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

[Spurts]

Yeah, only one public document with only a few parameters listed, and those parameters imply near f-16 levels of turn capability

 

Edit:  Those parameters ALSO include installed dynamic thrust across a range of speeds for a few altitudes, so if a FM is built on the Pre-EPE Hornet and then updated with the new thrust and then tweaked to make sure the few known values line up, then it could be reasonably accurate.

 

In the end it's all about how you fly.  You fly an F-14B at 15 AoA in full burner you will be right around best STR.  Accidentally pull to 20 and a slight bump might see you at 30 at out of speed in seconds.  Accidentally lighten up to 10 and poof your wings are starting to sweep back and you are losing turn ability rapidly before you know it.  A well flown T-45 could out fly a poorly flown F-14D.  Pilot skill is everything, not only in controlling the plane, but in understanding the geometry of the fight, the tactics to use, and ability to read the energy state of the enemy.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Spurts

[FR4GGL3]

I just wanted to say that the F-14 Module shouldn't get overtuned just to be able to beat certain planes. Especially if these other planes are still in service and the usable data is somewhat restricted. But if you listen to some comments of different real Pilots, one could get the imagination that some of these other Modules seem not to behave in the way they should.

Even if no one wants to read this word, DCS is still some kind of a "game". All of the Developers put a lot of good work into it but we should face it: they can't know and put into code what is well hidden.

This is the reason why I am quite happy with what we get here. I will not get any closer to "flying" the Tomcat (and I guess that is a good thing as otherwise I would be already dead ^^)

[Snappy]

On 1/15/2022 at 1:42 PM, FR4GGL3 said:

…but the F/A-18 would need some work?

 

 

Pretty sure it does and it actually was supposed to go under a FM review by ED, however unfortunately that was just pushed back by ED „until resources allow“ , which likely translates into a few years or maybe never , given how overloaded them managed to get themselves.

[lunaticfringe]

5 hours ago, FR4GGL3 said:

I just wanted to say that the F-14 Module shouldn't get overtuned just to be able to beat certain planes.

Nobody worth listening to has made such a suggestion, so don't worry about it.  

[captain_dalan]

8 hours ago, FR4GGL3 said:

I just wanted to say that the F-14 Module shouldn't get overtuned just to be able to beat certain planes.

NO plane should have its flight model developed based on OTHER plane's performance, don't let some of the overzealous and overcompetitive people tell you. Besides, the FM purists here (yours truly here included, guilty as charged) wouldn't shut up about it, so you will find out if it happens one way or the other 

[Hummingbird]

On 1/17/2022 at 12:15 PM, FR4GGL3 said:

I just wanted to say that the F-14 Module shouldn't get overtuned just to be able to beat certain planes.

 

I don't think (hope) anyone in here wants that. If it matches the charts, everything is as it should be, so that's what we're looking for.

 

Edited January 19, 2022 by Hummingbird

[eatthis]

so whats the consensus on the fm and performance atm? spot on or are there things that need tweaking?

[draconus]

6 minutes ago, eatthis said:

so whats the consensus on the fm and performance atm? spot on or are there things that need tweaking?

Devs are still making corrections.

[Cab]

On 1/19/2022 at 8:49 AM, Hummingbird said:

 

I don't think (hope) anyone in here wants that. If it matches the charts, everything is as it should be, so that's what we're looking for.

 

 

Does it matter that the charts are based on brand new jets flown by highly trained test pilots and our F-14 is probably twenty years old with all the wear and tear that goes with operational and training flights, and flown by...us ? Is it reasonable to expect performance matching the charts? 

That's a serious question BTW. I don't really know how much performance might degrade over time.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Cab

[draconus]

Afaik random engine performance differences are implemented in the Tomcat but certainly not reduced by the aging. And everyone can test performance themselves with enough practice and steady hand.

Edited January 27, 2022 by draconus

[Cab]

6 minutes ago, draconus said:

Afaik random engine performance differences are implemented in the Tomcat but certainly not reduced by the aging.

Right, but my point is that if the simulated jet's performance doesn't exactly match the charts, even if not by design, is that such a bad thing.

Or put another way: Are the current differences between the charts and the DCS F-14 within the scope of what pilots might experience in real life?

Again, I have no agenda here. I am just asking the question.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Cab

[SgtPappy]

2 hours ago, Cab said:

Right, but my point is that if the simulated jet's performance doesn't exactly match the charts, even if not by design, is that such a bad thing.

