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

[maxsin72]

On 2/8/2022 at 5:33 PM, maxsin72 said:

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

 

 

1 hour ago, Top Jockey said:

 

That's also a pertinent question.

However for the F-14B variant, I didn't yet come across specific comparison info with the Hornet so far.

Several months ago, i have found info coming from an F18 pilot, see my quote above, that i think could be interesting. 

[Top Jockey]

46 minutes ago, maxsin72 said:

 

Several months ago, i have found info coming from an F18 pilot, see my quote above, that i think could be interesting. 

I've read it, so far it makes sense for me also - the extra thrust was always welcome in ACM, no doubt there.

 

43 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

There's several interviews of several B/D aircrew with prior A experience who said the B/D was a totally different beast. Quantify that how you will.

 

What else is new ?

[jaguara5]

 

That's also a good read about bfm performance (of the -A though). 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/iaf-fighter-pilots-explains-why-israel-picked-the-f-15-eagle-over-the-f-14-tomcat/

[Katj]

On 11/3/2022 at 3:18 AM, IronMike said:

With 4 phoenix, 2 sparrows, 2 aim9s, and 2 tanks you can reach M1.2 atm at 40k feet - which mind you is a massive payload and very draggy - how much should you reach with such a loadout in your opinion? Top speed charts iirc top of my head are for 50k feet with 2x2x2 and fixed internal fuel, no tanks (they are calculated, not proven). I bet you should get a bit faster than 1.2, but I doubt much with this payload. The problem is this isn't an engine performance issue as much as it is a drag issue, which we have limited control of.

See the tacview below: M1.2 with 4x2x2x2XT. The moment you jettison ordnance (and mind you aim9s stay including racks), it purrs away to M2.28. Take away the aim9s and I guess you can account for those missing M0.04. I took off from an airfield, standard mission settings (no weather changes, etc), to give the best unskewed representation (aka no fast in air spawn).

As for the active topic about not being able to reach more than Mach 1.0... He wasn't asking for 4 phoenixes and 2 bags, but if you read his OP again, he was asking for a 2x2x2 payload, aka 2 phoenix, 2 sparrows, 2 sidewinders. I did that, too, and even did 2 things here additionally: I spawned with 100% fuel (aka acceleration is a bit slower as one is heavier than after a normal climb, which has been demonstrated in the other tacview), and also I stayed explicitly below 40k feet. At 50k feet this would be even easier. So, no idea how he flew it, but not being able to breach Mach 1 at high altitudes is simply not true. I reached M2.14 with 2x2x2.

Both tacviews recorded in latest Open Beta, F-14A. Additionally, although trying to maintain level flight as much as possible, if, then there was even an ever so small climb present in both tacviews, though negligable, as periodically there was a tiny descent present as well in order to keep correcting.

Again, the performance is off marginally. Drag is a bit of a bigger issue, but as mentioned, only partially solveable by us, and even so, less of an impact than some here make it out to be. Try for yourself. And let me please know what you would expect.

That said, I am not saying that there is no room for improvement. There most certainly is. But it is not such a game changer or game breaker as some claim it would be.

2x2x2_38kft.zip.acmi 157.82 kB · 4 downloads 4x2x2x2tanks_40kft.zip.acmi 269.95 kB · 3 downloads

 

I for one think that the (lack of) transsonic acceleration is the biggest problem right now.

I don't know about the A but there are ample charts for level acceleration for the B, in combination with the exccess power charts.

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Exactly. It's beyond me how anyone can even try to argue that and say "this is fine because we or some SME said so".

That would be "beyond me", too, if anyone said that, alas no one did. If you read again carefully, I said it is a drag issue, not an engine performance issue. And we cant just boost engine power, because then it overperforms. We also cannot just work around it by making the drag negative where necessary, because removed pylons or payload then equally make it overperform. It's a rather complex issue, because fine balance also exists with other parts of the FM.

[lunaticfringe]

2 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

After you said this? The -A is indeed pretty on the money, but the -B isn't. 

Read the whole quote.  The whole quote- not just the part you don't like.  The money line:
 

Quote

That does not mean that we do not want to get it even closer in performance - we do, and always said so.

They have repeatedly stated they're not done; that is a definitive message on their part that it's not good enough for them- in contrast to professional requirements they offer as a comparison.  

