A question towards all IRL active or ex Hornet Pilots how realistic is the Hornet flight model after all ED patches after the release ?

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, Dancer said:

I don’t feel like this is a place to use popular opinion and status to degrade others educated statements in some group think movement. Coyle and I have spent a lot of time looking at our hornet, and trust me, we don’t need SME’s to know that some things are wrong. Yes we may be civilians and that gives us far less insight to the real world piloting aspect, but I’d argue we care just as much about the airframe and it’s capabilities. Not having real world experience in types aside from the 2007 lot 20 like most SME’s I’ve heard of shouldn’t nullify hours of research done on the communities side into the flight model alone.

 

This is the equivalent of thinking you know what sex is like after studying medical texts. 
 

I am going to trust the guy who has actually been in the saddle even if it was with her sister. 

[Mover]

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

This is the equivalent of thinking you know what sex is like after studying medical texts. 
 

I am going to trust the guy who has actually been in the saddle even if it was with her sister. 

I just want to throw out that I've flown the A+, the B, the C with 400 and 402 engines, and the D.  Other than the avionics, there's not much difference.  Not enough that someone "studying on the internet" would be able to tell the difference in performance in the real jet.  There's a reason the A-D is one qual.  

Edited January 31, 2022 by Mover

[BIGNEWY]

On 1/29/2022 at 2:04 AM, Steel Jaw said:

Does that not call into question the reliability of these SMEs?

No not really, their experiences help us a lot, but it does show feelings are sometimes different especially when sat in a seat at home. It's why we rely heavily on the data. 

thanks

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, BIGNEWY said:

No not really, their experiences help us a lot, but it does show feelings are sometimes different especially when sat in a seat at home. It's why we rely heavily on the data. 

thanks

 

Just to back this up, even Nick Grey himself, when talking about Warbirds mentions that you lose a lot of feel from the real thing that can really change how it feels in the sim. So as BN said, while SME info can be invaluable, the data really makes the difference as we cant always, or rarely make adjustments by feel. 

[G.J.S]

SME interpretation of a memory can be variable also, as in the more or less power than should be available debate.

Elapsed time can impinge on accuracy of feel. 
 

Going by the book numbers will only get you 80% of the way - the rest, the feel, can only really come from accurate memory, the more recent, the more accurate.

A likeness would be going by a recipe - if you had the numbers only, the ingredients and their ratios, and the method, how would you know if it’s correct if you have never “tasted” it?

I can remember favourite dishes from my youth, but the memory of the taste is likely more glossy than they actually were.

 

You need a broad spread of SME input and look for the common factors.

[Dancer]

5 hours ago, Mover said:

I'm curious why you and Coyle think there's such a difference between the "2007 lot 20" and someone who's flown the Legacy hornet (A-D) that it disqualifies the opinion of someone who actually flew them in real life.  

Firstly, I never said that an SME’s Opinion is immediately disqualified because some guys “did some research on the internet”. As Nine and BN said, they give the “feel” of the aircraft by their experience and muscle memory, as well as some helpful data when they remember it. However I’d guess that it’s nigh impossible to build a simulator just on that. Both SME’s and the data are important when they are applicable.

ED have made it specific and clear that they are developing a USN and USMC circa 2007 lot-20 C model. To me, that means that they’re being specific about as many things about the jet as possible, unless their strategy has changed.

 

2 hours ago, Mover said:

I just want to throw out that I've flown the A+, the B, the C with 400 and 402 engines, and the D.  Other than the avionics, there's not much difference.  Not enough that someone "studying on the internet" would be able to tell the difference in performance in the real jet.  There's a reason the A-D is one qual.  

 

It is good to hear that you’ve flown so many types of the Classic. Your comment on flight characteristics helps as well.

What I meant earlier when I said that we don’t need SME’s to see problems is that there is public documentation describing flight regimes for the F/A-18 that are impossible to obtain in the sim, particularly about AoA in vertical spins is the issue I’ve seen.