Or put another way: Are the current differences between the charts and the DCS F-14 within the scope of what pilots might experience in real life?

Again, I have no agenda here. I am just asking the question.

 

I don't think anyone reasonable thinks this is a bad thing but people prefer different things from this sim/game. I think the current differences appear reasonable except maaaaybe the compressor stalls which Victory205 has mentioned are being worked on since he never had compressor stalls flying through others' jetwash. In the game, you may notice it happens all the time at least for me even if I set the power levers and never touch them. I've flown straight and level as a jet passed close above me and had my engines pop, but again - it's a WIP.

Variability could be immersive and of course lack of perfection is reasonable (what even IS perfection?), but there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might not like that. There is an argument that "perfectly fresh jets performing up to fantastic standards are rare. Each plane performs differently and therefore there's no need to reach that accuracy". However if every jet in a video game (which this is) performs exactly the same, then one of premises of the argument is flawed because now they all perform exactly the same. There is no variability in video games of this complexity yet so why not have them perform to the most recognizable, verified standard? These are the manuals and the loads of data we have, which admittedly, are imperfect as well. Still, it's the best we got.

We can swing in the other direction entirely and say none of that matters, what matters is the SME's feel only but you can quickly see why that is also flawed. So the best approach is likely something in between: get as close to the non-classified data as possible and add tweaks here or there in places where the data can't replicate what is needed. 

There have been a lot of pissing contests and sore butts in the past in this very thread and it disappoints me greatly because we're all sort of just trying to get the most out of the game yet for some reason, we can't agree to disagree with what each of us individually believes is the goal. It isn't up to any of us what the other thinks should be important. 

Really just wanted to put that out there because I'm fairly sick of the conflict which I feel will pop up the next time the F-14 FM is updated.

[Victory205]

You might be overreacting to the perceived level of “conflict” at work here. As I have written, the performance data is estimated based on flight test, and the key point, explained over and over, is that the EM and specific energy charts are meant to be useful for general aircraft comparison so a warfighter has an idea of where advantages and disadvantages reside. When that is distorted for whatever reason, and causes inordinate disruption and dissuades customers from using or enjoying the module, it has to be addressed.

No one in the fleet confirmed what what in those charts. When I was loaded for bear and in a configuration that is depicted, I was on a mission that didn’t have the luxury of wasting the fuel or time to do a performance comparison.

Same with level acceleration data. No Fleet F14 pilot quoting the max speeds you see bandied about,  performed that speed run in level flight as depicted in the acceleration charts. It was always done by unloading to a half G from a higher altitude, often on PMCF flights.

Similar considerations exist for other combat performance benchmarks. There isn’t time or fuel to spend or incentive to do so while scribbling down times. The crews knew what the aircraft would do in typical employment.

There are data points that exist in the subsonic, normal flight regimes that were provided and implemented by the talented Heatblur programmer. Those are benchmarks like descent and climb rates in certain configurations that were performed as part of a normal mission. Mil power climbs, cruise speeds vs fuel flow, etc.

I’ve tried to lend perspective to what is reasonable and most people understand the limitations involved, and where we are coming from.

Given the different approaches of different developers, there will never be a valid balance between dissimilar aircraft. Too many variables and divergent attitudes. I can say with confidence that Heatblur has always pushed to get performance right without embellishment.

If you desire to display your ACM prowess in a desktop flight simulator, then it needs to be done in the same aircraft with the same loadout.

I am constantly asked about whether one aircraft is better than another. You’ll find that I don’t engage in those types of discussions, many of which come from people who are in arguments and want a reference with which to slay their opponent- “Well I know an F14 pilot and he said…”

I’m afraid that it doesn't work that way. Too many variables to answer. What’s the mission? Where in the envelope? What variant? You guys tend to be aircraft focused, the professionals are broadly mission focused.

It’s like asking what’s better, Porsche or Ferrari without context? Life is too short for that.

 

[LanceCriminal86]

38 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

You might be overreacting to the perceived level of “conflict” at work here. As I have written, the performance data is estimated based on flight test, and the key point, explained over and over, is that the EM and specific energy charts are meant to be useful for general aircraft comparison so a warfighter has an idea of where advantages and disadvantages reside. When that is distorted for whatever reason, and causes inordinate disruption and dissuades customers from using or enjoying the module, it has to be addressed.

