heavy combat load (4PH + 2SP + 2SW) the A requires a lot of burner, struggles in climbs and at accelerating prior of engagements - probably also affected by limitation in the stores drag modelling as already noted

In the future, any improvement to Jester fizzling out with the AWG-9 settings to get the max out of it and maybe some "crew contract" to let him go after the highest threat by himself would be great.