17 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

SME interpretation of a memory can be variable also, as in the more or less power than should be available debate.

Elapsed time can impinge on accuracy of feel. 
 

Going by the book numbers will only get you 80% of the way - the rest, the feel, can only really come from accurate memory, the more recent, the more accurate.

A likeness would be going by a recipe - if you had the numbers only, the ingredients and their ratios, and the method, how would you know if it’s correct if you have never “tasted” it?

I can remember favourite dishes from my youth, but the memory of the taste is likely more glossy than they actually were.

 

You need a broad spread of SME input and look for the common factors.

Definitely agree. SME’s should be involved in conversations with each other and the devs, not lectures.

[NineLine]

22 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

SME interpretation of a memory can be variable also, as in the more or less power than should be available debate.

Elapsed time can impinge on accuracy of feel. 
 

Going by the book numbers will only get you 80% of the way - the rest, the feel, can only really come from accurate memory, the more recent, the more accurate.

A likeness would be going by a recipe - if you had the numbers only, the ingredients and their ratios, and the method, how would you know if it’s correct if you have never “tasted” it?

I can remember favourite dishes from my youth, but the memory of the taste is likely more glossy than they actually were.

 

You need a broad spread of SME input and look for the common factors.

Oh yeah, 100% a good SME is invaluable for these projects, I know Wags is really good at finding those guys that get it, and understand the difference between sim and RL, its not always easy. 

[Mike_CK]

On 1/30/2022 at 12:50 PM, Mover said:

I know….I feel embarrassed that real fighter pilots look at posts like that and send them to their friends so they can laugh at how guys who fly computer sims think that means they can do the real thing. It’s a game guys…it just is. Enjoy the realism that it brings but cmon. 
 

mover…..please don’t tell your friends about this…let’s keep it between us huh?

[wilbur81]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

No not really, their experiences help us a lot, but it does show feelings are sometimes different especially when sat in a seat at home. It's why we rely heavily on the data. 

thanks

 

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

Just to back this up, even Nick Grey himself, when talking about Warbirds mentions that you lose a lot of feel from the real thing that can really change how it feels in the sim. So as BN said, while SME info can be invaluable, the data really makes the difference as we cant always, or rarely make adjustments by feel. 

Appreciate all the work our ED Team is doing on the Hornet! 

[Eagle7907]

I’ve been flying trips with veterans lately. I find them particularly fascinating to fly with and learn when they discuss their jets and the competitiveness between the differing types, the close calls. No, none of them (at least I know of) play DCS World, but just learning about the characteristics of each one, it seems ED has got them down pretty darn good. Granted, maybe not perfect, but really good. I’ve flown with an Eagle pilot, a Hornet pilot, an Apache pilot, a B-2 Spirit pilot. All of them fought in Iraq (well not sure about the B-2 guy I can’t exactly remember if he said he did or not)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[cru]

22 hours ago, Mike_CK said:

 It’s a game guys…it just is. 

No way!  I tell all my friends I'm basically a full fledged fighter pilot!

Edited February 1, 2022 by cru

[oldcrusty]

Speaking of Hornet's FM, is the FM update still on schedule?  Most folks focus on accurate power curve, exact drag numbers, turn rates within 1deg/sec, etc. How about FCS?  Flap scheduling during transition to PA, what happens during touch&go's, yaw oscillation dampening (well, this one got a lot better during last few months but it still takes too long when rolling out level at low weight and around 420 kts. - can post a vid if needed)   OK, I'm just running my mouth here but someone like Mover, Gonky or sme's could settle that quick. No classed stuff there.

[Swift.]

36 minutes ago, Gripes323 said:

Speaking of Hornet's FM, is the FM update still on schedule?  Most folks focus on accurate power curve, exact drag numbers, turn rates within 1deg/sec, etc. How about FCS?  Flap scheduling during transition to PA, what happens during touch&go's, yaw oscillation dampening (well, this one got a lot better during last few months but it still takes too long when rolling out level at low weight and around 420 kts. - can post a vid if needed)   OK, I'm just running my mouth here but someone like Mover, Gonky or sme's could settle that quick. No classed stuff there.