It's not game breaking.  It's not an issue that an actual, substantial hours F-14 pilot has trouble with.  And they're going to correct it in due course.  What then is there to argue about? 

[captain_dalan]

5 hours ago, Katj said:

I for one think that the (lack of) transsonic acceleration is the biggest problem right now.

I don't know about the A but there are ample charts for level acceleration for the B, in combination with the exccess power charts.

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 Tacview-20221106-190033-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi Tacview-20221106-185409-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi Tacview-20221106-184822-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi Tacview-20221106-184248-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi Tacview-20221106-183656-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi

On 11/4/2022 at 2:02 AM, maxsin72 said:

Is it so difficult to understand? I wish to test, not to fight, test test test and test again i wish to understand if my point is right, ok? And i think there is ridiculous people who bla bla bla but don't wont to test on play ground to prove their point!

 

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?  

[RustBelt]

5 hours ago, IronMike said:

That would be "beyond me", too, if anyone said that, alas no one did. If you read again carefully, I said it is a drag issue, not an engine performance issue. And we cant just boost engine power, because then it overperforms. We also cannot just work around it by making the drag negative where necessary, because removed pylons or payload then equally make it overperform. It's a rather complex issue, because fine balance also exists with other parts of the FM.

You know, there’s a lot of technically minded people here. Have you considered actually being completely EXPLICIT with the actual specific issues? Or is this some annoying ED NDA crap because they think anyone cares about ripping off their clunky cludge sim? 
 

Performance is performance. Be it engine thrust, or stores drag, or anything else. 
 

Precise Specificity is more useful when it comes to these users here. 

[maxsin72]

6 hours ago, 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 · 0 downloads Tacview-20221106-190033-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 156.48 kB · 0 downloads Tacview-20221106-185409-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 116.74 kB · 0 downloads Tacview-20221106-184822-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 105.95 kB · 0 downloads Tacview-20221106-184248-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 100.93 kB · 0 downloads Tacview-20221106-183656-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 97.68 kB · 0 downloads

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?  

First of all thank you for your answer. My wish was to verify if F14B, without cheats, could easy win against F18, as Spurts told. So i don't know if we can do test or no because i guess only Spurts knows how to win easy. 

[IronMike]

7 hours ago, RustBelt said:

You know, there’s a lot of technically minded people here. Have you considered actually being completely EXPLICIT with the actual specific issues? Or is this some annoying ED NDA crap because they think anyone cares about ripping off their clunky cludge sim? 
 

Performance is performance. Be it engine thrust, or stores drag, or anything else. 
 

Precise Specificity is more useful when it comes to these users here. 

Not only did I consider it, I have been explicit about it, as much as is needed for the community to understand. "These users here" range from knowing something to knowing little to knowing more, while none of them need insights beyond what has been divulged here openly from the very get go, or are considered experts at the level of an SME or software developer or a combination of both with the kind of experience in DCS FM development that would contribute to the solution of the problems we need to solve.

We're not obliged to disclose the inner workings of our (and ED's) code to you, NDA or not, and while we always try to be maximum transparent and forthcoming, as you surely must know - being approached in such a manner that is berating and lecturing about what this community is like, with which I have been interacting for nigh two decades on a daily basis, does not help your case if you would like to know more. What you need to know and what you would like to know can be a very different pair of shoes, and asking nicely goes a long way towards being answered nicely. 

In the meantime, what you need to know, is that we are committed to solving the remaining issues, but how we get there, is - pardon me - not information that you are priviliged to, until we decide it is. As I mentioned, it is a complex issue, and explaining to you how all the various, many different parts of the FM are intertwined and connected, is beyond the scope of what these forums are here for. You can trust us that we will fix it. If you choose not to, that is ok, but that does not change that we ask you all for your kind patience, until we do. We will update you again, once we are close to completion, to which we are fully committed, as mentioned. Thank you.

[IronMike]

10 hours ago, 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?  

Thank you for the tests, Dalan. If you feel like doing the same for the -B, I am sure insights for both will help @fat creason to have further overview of the remaining issues. Accurate flying is of course important, but nonetheless these tests give a rough ballpark. We else run scripts to have the aircraft flown precisely, but it will be very interesting to compare the results as well.