No one in the fleet confirmed what what in those charts. When I was loaded for bear and in a configuration that is depicted, I was on a mission that didn’t have the luxury of wasting the fuel or time to do a performance comparison.

Same with level acceleration data. No Fleet F14 pilot quoting the max speeds you see bandied about,  performed that speed run in level flight as depicted in the acceleration charts. It was always done by unloading to a half G from a higher altitude, often on PMCF flights.

Similar considerations exist for other combat performance benchmarks. There isn’t time or fuel to spend or incentive to do so while scribbling down times. The crews knew what the aircraft would do in typical employment.

There are data points that exist in the subsonic, normal flight regimes that were provided and implemented by the talented Heatblur programmer. Those are benchmarks like descent and climb rates in certain configurations that were performed as part of a normal mission. Mil power climbs, cruise speeds vs fuel flow, etc.

I’ve tried to lend perspective to what is reasonable and most people understand the limitations involved, and where we are coming from.

Given the different approaches of different developers, there will never be a valid balance between dissimilar aircraft. Too many variables and divergent attitudes. I can say with confidence that Heatblur has always pushed to get performance right without embellishment.

If you desire to display your ACM prowess in a desktop flight simulator, then it needs to be done in the same aircraft with the same loadout.

I am constantly asked about whether one aircraft is better than another. You’ll find that I don’t engage in those types of discussions, many of which come from people who are in arguments and want a reference with which to slay their opponent- “Well I know an F14 pilot and he said…”

I’m afraid that it doesn't work that way. Too many variables to answer. What’s the mission? Where in the envelope? What variant? You guys tend to be aircraft focused, the professionals are broadly mission focused.

It’s like asking what’s better, Porsche or Ferrari without context? Life is too short for that.

 

I think that's the perfect point to drop this again, some goofy Texas reserve outfit whooping up on F-15 pilots, in Phantoms:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-us-navy-f-4s-scored-plenty-of-kills-against-then-brand-new-usaf-f-15s-in-mock-air-combat/

 

[captain_dalan]

6 hours ago, Cab said:

Does it matter that the charts are based on brand new jets flown by highly trained test pilots and our F-14 is probably twenty years old with all the wear and tear that goes with operational and training flights, and flown by...us ? Is it reasonable to expect performance matching the charts? 

That's a serious question BTW. I don't really know how much performance might degrade over time.

 

1. The last time i looked, DCS doesn't simulate cumulative aircraft fatigue and flight hours. 
2. What makes you think the simulated jets are 20 years old?
3. How many people have you personally seen and what percentage of the DCS flying population do you think is capable of max-performing the jet? 

[Cab]

2 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

1. The last time i looked, DCS doesn't simulate cumulative aircraft fatigue and flight hours. 
2. What makes you think the simulated jets are 20 years old?
3. How many people have you personally seen and what percentage of the DCS flying population do you think is capable of max-performing the jet? 

1. Not my point at all.

2. The cockpit

3. Zero and less than 1%.

Plus I don't think I made any assertions, I just asked questions.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Cab

[captain_dalan]

6 minutes ago, Cab said:

1. Not my point at all.

2. The cockpit

3. Zero and less than 1%.

Plus I don't think I made any assertions, I just asked questions.

 

So did i

[Cab]

Just now, captain_dalan said:

So did i

Touche 

[Cab]

After going back and looking at some dates it looks like 10 to 15 years old might be a more conservative estimate.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Cab

[SgtPappy]

3 hours ago, Victory205 said:

You might be overreacting to the perceived level of “conflict” at work here. As I have written, the performance data is estimated based on flight test, and the key point, explained over and over, is that the EM and specific energy charts are meant to be useful for general aircraft comparison so a warfighter has an idea of where advantages and disadvantages reside. When that is distorted for whatever reason, and causes inordinate disruption and dissuades customers from using or enjoying the module, it has to be addressed.

No one in the fleet confirmed what what in those charts. When I was loaded for bear and in a configuration that is depicted, I was on a mission that didn’t have the luxury of wasting the fuel or time to do a performance comparison.

Same with level acceleration data. No Fleet F14 pilot quoting the max speeds you see bandied about,  performed that speed run in level flight as depicted in the acceleration charts. It was always done by unloading to a half G from a higher altitude, often on PMCF flights.

Similar considerations exist for other combat performance benchmarks. There isn’t time or fuel to spend or incentive to do so while scribbling down times. The crews knew what the aircraft would do in typical employment.

