PSA: F-14 Performance/FM Development Status + Guided Discussion

[Callsign JoNay]

8 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

F18 without pilons

Well there's your problem.

[maxsin72]

6 hours ago, Spurts said:

Maybe, maybe not, didn't matter once the fight was below 300kts.  Pretty sure paddle won't do anything under 330-350 as the Hornet is lift limited at that point.

Sure, but even an average skilled F18 pilot knows how to mantein energy. 

3 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Well there's your problem.

Well i don't understand what you mean. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by maxsin72

[Katj]

On 11/6/2022 at 8:08 PM, captain_dalan said:

There is also overperformance above transonic. 
Anyways, in the attachment bellow i will add the test mission i generally use, a bit adjusted. This one is for the 2x2x2 configuration in the A model. I will also attach some tacviews. They aren't made as a definitive test, but only as a reference to what the test should involve. I didn't bother to fly all that precisely (i didn't even plug in my rudder pedals for this one), but even so, the general issues are largely apparent, especially at higher altitudes.

5000ft, acceleration seems roughly correct within (un)precision of the test flight, overperforming above mach 1.2 , reaching max mach almost half a minute sooner;
1000ft, same as the above, only not only does the plane reach max mach sooner, it also has higher max mach number 1.36 VS 1.31
15000ft, plane roughly matches predicted performance till about mach 1.30, after which it overperforms, reaching mach 1.38 more then half a minute sooner, and having max mach 1.47 instead of mach 1.40

25000ft, this is where transonic underperforming comes into play: plane takes 42s to get from mach 1.0 to mach 1.2, and it should take 18s. THEN the FM compensates for that lag by reaching mach 1.40 in 36s instead of 48s. The plane continues ot overperform reaching mach 1.65 100s sooner.

35000ft, finally, this one is the messiest: the plane starts to underperform above mach 1.0 and reaches mach 1.2 35s late, 1.4 66s late, 1.6 77s late, 1.8 88s late and so on. The plane doesn't seem to overperform at this altitude, except maybe for top speed, as it reaches mach 2.10 as opposed to mach 2.05. Also it seems to take 475s for the fuel to cut off, while (if i read the chart correctly) it should run out at about 400-420s? 

Anyways, i don't have much time to refine the mission or the tests. If anyone is interested, feel free to update the mission, analyze the data and post the results. Also please make sure i didn't forget to turn off wind and made sure we have a standard atmosphere.

Cheers and have a great weekend or what is left of it 

acceleration tests 2x2x2.miz 11.32 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221106-190033-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 156.48 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221106-185409-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 116.74 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221106-184822-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 105.95 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221106-184248-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 100.93 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221106-183656-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 97.68 kB · 1 download

If you wish to test, i may be able to indulge you, but first we'll need to set test goals and test parameters. Also, you will need to host the test mission, as for some reason i am not able to do it. So what configurations are you eager to evaluate?  

Yeah I know that it overperforms a bit in the supersonic regime, especially with some loadouts and some altitudes. I did some testing and presented the results way back in this thread.

The overperformance is less of a problem because you spend so little time at high supersonic speed anyway. Also that acceleration through mach is relatively worst at the altitude you should punch through mach.

If you want to climb high you should do so at Mach 1.4, anything over that is kind of useless.

 

But,

@IronMike

You say that this is a drag issue. It's clear from the charts that excess power should be at a minumum at about mach 1.05, and then start to increase pretty rapidly. But in DCS you're hitting a wall way up to Mach 1.2. Is this just a drag issue that you have no control over?

[Callsign JoNay]

21 minutes ago, maxsin72 said:

Well i don't understand what you mean. 

You're measuring the Tomcat against a Hornet in a Blue Angels configuration. That's not apples to apples. This is Digital Combat Simulator, put some pylons on the F-18 and see what happens.

[maxsin72]

15 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

You're measuring the Tomcat against a Hornet in a Blue Angels configuration. That's not apples to apples. This is Digital Combat Simulator, put some pylons on the F-18 and see what happens.

I agree with you and i know that f18 lose 1-2 degrees/sec in sustained turn, but F18 without pilons is the standard for BFM tournaments.