[RustBelt]

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

Not only did I consider it, I have been explicit about it, as much as is needed for the community to understand. "These users here" range from knowing something to knowing little to knowing more, while none of them need insights beyond what has been divulged here openly from the very get go, or are considered experts at the level of an SME or software developer or a combination of both with the kind of experience in DCS FM development that would contribute to the solution of the problems we need to solve.

We're not obliged to disclose the inner workings of our (and ED's) code to you, NDA or not, and while we always try to be maximum transparent and forthcoming, as you surely must know - being approached in such a manner that is berating and lecturing about what this community is like, with which I have been interacting for nigh two decades on a daily basis, does not help your case if you would like to know more. What you need to know and what you would like to know can be a very different pair of shoes, and asking nicely goes a long way towards being answered nicely. 

In the meantime, what you need to know, is that we are committed to solving the remaining issues, but how we get there, is - pardon me - not information that you are priviliged to, until we decide it is. As I mentioned, it is a complex issue, and explaining to you how all the various, many different parts of the FM are intertwined and connected, is beyond the scope of what these forums are here for. You can trust us that we will fix it. If you choose not to, that is ok, but that does not change that we ask you all for your kind patience, until we do. We will update you again, once we are close to completion, to which we are fully committed, as mentioned. Thank you.

I'm sorry if my suggestions were made too bluntly, or with a seeming directive to them. If you don't think we "need to know" what's going on under the hood of DCS, people will continue being confused by, and repetitive in asking, the same things over and over. Keep in mind THIS IS A TOY "Privileged" has nothing to do with it. Especially in light of how much work CUSTOMERS here have been contributing to and reporting problems with this TOY both this module and the game in general. 

I've been in flight sims since the late 80's starting on DIAL IN BBS forums on 286 systems, Just because I wandered into the DCS ecosystem 5 years ago, doesn't mean I'm new to any of this. Plenty of devs, LOVE to talk the deep nitty-gritty of their work, or at least the Devs not in Europe always have. Perhaps it's a cultural difference. Or just something most makers just gave up on during the drought years of flight simulators as gaming became BIG BUSINESS and everything is TOTALLY SUPER SERIOUS!!!! 

Trying to piece together the vagaries of how DCS works from second hand and circumspect explanations can be fun. But, it also leads to a LOT of misconceptions about how the game should or shouldn't be behaving, and a lot of confusion in the user base over weird DCS-isms. And it also makes patience difficult when things just go bugnutty randomly update to update, year after year of early access. Toys are supposed to be fun. And airplane nerds are the kind of weird kids who liked to take apart their toys to see how they work. 

[IronMike]

7 hours ago, RustBelt said:

I'm sorry if my suggestions were made too bluntly, or with a seeming directive to them. If you don't think we "need to know" what's going on under the hood of DCS, people will continue being confused by, and repetitive in asking, the same things over and over. Keep in mind THIS IS A TOY "Privileged" has nothing to do with it. Especially in light of how much work CUSTOMERS here have been contributing to and reporting problems with this TOY both this module and the game in general. 

I've been in flight sims since the late 80's starting on DIAL IN BBS forums on 286 systems, Just because I wandered into the DCS ecosystem 5 years ago, doesn't mean I'm new to any of this. Plenty of devs, LOVE to talk the deep nitty-gritty of their work, or at least the Devs not in Europe always have. Perhaps it's a cultural difference. Or just something most makers just gave up on during the drought years of flight simulators as gaming became BIG BUSINESS and everything is TOTALLY SUPER SERIOUS!!!! 

Trying to piece together the vagaries of how DCS works from second hand and circumspect explanations can be fun. But, it also leads to a LOT of misconceptions about how the game should or shouldn't be behaving, and a lot of confusion in the user base over weird DCS-isms. And it also makes patience difficult when things just go bugnutty randomly update to update, year after year of early access. Toys are supposed to be fun. And airplane nerds are the kind of weird kids who liked to take apart their toys to see how they work. 