There are data points that exist in the subsonic, normal flight regimes that were provided and implemented by the talented Heatblur programmer. Those are benchmarks like descent and climb rates in certain configurations that were performed as part of a normal mission. Mil power climbs, cruise speeds vs fuel flow, etc.

I’ve tried to lend perspective to what is reasonable and most people understand the limitations involved, and where we are coming from.

Given the different approaches of different developers, there will never be a valid balance between dissimilar aircraft. Too many variables and divergent attitudes. I can say with confidence that Heatblur has always pushed to get performance right without embellishment.

If you desire to display your ACM prowess in a desktop flight simulator, then it needs to be done in the same aircraft with the same loadout.

I am constantly asked about whether one aircraft is better than another. You’ll find that I don’t engage in those types of discussions, many of which come from people who are in arguments and want a reference with which to slay their opponent- “Well I know an F14 pilot and he said…”

I’m afraid that it doesn't work that way. Too many variables to answer. What’s the mission? Where in the envelope? What variant? You guys tend to be aircraft focused, the professionals are broadly mission focused.

It’s like asking what’s better, Porsche or Ferrari without context? Life is too short for that.

 

Agreed 100%. 

If there's anything I've learned, it is indeed to pay less attention to the "this vs that" question. It's brought me a lot more sanity. But it had to be learned since this isn't a lot of our professions, so generally we look to folks like you. That doesn't mean that I can't also appreciate the idea that a computer game/simulation should be built by the numbers. But I also empathize with views which say these numbers are not grand-scheme important to most people which is also fine.

My main point was really - "let's get along guys when the next FM comes out" because you must admit, it was getting tense. But I can't control what anyone decides to do/doesn't want to do and I have the genuine belief that pretty much all of us are decent people who can just get emotional over a shared passion. I don't want this to be some kind of blame game, but rather an attempt at a reminder that in a sense, we're in this together. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by SgtPappy

[Victory205]

Nah, it’s just an act. 

I wrote the previous missive for referral in the future. The sim community constantly engages in arguments based on nonsense that didn’t exist in real life, then spends an enormous amount of time fighting amongst themselves over irrelevant issues.

The whole missile drama, where no sim enthusiast has the background or access to understand the truth. It’s bizarre from where I sit to see people who have never seen an AIM54 in real life, want to argue over whether the AIM54 actually worked against fighter sized maneuvering targets, something that wasn’t remotely controversial to real crews. 

There is a reason very few real pilots or RIO’s bother to participate unless they have a book or podcast to peddle.  

Edited January 30, 2022 by Victory205

[Hummingbird]

If the best effort at matching the available charts is made, then that is all that can be asked for. And it's the same standard that applies to all the other modules as well, and why so much time & effort is spent by the various dev teams to reach this goal. It's a commitment that comes with the "simulator" tag. The obvious end goal is that all the aircraft represented in the sim match their real life performance charts as closely as possible, as when they do, that's also when we get to experience how they truly would stack up in a no holds barred fight, which is what a great many of us hardcore simmers really want. Some real life fighter pilots (former & actual) might find that silly & unnecessary, whilst others totally get it and seek the same from the sim - they're human too, and differ just as wildly from person to person as the rest of us. 

[maxsin72]

I've found a pilot who flown F18 for 20 years and it is very interesting what he says about F14 A and B. In particolar, he says the B is able to win vs F18 if the match goes on for some time because F14B is capable to gain much altitude and speed that can be converted in position. It is the opposite of what happens in DCS world in my experience. 

What do you think about? 

https://www.quora.com/In-a-dogfight-which-jet-would-win-the-F-16-or-the-F-14

 

[Spurts]

Notice he never talks about Hornet engine upgrades, he is flying -400 motors not -402s such as are in the DCS Hornet.

[maxsin72]

1 hour ago, Spurts said:

Notice he never talks about Hornet engine upgrades, he is flying -400 motors not -402s such as are in the DCS Hornet.

F404-GE-402 arrived in 1992 bringing a 10% more thrust than F404-GE-400. So a pilot who flew for 20 years a F18, is very probable, imho, he had the opportunity to use the 402.

Furthermore, F18 in DCS is able to turn much tighter, much faster while climbing much higher than the F14B and a 10% more thrust between 402 and 400 i think it's not enough to explane this huge difference.