[Callsign JoNay]

20 minutes ago, maxsin72 said:

I agree with you and i know that f18 lose 1-2 degrees/sec in sustained turn, but F18 without pilons is the standard for BFM tournaments.

Well that's stupid, and it's probably where attention should be focused.

[maxsin72]

2 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Well that's stupid, and it's probably where attention should be focused.

I agree again but perhaps the most fair and easy solution could be to have the F14B without pilons as all the others planes in the tournaments. @IronMike and @fat creason what do you think about? 

[IronMike]

4 hours ago, Katj said:

You say that this is a drag issue. It's clear from the charts that excess power should be at a minumum at about mach 1.05, and then start to increase pretty rapidly. But in DCS you're hitting a wall way up to Mach 1.2. Is this just a drag issue that you have no control over?

We suspect so, plus a combination of excess power and power settings to achieve other important flight model components, such as pitch with power, etc. It is a balancing act to say the least. But I am confident Fat Creason will sort the remaining issues in this regard.

1 hour ago, maxsin72 said:

I agree again but perhaps the most fair and easy solution could be to have the F14B without pilons as all the others planes in the tournaments. @IronMike and @fat creason what do you think about? 

That is up to event organizers, all pylons can be removed, except for the fuel tanks, which are completely negligable in this regard.

[WarthogOsl]

Damn, I'd love it if the A could get through transonic a bit easier.  Based on anecdotal evidence (i.e., pilots on the F-14 Tomcast), it seems like "getting through the number" should be quite a bit easier than it currently is.

[maxsin72]

6 hours ago, IronMike said:

We suspect so, plus a combination of excess power and power settings to achieve other important flight model components, such as pitch with power, etc. It is a balancing act to say the least. But I am confident Fat Creason will sort the remaining issues in this regard.

That is up to event organizers, all pylons can be removed, except for the fuel tanks, which are completely negligable in this regard.

So is it possible to fly the F14B without the pilons under the wings? I mean the pilons who usually carries 2 sidewinders and 2 sparrows/phoenix.

Thank you

[Karon]

Question: you know you can take the hornet, add empty pylons, and level the playfield, right? If you want to go even deeper, you can also aim for the same DI for external stations, so you have "balance". It's quicker, you can do it right now, and it's future-proof. More importantly, it's not a waste of devs' time since removing the pylons it's pointless in any other setting (which are probably 99.9% of the cases).

Another question, out of curiosity, how come that the F-14 manages to lose in your "BFM tournament"? It has more endurance and power than anyone else (I take for granted that you don't use FC3-level planes). It can build separation and simply force the opponent to RTB due to low fuel, and at that point, it can strike.

[maxsin72]

5 minutes ago, Karon said:

Question: you know you can take the hornet, add empty pylons, and level the playfield, right? If you want to go even deeper, you can also aim for the same DI for external stations, so you have "balance". It's quicker, you can do it right now, and it's future-proof. More importantly, it's not a waste of devs' time since removing the pylons it's pointless in any other setting (which are probably 99.9% of the cases).

Another question, out of curiosity, how come that the F-14 manages to lose in your "BFM tournament"? It has more endurance and power than anyone else (I take for granted that you don't use FC3-level planes). It can build separation and simply force the opponent to RTB due to low fuel, and at that point, it can strike.

F18 without pilons is able to turn and climb at the same time better then the F14B.

Further more the standard in BFM tournaments are all the planes without pilons, only the F14B is setted with pilons under the wings.

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by maxsin72

[Noctrach]

1 hour ago, maxsin72 said:

So is it possible to fly the F14B without the pilons under the wings? I mean the pilons who usually carries 2 sidewinders and 2 sparrows/phoenix.

Thank you

Removing all pylons for the sake of BFM tournaments is something for you can do in the videogame for max performance funsies, but not a configuration these jets were intended to fly in. You will never have that configuration in a combat scenario. If you look at footage from real world BFM sets, you'll see not only pylons, but fuel tanks as well.