There is a difference to knowing how the F-14 works, which we're all here for, and how the code-side of things works. It baffles me a bit that you have the impression that we do not love to talk about our work and how things are done, because I would still like to think that we're among the developers that are both forthcoming and communicative - at least we try to be. But we make these modules for you guys to have fun, and while I do appreciate curiousity - in the end wanting to know how everything is done on the code side, seems to distract from having fun with said toy more than it adds. Besides, some things we can't and don't want to disclose, because those are business insights not meant to be out there. That's perfectly normal, and I don't think you would expect other businesses to disclose their inner workings to you as much as we are sometimes expected to do. That has nothing to do with "big business" (we wish) or being "totally super serious" lol. There is simply a certain limit to everything. And there is also a major difference between for example asking "how does stores drag work in DCS" (which would be a question for ED, btw, not us) and asking "you should tell us how everything works under the hood." Finally, when we say "this is a too complex matter to explain to you fully", because the time needed for that simply isn't besides the above mentioned reasons, there is also a point where you need to accept that. Stores drag in DCS is a complex matter, so is an FM such as the F-14s. Moving one piece, moves all pieces, like pitch with power, etc. etc. It is a balancing act, that includes some 30.000 calculations and tens of thousands lines of code. That is not something that can simply be explained in general. If you have questions particular to the F-14s performance, then feel free to ask, and we will do our best to answer, if we can and want to. Which is a decision we need to make on a case by case basis. And if you have questions to how the F14 works or should work in particular, we will always try to answer to our best abilities. That said, this 35 page long thread, in majority, should have answered most of these questions already. Finally, there is also a difference between wanting to know how we do our job, and trying to tell us how to do our job, with a complete - and normal - lack of insight.

Edited November 7, 2022 by IronMike

[Spurts]

14 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

First of all thank you for your answer. My wish was to verify if F14B, without cheats, could easy win against F18, as Spurts told. So i don't know if we can do test or no because i guess only Spurts knows how to win easy. 

You are free to disagree with me, but this is misconstruing what I said.  I said a good F-14 pilot can be untouchable.  I never said I was untouchable.  I said I have dominated F/A-18s, I never said it was easy.  I very clearly said the Hornet was extremely capable and easy to use, and that the Tomcat was much harder to use but could be more capable especially in a radius fight.  When fighting a Hornet I have to use every trick I know in the Tomcat to not die, and most of the time I succeed.  Sometimes I screw up something as little as not pulling out of afterburner once I am behind the Hornet and overshoot.  I definitely consider Captain Dalan to be a better F-14 pilot than myself so he is an excellent testing partner.  

[maxsin72]

4 hours ago, Spurts said:

You are free to disagree with me, but this is misconstruing what I said.  I said a good F-14 pilot can be untouchable.  I never said I was untouchable.  I said I have dominated F/A-18s, I never said it was easy.  I very clearly said the Hornet was extremely capable and easy to use, and that the Tomcat was much harder to use but could be more capable especially in a radius fight.  When fighting a Hornet I have to use every trick I know in the Tomcat to not die, and most of the time I succeed.  Sometimes I screw up something as little as not pulling out of afterburner once I am behind the Hornet and overshoot.  I definitely consider Captain Dalan to be a better F-14 pilot than myself so he is an excellent testing partner.  

One question: what do you mean with "every trick"? Landing flaps? I also suspect you are talking about the FM before in was deeply changed 2 years ago, in others words what you said was true till 2 years ago. But in the last 2 years, even the F14B is in big troubles against the F18. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by maxsin72

[RustBelt]

5 hours ago, IronMike said:

There is a difference to knowing how the F-14 works, which we're all here for, and how the code-side of things works. It baffles me a bit that you have the impression that we do not love to talk about our work and how things are done, because I would still like to think that we're among the developers that are both forthcoming and communicative - at least we try to be. But we make these modules for you guys to have fun, and while I do appreciate curiousity - in the end wanting to know how everything is done on the code side, seems to distract from having fun with said toy more than it adds. Besides, some things we can't and don't want to disclose, because those are business insights not meant to be out there. That's perfectly normal, and I don't think you would expect other businesses to disclose their inner workings to you as much as we are sometimes expected to do. That has nothing to do with "big business" (we wish) or being "totally super serious" lol. There is simply a certain limit to everything. And there is also a major difference between for example asking "how does stores drag work in DCS" (which would be a question for ED, btw, not us) and asking "you should tell us how everything works under the hood." Finally, when we say "this is a too complex matter to explain to you fully", because the time needed for that simply isn't besides the above mentioned reasons, there is also a point where you need to accept that. Stores drag in DCS is a complex matter, so is an FM such as the F-14s. Moving one piece, moves all pieces, like pitch with power, etc. etc. It is a balancing act, that includes some 30.000 calculations and tens of thousands lines of code. That is not something that can simply be explained in general. If you have questions particular to the F-14s performance, then feel free to ask, and we will do our best to answer, if we can and want to. Which is a decision we need to make on a case by case basis. And if you have questions to how the F14 works or should work in particular, we will always try to answer to our best abilities. That said, this 35 page long thread, in majority, should have answered most of these questions already. Finally, there is also a difference between wanting to know how we do our job, and trying to tell us how to do our job, with a complete - and normal - lack of insight.