Cruise AOA performance too!

[Dragon1-1]

Well, power curve was a big deal because lethargic engine response we had before made for much harder AAR and traps. Last time I flew the Hornet, it had more issues than that. Haven't checked in recent days (mostly flying the Tomcat now), but I don't remember any changelog that mentioned fixing ballooning at flap deployment or lack of roll stability, which were my biggest gripes besides power curve, and I think neither is accurate.

BTW, for anyone who "feels" that trapping in the Hornet is proof that DCS makes things too easy: try the Tomcat, or the Phantom, when it's out. For extra fun, try the Corsair once that comes out. The Hornet, as an FBW aircraft, is incredibly easy to fly, including to trap, IRL. So, when you hear about carrier traps being so tough and challenging, and think Hornet isn't hard enough, try trapping in an aircraft that didn't have all those aids. It's every bit as hard as they say, and then some (I'm currently able to get the Cat, just barely, on the boat, but can't fly it as precisely as I should, especially in the groove, and usually end up catching #1 wire). Paradoxically, flying in the sim, especially when it comes to older birds, is harder than in a real plane, because you don't have all those "seat of pants" cues that real pilots routinely use. Even motion platforms have their limits. IRL, for instance, flying a coordinated turn doesn't typically involve a whole lot of looking at slip indicator, you can feel whether you're coordinated or not. You can also easily figure out how much G are you pulling just from experiencing it enough times so that you have a feel of how each value feels. In the sim, all you have is stick deflection, your RIO-reported speed and pilot breathing. Tomcat tries to approximate some of the cues with cockpit shake, but it's a compromise. FBW aircraft, with precise G and AoA data on the HUD, and with several systems that make you less reliant on the aforementioned cues, are somewhat more "sim-friendly" than the oldies.

[oldcrusty]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

FBW aircraft, with precise G and AoA data on the HUD, and with several systems that make you less reliant on the aforementioned cues, are somewhat more "sim-friendly" than the oldies.

Phantom should be easier at the boat then Tomcat.  There was this guy on the 'other' sim's forum who flew it off the boat (he bagged one Mig, btw ) and he confirmed what I've heard numerous times that the Phantom was 'on rails' in the groove.

[WobblyFlops]

On 2/1/2022 at 1:15 AM, Mike_CK said:

I know….I feel embarrassed that real fighter pilots look at posts like that and send them to their friends so they can laugh at how guys who fly computer sims think that means they can do the real thing. It’s a game guys…it just is. Enjoy the realism that it brings but cmon. 

This is 100% a strawman argument, no one said that. What people said is that subjective feel cannot be used to override documentation. Ideally both SMEs and documentation are available but as always the actual value you get out of these depend on the specifics. SMEs are not created equal, just look around how much time Victory has spent on helping HB exactly nail the performance of the Tomcat. There are a plethora of potential confounding factors even if you have an SME who's trying to help; hazy memory, unfamiliarity with using PC based peripherals in general, (which may lead to things like inadvertantly too agressive inputs), and even just the fact that putting this experience into words that the developers can use to tweak the product is a completely different skill in and of itself.

 

And that's talking about dedicated SMEs. Someone messing around and taking a cursory glance can only determine things that are really out of whack but subtle inaccuracies that only present themselves in certain configurations may not be easily apparent without extensive testing. 

[Dragon1-1]

9 hours ago, Gripes323 said:

Phantom should be easier at the boat then Tomcat.  There was this guy on the 'other' sim's forum who flew it off the boat (he bagged one Mig, btw ) and he confirmed what I've heard numerous times that the Phantom was 'on rails' in the groove.