As someone answered in another thread on this forum: the glove pylons were never designed to be removable (and as a result, never were) and are part of the aerodynamic profile, so they induce effectively zero drag (Similar to AIM-9s on F-16/F-18 wingtips having a drag index of 0)

You would not see any positive performance changes even if they were removable.

  

3 minutes ago, maxsin72 said:

F18 without pilons is able to turn and climb at the same time better then the F14B.

And this is exactly why nobody takes airshow performance as a remotely valid basis for judging combat performance.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Noctrach

[maxsin72]

 

25 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

Removing all pylons for the sake of BFM tournaments is something for you can do in the videogame for max performance funsies, but not a configuration these jets were intended to fly in. You will never have that configuration in a combat scenario. If you look at footage from real world BFM sets, you'll see not only pylons, but fuel tanks as well.

I agree with you

Edited November 9, 2022 by maxsin72

[maxsin72]

31 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

And this is exactly why nobody takes airshow performance as a remotely valid basis for judging combat performance.

And i agree with you again, but, as you can see in the video linked below at 6 min and 44 secs, there is a tournament commented by real F18 pilots (Lemoine is the most famous) in which you cans see both F16 and F18 without pilons.

https://youtu.be/4p7j6Jj93eU?t=404

Edited November 9, 2022 by maxsin72

[Noctrach]

12 minutes ago, maxsin72 said:

And i agree with you again, but, as you can see in the video linked below at 6 min and 44 secs, there is a tournament commented by real F18 pilots (Lemoine is the most famous) in which you cans see both F16 and F18 without pilons.

https://youtu.be/4p7j6Jj93eU?t=404

 

Yeah but to my point, and what Karon mentions above as well, this is a particular tournament with a particular rule-set that will see a particular outcome. Mover provides commentary, but he makes it very clear in all his videos that DCS is a simulation/videogame and as such, there's game rules that apply for people to have fun and enjoy themselves.

An example of these rules is that all the jets above have fuel for similar time in burner. 

• Fun rule to make fuel management a core component of BFM execution (makes e.g. fuel dumping pre-merge a risk-reward proposition).
• Good rule to make sure matches don't drag on with someone running around in circles on afterburner.
• Completely disregards the endurance characteristics and fuel-weight-to-performance of each airframe.

The same applies to the pylon discussion, and honestly the state of PvP simming at large tbh (people keep complaining there's no competitive redfor, yet keep slapping AIM-120Cs on anything blue that flies)

Constraints make the game

[maxsin72]

6 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

Yeah but to my point, and what Karon mentions above as well, this is a particular tournament with a particular rule-set that will see a particular outcome. Mover provides commentary, but he makes it very clear in all his videos that DCS is a simulation/videogame and as such, there's game rules that apply for people to have fun and enjoy themselves.

An example of these rules is that all the jets above have fuel for similar time in burner. 

• Fun rule to make fuel management a core component of BFM execution (makes e.g. fuel dumping pre-merge a risk-reward proposition).
• Good rule to make sure matches don't drag on with someone running around in circles on afterburner.
• Completely disregards the endurance characteristics and fuel-weight-to-performance of each airframe.

The same applies to the pylon discussion, and honestly the state of PvP simming at large tbh (people keep complaining there's no competitive redfor, yet keep slapping AIM-120Cs on anything blue that flies)

Constraints make the game

I agree with you one more time, but, what you call "particular rule-set", are the rules used by every bfm server and in every bfm tournament.

That said, planes without pilons does not represent real situations.

[draconus]

9 minutes ago, maxsin72 said:

I agree with you one more time, but, what you call "particular rule-set", are the rules used by every bfm server and in every bfm tournament.

That said, planes without pilons does not represent real situations.

Having said that it seems obvious that you should take whatever aircraft that allows you to win if you care about winning the tournament within the rules set. Removing all pylons or fixing the Tomcat performance will not change that. It may be fun or just personal choice to still use the Tomcat but you put yourself at disadvantage right from the start then.

If you want to stay on simulation and realism side forget about these tournaments altogether and go with more realistic scenarios.

[maxsin72]

7 minutes ago, draconus said:

Having said that it seems obvious that you should take whatever aircraft that allows you to win if you care about winning the tournament within the rules set. Removing all pylons or fixing the Tomcat performance will not change that. It may be fun or just personal choice to still use the Tomcat but you put yourself at disadvantage right from the start then.