 

Clearly we have fun with our toys in different ways. The whole DCS Simulacra is the toy. I just read the NAVAIR to know how the real F14 worked.  
 

But, I can read between the lines. I know what “too complicated” and “can’t be simply explained in general” mean from a Community Manager. Trained teachers and flight instructors take for granted how easy it is for us to learn, internalize, and restate. Sorry I tend to do that a lot. Especially in relation to Software where I always forget only the project lead usually has a full picture, and “we don’t know why, but don’t delete that line of code or everything breaks” is an accepted industry standard. So It’s on me to understand when answers just aren’t likely to happen.

[captain_dalan]

21 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

First of all thank you for your answer. My wish was to verify if F14B, without cheats, could easy win against F18, as Spurts told. So i don't know if we can do test or no because i guess only Spurts knows how to win easy. 

We need to establish the parameters of tests in order to do so. I am fairly positive that the effects on fuel states and external configurations aren't lost on you. So what kind of fuel fraction are we talking about here? Higher ones would favor the F-14, lower ones would favor the F-18. Also, are we aiming for equal fuel fractions or equal times in burner? I'm not sure how most dogfight servers handle this, but i've seen both. And finally, the F-14 always has her pylons on and they are factored into the total drag of the airframe. Are we demanding the same of the F-18 as well, or is she going to completely sleek?

Next, like in the "how to beat the Hornet in the Viper with the new flight model" topic, we need to establish the metrics we are testing. Total lift available, as in max ITR? Max sustained rate? Bleed rates at a given g? If so at what g? Recovery rates at a given g? If so, at what g? In the above mentioned topic, the Hornet dominated the Viper (back when i did the tests) in practically all the metrics except for the low g energy recovery, which translated to the Viper jock has very little chance unless the Bug driver gave it to him/her. And this was only for one fuel state. 

I'm sure we can do the same for the F-14 and the F-18 if can come to some consensus on what we are testing. 

[Spurts]

2 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

One question: what do you mean with "every trick"? Landing flaps? I also suspect you are talking about the FM before in was deeply changed 2 years ago, in others words what you said was true till 2 years ago. But in the last 2 years, even the F14B is in big troubles against the F18. 

 

Most of my testing and BFM is from this year, but you bringing up the old FM two years ago does remind me of when I once maneuver killed a Hornet using Mil Power in the F-14B.  So I do remember when the Tomcat had too much power.

 

As for every trick, it includes knowing when it is safe and advantageous to use the landing flaps (never when nose low or when speed is above 180), but so much more such as when to turn level, high, or low, when to hold 15-20 AoA for sustained turns, when to tighten down to 30 AoA for min radius, knowing when to pull max AoA (40-60 for an instant before settling back to 30) to either gain nose position or force a one circle overshoot.  It's knowing when in a scissors to reverse and whether to reverse high vs low and how to ride a cross control stall when doing it to increase the roll/yaw rates without over shooting your roll and ending up in a spin (very dangerous in the A).  It's knowing when to get out of afterburner when in the B (almost never a problem in the A).  The above are all things I had to do in my last fight against a Hornet and I lost because I didn't do the last one one time and gained 100kts without realizing it. 

 

The Hornet is the hardest thing to fly against for me because excels in the same regime and never has to worry about over controlling or losing control. It just does it.  I have to try and force situations where I can out corner the Hornet, such as a low speed scissor, sub 150kt.  That's when the landing flaps are called for. 

 

I hope this answers your questions.

[captain_dalan]

18 hours ago, IronMike said:

Thank you for the tests, Dalan. If you feel like doing the same for the -B, I am sure insights for both will help @fat creason to have further overview of the remaining issues. Accurate flying is of course important, but nonetheless these tests give a rough ballpark. We else run scripts to have the aircraft flown precisely, but it will be very interesting to compare the results as well.

