maxsin72 Posted January 3, 2022 Posted January 3, 2022 Hi, Happy New Year Do you think it would be possible to have in the next patch an improvement of acceleration? Thanks 2
Hummingbird Posted January 10, 2022 Posted January 10, 2022 FC said we shouldn't expect performance updates until after the next 1-2 patches. So wait until the 2nd or 3rd patch in this year.
marcoscosta Posted January 10, 2022 Posted January 10, 2022 2 hours ago, Hummingbird said: FC said we shouldn't expect performance updates until after the next 1-2 patches. So wait until the 2nd or 3rd patch in this year. At this point he already knows, he will keep whinning about this until he get the magic card to solve his BFM problems. Computer: Potato Modules: FC3 | M2000C | A/V8B | Viggen | F-5E | F-14B | F-16C | F/A-18 | A-10C | Supercarrier :mad::mad: | UH-1 | MI-8 | Gazelle | KA-50
lunaticfringe Posted January 10, 2022 Posted January 10, 2022 Would you like to be more specific according to the charts as to where acceleration is missing?
maxsin72 Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) On 1/10/2022 at 6:50 PM, marcoscosta said: At this point he already knows, he will keep whinning about this until he get the magic card to solve his BFM problems. Who are you talking about? Who is whinning? Which problems do you have? Perhaps do you fear the F14 would become more competitive? Edited January 12, 2022 by maxsin72 1
maxsin72 Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) On 1/10/2022 at 7:44 PM, lunaticfringe said: Would you like to be more specific according to the charts as to where acceleration is missing? On 12/13/2021 at 8:37 PM, fat creason said: Yes, acceleration is an aspect of performance. @lunaticfringeplease read the last post by fat creason, more than that I don't know. This is the reason because i made my question. On 1/10/2022 at 4:31 PM, Hummingbird said: FC said we shouldn't expect performance updates until after the next 1-2 patches. So wait until the 2nd or 3rd patch in this year. Thank you. Edited January 12, 2022 by maxsin72
lunaticfringe Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 1 hour ago, maxsin72 said: @lunaticfringeplease read the last post by fat creason, more than that I don't know. This is the reason because i made my question. Thank you. I know about the post from creason. As a tester I follow the work being done in each iteration submitted to us for review. I'm asking is for what acceleration you think is missing based on the data you have available. There's not a bunch of oomph missing under the charts, so I'm wanting to see what you think is glaringly deficient on the time to speed score since you keep making a point to mention it.
marcoscosta Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 2 hours ago, maxsin72 said: Who are you talking about? Who is whinning? Which problems do you have? Perhaps do you fear the F14 would become more competitive? Yeah, because you known, I dont have the F-14 too, its just you. Computer: Potato Modules: FC3 | M2000C | A/V8B | Viggen | F-5E | F-14B | F-16C | F/A-18 | A-10C | Supercarrier :mad::mad: | UH-1 | MI-8 | Gazelle | KA-50
maxsin72 Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 5 hours ago, marcoscosta said: Yeah, because you known, I dont have the F-14 too, its just you. The only thing I know is that you like to make unnecessary controversy
maxsin72 Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) On 10/31/2021 at 2:07 AM, Hummingbird said: Also noticed you can't hit more than M 2.0 completely slick atm, and acceleration is quite low, so that's something to keep an eye on too On 10/31/2021 at 5:55 PM, Hummingbird said: The B, and it took forever to get there, got out accelerated by the Hornet quite easily (We started side by side at 450 KTAS) On 11/1/2021 at 7:41 PM, Hummingbird said: I'd expect it to go faster clean, but the biggest thing is the acceleration, it's oddly slow here. Currently it gets thuroughly beaten by the F/A-18 in both level acceleration and climb rate, both clean at 50% fuel. 11 hours ago, lunaticfringe said: I know about the post from creason. As a tester I follow the work being done in each iteration submitted to us for review. I'm asking is for what acceleration you think is missing based on the data you have available. There's not a bunch of oomph missing under the charts, so I'm wanting to see what you think is glaringly deficient on the time to speed score since you keep making a point to mention it. I don't have any particular idea about acceleration, i was only asking because acceleration was also mentioned in the recent past, as you can read in the posts i have quoted above. Edited January 12, 2022 by maxsin72
Spurts Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 Pretty sure there was already a patch that fixed the first thing you linked.
maxsin72 Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 1 hour ago, Spurts said: Pretty sure there was already a patch that fixed the first thing you linked. I think the patch you are talking about was released in October 28 2021, the posts i have quoted were written later.