I'm certainly looking forward to trying that out, but I wouldn't expect it to be that much easier. It's still an analog airplane, with no FBW trimming the ship to AoA, all steam gauges and no HUD (though real Tomcat pilots didn't use the HUD for landing, anyway). Its engines were not particularly fast-spooling, although probably comparable to A model Tomcat (no instant response of the current Hornet, or the F-14B for that matter). It might be steady as a rock in the groove, but you still need to get there on the numbers, and that's a challenge in itself in those old planes.

For real fun, though, try the Crusader once it comes out, or the Corsair. The latter has a giant piston engine in front that pretty much obscures the dinky, straight-deck CVE you're trying to trap on, plus enough prop torque to slam your wing into the deck on a bolter, not to mention jerk you around in the groove on every power change, while the former, well, they didn't call it "ensign eliminator" for nothing. No modern aids in either of them, and plenty of very non-modern annoyances. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I'm certainly looking forward to trying that out, but I wouldn't expect it to be that much easier. It's still an analog airplane, with no FBW trimming the ship to AoA, all steam gauges and no HUD (though real Tomcat pilots didn't use the HUD for landing, anyway). Its engines were not particularly fast-spooling, although probably comparable to A model Tomcat (no instant response of the current Hornet, or the F-14B for that matter). It might be steady as a rock in the groove, but you still need to get there on the numbers, and that's a challenge in itself in those old planes.

For real fun, though, try the Crusader once it comes out, or the Corsair. The latter has a giant piston engine in front that pretty much obscures the dinky, straight-deck CVE you're trying to trap on, plus enough prop torque to slam your wing into the deck on a bolter, not to mention jerk you around in the groove on every power change, while the former, well, they didn't call it "ensign eliminator" for nothing. No modern aids in either of them, and plenty of very non-modern annoyances. 

DCS Warbirds don’t model anything near realistic levels of engine torque. The Corsair will be a pussycat if it follows the pattern. 
 

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

DCS Warbirds don’t model anything near realistic levels of engine torque. The Corsair will be a pussycat if it follows the pattern. 
 

Interesting, you think that, when we have someone with actual warbird experience leading our company who would be the first to say if something was wrong. Feel free to make a new thread with your evidence. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

34 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Interesting, you think that, when we have someone with actual warbird experience leading our company who would be the first to say if something was wrong. Feel free to make a new thread with your evidence. 

No need to be personally offended.
 

I am only stating an easily demonstrable fact.

I am not interested is starting a crusade to get this corrected.

There is no interest in the WWII player community in even discussing the topic, as I have learned. 

Although I own ALL of the WWII modules, I don’t fly them any more, for a variety of reasons. 
 

Feel free to ask Mr. Grey (privately) if you can slam the throttle from 15 inches to 61 with hands off the controls and get basically no response in the real thing. 
 

If he answers in the affirmative, you can revel in victory. 

My only purpose here is to temper expectations with regard to the Corsair. 
 

EDIT: I lied. I didn’t buy the Mossie. 

Edited February 2, 2022 by =475FG= Dawger

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

No need to be personally offended.
 

I am only stating an easily demonstrable fact.

I am not interested is starting a crusade to get this corrected.

There is no interest in the WWII player community in even discussing the topic, as I have learned. 

Although I own ALL of the WWII modules, I don’t fly them any more, for a variety of reasons. 
 

Feel free to ask Mr. Grey (privately) if you can slam the throttle from 15 inches to 61 with hands off the controls and get basically no response in the real thing. 
 

If he answers in the affirmative, you can revel in victory. 

My only purpose here is to temper expectations with regard to the Corsair. 
 

EDIT: I lied. I didn’t buy the Mossie. 

 

Not offended, if you think there is a problem I will ask, but a bug report would be better with tracks and your test, as it is getting off topic in this thread. 
Edit: message sent to team

 

[A2597]

I go with the disagreements being a good sign actually, as everyone's memory is a little different, slight variations in Aircraft, all have impacts on how this one 'feels' compared to the one they flew.

End of the day, I doubt many aircraft even with identical configurations fly exactly the same, close enough you can hop in and fly it sure, but not exact.