Of course. Test flights like these aren't really useful for fine tuning, but they may help with illustrating the current state (roughly). 
Only 4 altitudes this time, as there is no 10000ft chart for the B model. 2x2x2 configuration 62000ft gross weight:

5000ft
acceleration largely on point till about mach 1.10 or so. The plane then overperforms, reaching max mach 1.16 almost a minute sooner, and has max mach of 1.20

15000ft
acceleration roughly on point till about mach 1.20
then plane starts overperforming reaching:
mach 1.30 about 10s sooner
mach 1.35 almost half a minute sooner
max mach of  1.375 almost a minute sooner and has max mach of 1.41

25000ft
plane accelerates inside expected time lines till about mach 1.4
after which the plane overperforms by:
mach 1.50 about 15s sooner
max mach 1.58 more then a minute sooner and reaches max mach of 1.65

35000ft
plane is about 20ish seconds fast in reaching mach 1.00
then about 20ish seconds late in reaching mach 1.20
40s late in reaching mach 1.40
40s late in reaching mach 1.60 (which means acceleration between mach 1.4 and mach 1.6 is correct)
10s late in reaching mach 1.80 (which means acceleration between 1.6 and 1.8 is faster)
almost a minute faster in reaching max mach of 1.825 and reaches a max mach of 2.00

As always, i would appreciate if someone would re-fly the mission with more precision and if possibly more then one iteration. I am especially skeptical of my 35000ft hop.
Mission and tacviews attached bellow:






 

acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.miz Tacview-20221107-233359-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi Tacview-20221107-232624-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi Tacview-20221107-231940-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi Tacview-20221107-231334-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi

[IronMike]

7 hours ago, RustBelt said:

Clearly we have fun with our toys in different ways. The whole DCS Simulacra is the toy. I just read the NAVAIR to know how the real F14 worked.  
 

But, I can read between the lines. I know what “too complicated” and “can’t be simply explained in general” mean from a Community Manager. Trained teachers and flight instructors take for granted how easy it is for us to learn, internalize, and restate. Sorry I tend to do that a lot. Especially in relation to Software where I always forget only the project lead usually has a full picture, and “we don’t know why, but don’t delete that line of code or everything breaks” is an accepted industry standard. So It’s on me to understand when answers just aren’t likely to happen.

Not quite, you just have to be more specific, because the general topic covers too much. Ask what you want to know, and if I personally do not know the answer, I will seek it out for you. The caveat being: there still will be things we simply do not want to share.

4 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Of course. Test flights like these aren't really useful for fine tuning, but they may help with illustrating the current state (roughly). 
Only 4 altitudes this time, as there is no 10000ft chart for the B model. 2x2x2 configuration 62000ft gross weight:

5000ft
acceleration largely on point till about mach 1.10 or so. The plane then overperforms, reaching max mach 1.16 almost a minute sooner, and has max mach of 1.20

15000ft
acceleration roughly on point till about mach 1.20
then plane starts overperforming reaching:
mach 1.30 about 10s sooner
mach 1.35 almost half a minute sooner
max mach of  1.375 almost a minute sooner and has max mach of 1.41

25000ft
plane accelerates inside expected time lines till about mach 1.4
after which the plane overperforms by:
mach 1.50 about 15s sooner
max mach 1.58 more then a minute sooner and reaches max mach of 1.65

35000ft
plane is about 20ish seconds fast in reaching mach 1.00
then about 20ish seconds late in reaching mach 1.20
40s late in reaching mach 1.40
40s late in reaching mach 1.60 (which means acceleration between mach 1.4 and mach 1.6 is correct)
10s late in reaching mach 1.80 (which means acceleration between 1.6 and 1.8 is faster)
almost a minute faster in reaching max mach of 1.825 and reaches a max mach of 2.00

As always, i would appreciate if someone would re-fly the mission with more precision and if possibly more then one iteration. I am especially skeptical of my 35000ft hop.
Mission and tacviews attached bellow:






 

acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.miz 10.65 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221107-233359-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi 169.04 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221107-232624-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi 137.19 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221107-231940-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi 113.24 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221107-231334-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi 102.06 kB · 1 download

Thank you Dalan!