If you want to stay on simulation and realism side forget about these tournaments altogether and go with more realistic scenarios.

Sincerely, i would like to try to understand if there is a way to fight in those tournaments using F14B without being penalized, at least not too much. It's because i love the F14, otherwise i 'd have done just like all the others players who useF18 or M2000

[IronMike]

38 minutes ago, maxsin72 said:

Sincerely, i would like to try to understand if there is a way to fight in those tournaments using F14B without being penalized, at least not too much. It's because i love the F14, otherwise i 'd have done just like all the others players who useF18 or M2000

The wing pylons do not penalize you at all. They are part of the F14 and its aerodynamic profile.

[maxsin72]

9 minutes ago, IronMike said:

The wing pylons do not penalize you at all. They are part of the F14 and its aerodynamic profile.

Thank you for the answer

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, maxsin72 said:

Thank you for the answer

Another thing, Maxsin, you need to realize that BFM performance will not noticeably change. I am getting the impression that some folks want it to be back to what it was immediately after release, where it overperformed, and that has been fixed since 3 years or longer even. Being within 3% is insanely accurate for an FM, and if we bring it down to maybe 1-2%, that is almost unheard of. But the margin will be so small, that it will not change anything, really. It simply is what it is. That is something that needs to be accepted. Whether the F18 overperforms or not in DCS, I do not know, some think it does, but none of them ever flew one, and those who did won't tell you. It could be, but it also could not be. The F18 is simply good in BFM, and that, too, needs to be taken into account.

That said, it is always the pilot who wins over another pilot in BFM, never the aircraft, unless both pilots are of the same skill, which is rare, and even then, one will make a mistake sooner than the other. Hence skills are always best tested in the exact same aircraft. The higher your skill, the "lesser" aircraft you can "wield" against a higher performing aircraft. But imho all these BFM tournaments are a little bit nonsensical, because they are not in categories. And the categories should be always several of the same aircraft type, so F18 vs F18, F16 vs F16, F14 Vs F14... you get the idea + a mixed category, where it is a free for all. In that category, there should be no restrictions, and everyone should be allowed to set up as he wants, fuel, pylons, no pylons, flaps, no flaps, whatever, that is the idea of a free for all. Think you can win within 30 seconds (as you should)? Bring 20% fuel. Miscalculate and you are done. And so on and so forth. But that is how I would do it, and as mentioned, we don't mix in how others do their events. Or, you know, you can always bring an A-10 and murder everyone hahaha.

Edited November 9, 2022 by IronMike

[maxsin72]

18 minutes ago, IronMike said:

I am getting the impression that some folks want it to be back to what it was immediately after release, where it overperformed, and that has been fixed since 3 years or longer even.

I know very well the 3 years old FM overperformed very much. But i have also to say that, between the FM revision of november 2020 and the FM revision of october 2021, there was a very important difference that i noticed, despite, also in that occasion, was told BFM performance will not noticeably change.

Anyway thank you one more time

[IronMike]

2 minutes ago, maxsin72 said:

I know very well the 3 years old FM overperformed very much. But i have also to say that, between the FM revision of november 2020 and the FM revision of october 2021, there was a very important difference that i noticed, despite, also in that occasion, was told BFM performance will not noticeably change.

Anyway thank you one more time

My pleasure.

[Karon]

3 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

F18 without pilons is able to turn and climb at the same time better then the F14B.

Further more the standard in BFM tournaments are all the planes without pilons, only the F14B is setted with pilons under the wings.

Sure, but it doesn't have the endurance: you can build separation and fly cold for hours in the F-14, no one will ever catch you. Then you can reset and come back, or just force a draw vs someone better than you. What prevents you from doing that?
Unless, as I image, you have imaginary boundaries to limit the area. If that's the case, it'd mean castrating the F-14 of two of its primary advantages. Which is nonsense, and makes this arguing about an acceptable tolerance rather pointless. It feels like someone complaining that a shoe is slightly too tight, but perfectly usable, whilst his whole leg has been amputated.