Upcoming Hornet FCS & Flight Model Update Transparency

[wilbur81]

Hey, Team.

 

A humble request/wish:

 

Having looked at the (attached) mini update from Wags today, it looks really really great! However, I have one concern regarding the upcoming flight model, drag, FCS changes coming. Namely, after having gotten used to (read "fallen in love with") the current FM and how the jet performs, I and I'm sure others will be experiencing some real or placebo'd changes that will leave us all wondering:

 

- 'why is the jet slower?'

- 'what happened to our turn performance?'

- 'how could the already draggy Hornet get more draggy?'

- 'is the jet's low speed handling degraded?'

- etc. etc.

 

These end up being fashioned into long, drawn out threads of discussion and speculation that may be entirely based upon mis-perceptions and placebo effect. Heck, the new FM may actually perform better, but all we will know as the user is that "the FM, Drag, FCS have been updated."

 

So, my request/wish would be that the FM developers could put out a simple, bullet point statement about how the new FM will perform compared to the current one we have... and (bonus points) the rationale behind the changes (i.e. new data became available, SME's didn't approve of the old one, etc.)

 

This way, whether people are pleased or pissed about how "their" Hornet is now performing after years of something "else," at least they will be able to avoid the Elephant-in-the-Room question: "What exactly has changed?"

 

Again, this is PURELY wishlist/humble request... if we get nothing more than "FM changed," I'll just trust that it was a change for the better (meaning: closer to the real-world performance of a Hornet Block 20).

 

Thanks for your consideration. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by wilbur81

[med-taha]

+1 please ED... 

Edited February 18, 2021 by med-taha

[Tusky]

One of the issues to be corrected is the ballooning effect when moving the flap switch from AUTO to HALF/FULL. According to real F-18 pilots, that does not happen in the real jet (I believe the FCS counters it).

[Skysurfer]

They have enough SME's and knowledgeable people on the Hornet team to get this right. There are several issues apart from the flaps pitch moment.

[wilbur81]

22 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

They have enough SME's and knowledgeable people on the Hornet team to get this right. There are several issues apart from the flaps pitch moment.

This kind of illustrates the point of my original post above: I think it would serve the community (though we're certainly in no way entitled) to have the Hornet developers speak to what those "several issues" are and what they've actually tweaked in order to dispel needless speculation. 

[TGW]

I see this applies to the 'current' update, FM is completely borked in v2.7 (vs. v2.5.6).  Induced drag values are waaaay to high , and turn rate is horrible, not even comparable with NFM-220 manual documentation, sigh.

[TGW]

On 2/18/2021 at 10:52 AM, Xamik75 said:

One of the issues to be corrected is the ballooning effect when moving the flap switch from AUTO to HALF/FULL. According to real F-18 pilots, that does not happen in the real jet (I believe the FCS counters it).

As with any config changes in the aircraft (fuel tank dump, ordinance drop, acft damage, flap & sbrake deployment) are automatically trimmed in the FCS. UNLESS, there's a FCS channel failure, then you would use manual (trim buttons) for flight vector stabilization. . .

Edited April 27, 2021 by TGW

[VFA41_Lion]

On 4/21/2021 at 2:56 AM, TGW said:

I see this applies to the 'current' update, FM is completely borked in v2.7 (vs. v2.5.6).  Induced drag values are waaaay to high , and turn rate is horrible, not even comparable with NFM-220 manual documentation, sigh.

lmao what? They didnt even do any flight model changes. Everything you're seeing is in your head.

[Dunx]

Hahaha, irony, proving the point.

 

+1 for transparency

[wilbur81]

15 minutes ago, Dunx said:

Hahaha, irony, proving the point.

 

+1 for transparency

 

Also, (hopefully not to derail my own thread) I'm increasingly glad that ED brought us the Legacy Lot 20 and NOT the Super Hornet. Watching the new Blue Angels demo, listening to SMEs on the Hornet's evolution, and the words of pilots who transitioned from Legacy to Super (and perusing the GAO doc on the Super)... The Legacy is a higher performance, slightly more untamed beast than the Super. The Super Hornet's roll rate, for example, is slower and is actually noticeable when watching the new Blues perform. Sure, the Super has greater range, payload capacity, and more sophisticated systems/FCS... but in terms of maneuverability, acceleration, that Hornet-howl, and arguably better looks... I'm thankful for the Legacy. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by wilbur81

[Skysurfer]

Hopefully we'll see said improvements in the next major patch. 

[wilbur81]

Hey, Bignewy.

 

Just came back to DCS from a two month break and downloaded the latest 2.7 OB. Here's the annual question: Did the Hornet's flight model or engine thrust get tweaked in 2.7 in any way? It doesn't seem to be performing as well as it did before 2.7, particularly at slower speeds... as if it has been AOA limited more than before....but maybe it's just me?

 

*EDIT* I need to post a 2.5.6 and 2.7.1 track respectively with the FCS page up, but I'm finding, in 2.7.1, that left and right stick on final approach to the carrier introduces what looks like an adverse yaw or horizontal nose 'swing' that was/is not present in pre-2.7 builds. Again, the burden is on me to post tracks... Anyone else with the time and both builds on their PC can try it out to see what I'm talking about, but I noticed it immediately on my first 2.7 Hornet CASE 1 approach. 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by wilbur81

[fagulha]

On 4/28/2021 at 3:27 PM, wilbur81 said:

 

Also, (hopefully not to derail my own thread) I'm increasingly glad that ED brought us the Legacy Lot 20 and NOT the Super Hornet. Watching the new Blue Angels demo, listening to SMEs on the Hornet's evolution, and the words of pilots who transitioned from Legacy to Super (and perusing the GAO doc on the Super)... The Legacy is a higher performance, slightly more untamed beast than the Super. The Super Hornet's roll rate, for example, is slower and is actually noticeable when watching the new Blues perform. Sure, the Super has greater range, payload capacity, and more sophisticated systems/FCS... but in terms of maneuverability, acceleration, that Hornet-howl, and arguably better looks... I'm thankful for the Legacy. 