[maxsin72]

7 hours ago, Spurts said:

Most of my testing and BFM is from this year, but you bringing up the old FM two years ago does remind me of when I once maneuver killed a Hornet using Mil Power in the F-14B.  So I do remember when the Tomcat had too much power.

 

As for every trick, it includes knowing when it is safe and advantageous to use the landing flaps (never when nose low or when speed is above 180), but so much more such as when to turn level, high, or low, when to hold 15-20 AoA for sustained turns, when to tighten down to 30 AoA for min radius, knowing when to pull max AoA (40-60 for an instant before settling back to 30) to either gain nose position or force a one circle overshoot.  It's knowing when in a scissors to reverse and whether to reverse high vs low and how to ride a cross control stall when doing it to increase the roll/yaw rates without over shooting your roll and ending up in a spin (very dangerous in the A).  It's knowing when to get out of afterburner when in the B (almost never a problem in the A).  The above are all things I had to do in my last fight against a Hornet and I lost because I didn't do the last one one time and gained 100kts without realizing it. 

 

The Hornet is the hardest thing to fly against for me because excels in the same regime and never has to worry about over controlling or losing control. It just does it.  I have to try and force situations where I can out corner the Hornet, such as a low speed scissor, sub 150kt.  That's when the landing flaps are called for. 

 

I hope this answers your questions.

Thank you for the answer, it would be also interesting to know if your opponent on F18 did use the paddle, to pull 9+ Gs, or not

[maxsin72]

7 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

We need to establish the parameters of tests in order to do so. I am fairly positive that the effects on fuel states and external configurations aren't lost on you. So what kind of fuel fraction are we talking about here? Higher ones would favor the F-14, lower ones would favor the F-18. Also, are we aiming for equal fuel fractions or equal times in burner? I'm not sure how most dogfight servers handle this, but i've seen both. And finally, the F-14 always has her pylons on and they are factored into the total drag of the airframe. Are we demanding the same of the F-18 as well, or is she going to completely sleek?

Next, like in the "how to beat the Hornet in the Viper with the new flight model" topic, we need to establish the metrics we are testing. Total lift available, as in max ITR? Max sustained rate? Bleed rates at a given g? If so at what g? Recovery rates at a given g? If so, at what g? In the above mentioned topic, the Hornet dominated the Viper (back when i did the tests) in practically all the metrics except for the low g energy recovery, which translated to the Viper jock has very little chance unless the Bug driver gave it to him/her. And this was only for one fuel state. 

I'm sure we can do the same for the F-14 and the F-18 if can come to some consensus on what we are testing. 

I can host on my little private server, fuel is setted for equal times in burner, F18 without pilons and F14B clean config.

I don't know exactly which parameters to test, my wish is to reproduce a situation in which F18 outurns F14B while turning and climbing at the same time: in my experience it's the most dangerous situation in an F14B against an F18.

[GT400]

This USMC pilot talks about fighting the F-14D, and I think he is flying Lot 11 Hornets (non uprated engine).  So the Hornet is not a slouch in a dogfight.

 

https://hushkit.net/2020/03/16/flying-fighting-in-the-f-a-18-hornet-interview-with-a-usmc-hornet-veteran/

[Spurts]

5 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

Thank you for the answer, it would be also interesting to know if your opponent on F18 did use the paddle, to pull 9+ Gs, or not

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.

[cheezit]

15 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

almost a minute faster in reaching max mach of 1.825 and reaches a max mach of 2.00

Are you getting a max mach of 1.825M for the F-14B in that configuration at 35000 feet from Figure 8-5 on page XI-8-19?  Because several other charts disagree.

 

For 2x2x2 at 35k feet, Figure 9-5 on page XI-9-34 shows the PS=0 line crosses 1g at 1.95M.  Cross-checking via Figure 9-2 on page XI-9-7, it also shows max mach in that configuration at 35k feet as approximately 1.95M (I'd call it 1.94, but the line is probably 0.02M wide and that's some real fine hair splitting).

 

I'm too dumb to understand why there's an apparent disagreement between the Level Flight Acceleration diagram on the one hand, and the Specific Excess Power and V-N diagrams on the other hand, but I think it's worth noting if we're trying to determine whether performance in the sim matches the charts.

 

Nb. for some parts of this testing, Figure 8-6 may be a useful cross-check.  It certainly would be neat if the aircraft could be scripted to try and fly those profiles with those loadouts.