captain_dalan Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 Please don't misquote me. I never mentioned anything about acceleration, neither in the current version of the FM, nor the October-November patches. Especially not for a clean bird. 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
maxsin72 Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 17 minutes ago, captain_dalan said: Please don't misquote me. I never mentioned anything about acceleration, neither in the current version of the FM, nor the October-November patches. Especially not for a clean bird. Ok, sorry, i'll delete the misquote.
captain_dalan Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 19 minutes ago, maxsin72 said: Ok, sorry, i'll delete the misquote. Thanks. I only ever evaluated the 4x4 configuration Ps wise, up to mach 0.8 at sea level and 5000ft and those match the published data down to the T 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
Hummingbird Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) I couldn't get Ps=0 to match at SL in accordance with the 5 G chart, for which I posted my proof. (At 5 & 10 kft however it was spot on) As for acceleration, we did some tests, but decided against posting them after the reception of the mentioned Ps ones. We're waiting with posting any more test results before Creason announces that the performance tweaking is over. Edited January 12, 2022 by Hummingbird 1
marcoscosta Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, maxsin72 said: The only thing I know is that you like to make unnecessary controversy Yeah, Its me on forum constantly whinning: "help IronMike, the bad F-18 is beating me on BFM, give more thrust/turn rate, acceleration, whatever". Please, just stop, get some help (but not from Heatblur). Edited January 12, 2022 by marcoscosta Computer: Potato Modules: FC3 | M2000C | A/V8B | Viggen | F-5E | F-14B | F-16C | F/A-18 | A-10C | Supercarrier :mad::mad: | UH-1 | MI-8 | Gazelle | KA-50
maxsin72 Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, marcoscosta said: Yeah, Its me on forum constantly whinning: "help IronMike, the bad F-18 is beating me on BFM, give more thrust/turn rate, acceleration, whatever". Please, just stop, get some help (but not from Heatblur). Please stop with yours unnecessary controversy. I'm sure HB will do it right, don't you think? Or perhaps do you think i can order HB to do all what i want? So please stop crying my little baby 7 hours ago, captain_dalan said: Thanks. I only ever evaluated the 4x4 configuration Ps wise, up to mach 0.8 at sea level and 5000ft and those match the published data down to the T You are welcome, it was my mistake Edited January 12, 2022 by maxsin72 3
Hummingbird Posted January 13, 2022 Posted January 13, 2022 (edited) We do have four Ps data points for sea level we can check with, for 1 G, 3 G, 5 G & 6.5 G. It was the 5 G one I couldn't match. 5 G sustained should be attainable at M 0.46, where I can get at most 4.8 G's sustained when doing everything by the book. Videos and track files of the tests posted earlier. But yeah, dead horse at this point, waiting for next performance update before any further tests. Edited January 13, 2022 by Hummingbird 2 1
Spurts Posted January 13, 2022 Posted January 13, 2022 From the Sustained G flight envelopes in the NATOPS
lunaticfringe Posted January 14, 2022 Posted January 14, 2022 5 hours ago, Spurts said: From the Sustained G flight envelopes in the NATOPS The NATOPS charts begin at 5000'.
Spurts Posted January 14, 2022 Posted January 14, 2022 you are looking at the doghouse plots, not the flight envelopes. 1 1
captain_dalan Posted January 14, 2022 Posted January 14, 2022 1 hour ago, Spurts said: you are looking at the doghouse plots, not the flight envelopes. This! 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
FR4GGL3 Posted January 15, 2022 Posted January 15, 2022 (edited) I don't know if I am wrong, but could it just be that the Tomcat is not that far off but the F/A-18 would need some work? I might be wrong, but all the efford of real Pilots like Victory 205 that was thrown at the Tomcat Module makes me wonder this. I just can't believe that with all the hours that were spent on testing by real Pilots, its characteristic is that far off of the real machine - despite the fact that this is only a programm simulated on a computer and not the real thing (which is obvious) I like it the way it is at the moment and just want to say "Thank you" Edited January 15, 2022 by FR4GGL3 1 14700K | MSI Z690 Carbon | Gigabyte 4090 Gaming OC | 64GB DDR5 6000 G.Skill Ripjaws S5 | Asus Essence STX 2 on a Violectric V90 Headphone amp and Fostex TH600 Headphones | LG 42 C227LA & Samsung C32HG70 | TrackIR 5 | Moza AB9 and Virpil Constellation Alpha Grip | Thrustmaster Warthog Throttle | VKB T-Rudder Pedals MK IV I only fool around the F-14 - and still having a hard time on it as there is so much to learn and so little time and talent. But I love it.
captain_dalan Posted January 15, 2022 Posted January 15, 2022 4 hours ago, FR4GGL3 said: ... but the F/A-18 would need some work? ... Unfortunately there is no way of either confirming or denying that. 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
Recommended Posts