 

I think it was on The Fighter Pilot Podcast with Vincent Aiello that a Super Hornet pilot explains that a Legacy Hornet with 2 ext tanks flies like the Super Hornet does and the main difference between the two was the engines.  The con of the Legacy Hornet was/is underpowered. I´m glad what ED gave us and i know if it was a Super Hornet it will be at this same high level of detail. Of course the Legacy Hornet have a special place in my heart since my childhood.

[wilbur81]

On 2/17/2021 at 8:42 PM, wilbur81 said:

Hey, Team.

 

A humble request/wish:

 

Having looked at the (attached) mini update from Wags today, it looks really really great! However, I have one concern regarding the upcoming flight model, drag, FCS changes coming. Namely, after having gotten used to (read "fallen in love with") the current FM and how the jet performs, I and I'm sure others will be experiencing some real or placebo'd changes that will leave us all wondering:

 

- 'why is the jet slower?'

- 'what happened to our turn performance?'

- 'how could the already draggy Hornet get more draggy?'

- 'is the jet's low speed handling degraded?'

- etc. etc.

 

These end up being fashioned into long, drawn out threads of discussion and speculation that may be entirely based upon mis-perceptions and placebo effect. Heck, the new FM may actually perform better, but all we will know as the user is that "the FM, Drag, FCS have been updated."

 

So, my request/wish would be that the FM developers could put out a simple, bullet point statement about how the new FM will perform compared to the current one we have... and (bonus points) the rationale behind the changes (i.e. new data became available, SME's didn't approve of the old one, etc.)

 

This way, whether people are pleased or pissed about how "their" Hornet is now performing after years of something "else," at least they will be able to avoid the Elephant-in-the-Room question: "What exactly has changed?"

 

Again, this is PURELY wishlist/humble request... if we get nothing more than "FM changed," I'll just trust that it was a change for the better (meaning: closer to the real-world performance of a Hornet Block 20).

 

 

After reading today's Newsletter on upcoming FM changes, I'd love to revisit the above request. 

[Razor18]

I dunno which topic is appropriate for it, but now the Hornet seems to me much more instable along the longitudinal axis, in other words you need to constantly trimm the aileron to remain level. Previously I never had to. Only me, or do others experience it too?

[Aisxos]

just gonna add my +1. 
At this point I feel like the hornet is purposefully abandoned in a 'broken' state, with no word as to what is possibly going to be done about it
I don't mean to sound critical or angry about it, I'd just like to know if there's something to look forward to, or if I should switch modules for a while until something changes.

[maxTRX]

On 9/12/2021 at 5:54 PM, Aisxos said:

just gonna add my +1. 
At this point I feel like the hornet is purposefully abandoned in a 'broken' state, with no word as to what is possibly going to be done about it
I don't mean to sound critical or angry about it, I'd just like to know if there's something to look forward to, or if I should switch modules for a while until something changes.

 

+1... for now 

[wilbur81]

On 9/12/2021 at 7:54 PM, Aisxos said:

At this point I feel like the hornet is purposefully abandoned in a 'broken' state, with no word as to what is possibly going to be done about it
 

Absolute nonsense. There is nothing "broken" about the current FM. It needs more tweaking in certain regimes to get even closer to reality...but it is certainly not broken.

[nighthawk2174]

On 4/21/2021 at 1:56 AM, TGW said:

I see this applies to the 'current' update, FM is completely borked in v2.7 (vs. v2.5.6).  Induced drag values are waaaay to high , and turn rate is horrible, not even comparable with NFM-220 manual documentation, sigh.

Do you have the -220 manual?

[Gierasimov]

On 9/13/2021 at 2:54 AM, Aisxos said:

just gonna add my +1. 
At this point I feel like the hornet is purposefully abandoned in a 'broken' state, with no word as to what is possibly going to be done about it
I don't mean to sound critical or angry about it, I'd just like to know if there's something to look forward to, or if I should switch modules for a while until something changes.

'Broken' state? What's this about. I have got 492 Hornet hours recorded in single player logbook since its day 1f and I don't think anybody would care to use these hours to play a broken state DCS module.

 

If you read news, comments, go through social media, you will notice Hornet is not abandoned, however bear in mind that most of the fixed wing aircraft developers are now involved with Viper, so it may be slower to get certain things in a blitzkrieg manner. 

 

Only recently, FM for Hornet AI was introduced to be on par with the human Hornet, which made dogfight AI Hornets already better experience.  

 

One thing I agree with you on is that you are right thinking that you should switch for now, that will help you prevail the state of Hornet that you perceive. 

 

-1 from me on this one.

 

[maxTRX]

My '+1' was more of a general sound-off on the total state of Hornet including combat readiness. I agree on the FM. Probably mostly FCS modelling, perhaps some tweaks to 'some' performance curves, drag... I don't know. I'm sure they have advisors and charts.

I'm redirecting my '+1' to the idea of dragging the the dev A-team back to Hornet 

[wilbur81]

I'm really liking the new, subtle engine tweaks. It seems like we went from an A model F404-400 to a proper C model F404-402. 

 

Keep up the good work, Team!