Upcoming flight model adjustments

[TAW_Blaze]

1 hour ago, Snappy said:

Didn’t ED always claim the sustained turn rates were already spot on, matching the data they used to model it?

Now given the first side by side comparison in the video it seems they further boosted STR significantly.

Certainly hope they re not catering to the complaining crowds, it seems to become a recurring scheme lately.

 

 

I would take poorly prepared video comparisons with a grain of salt. He has a difference of 200-300 feet altitude between the side by side cameras which creates a substantial difference in turning speed perception. Fly a turn at 100 ft AGL and do the same turn at 500 ft AGL and you will see what I mean.

[Blindman]

14 minutes ago, Snappy said:

Already did , you just need to read. Also I never said the FM was complete or perfect.I was specifically talking only about STR and no, I can’t be bothered to dig out 9Line or BNs posts where they stated the FM matches the available data.

 

"

STR was untouched. You are simply complaining on something you didn't even test personally, based on a video that has a side by side comparison at different zoom levels, with the new model being more zoomed in, so that the perception is exaggerated.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Blindman

[Snappy]

8 minutes ago, Blindman said:

"

STR was untouched. You are simply complaining on something you didn't even test personally. 

Oh excuse me. it wasn’t BN or 9Line.It was Wags himself, stating sustained rate matches the data across the board.

I was just referencing the GS video, like I said the first side by side comparison in it seems to show a further significant  increase in STR, which would be problematic in view of Wags earlier statement.

Anyway , @TAW_Blaze is right, maybe the video isn’t well done and should not be over-interpreted.

I apologise for jumping the gun, let’s wait until the patch drops and what it entails.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Snappy

[Hiob]

Just a wild guess here:

There are three (four) variables, no? Turnrate, G, and turn radius (and speed). Perhaps they used to have matched only two (three) of them properly and now managed to fit in the third (four)?

You can't see the radius in GS's video.

Perhaps it's just way two complicated to try to pick it apart by just some wild guesses, taken from a short video?

[Blindman]

9 minutes ago, Snappy said:

 

I was just referencing the GS video, like I said the first side by side comparison in it seems to show a further significant  increase in STR, which would be problematic in view of Wags earlier statement.

Anyway , @TAW_Blaze is right, maybe the video isn’t well done and should not be over-interpreted.

I apologise for jumping the gun, let’s wait until the patch drops and what it entails.

 

Take into account that the zoom level on the right side, where the new model is shown, is zoomed in more, much more. So the perception is exaggerated. That's why, IMHO, it is best to wait for the patch to land, before complaining.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Blindman

[Snappy]

16 minutes ago, TAW_Blaze said:

I would take poorly prepared video comparisons with a grain of salt. He has a difference of 200-300 feet altitude between the side by side cameras which creates a substantial difference in turning speed perception. Fly a turn at 100 ft AGL and do the same turn at 500 ft AGL and you will see what I mean.

Thank you for pointing it out Blaze , You are a voice of reason. I hadn’t checked the video flight data closely enough.
I can see how that might cause a difference in visual perception of turn rate.

Looks like I jumped the gun. Thank you and apologies.

4 minutes ago, Blindman said:

Take into account that the zoom level on the right side, where the new model is shown, is zoomed in more, much more. So the perception is exaggerated. That's why, IMHO, it is best to wait for the patch to land, before complaining.

 

Yes let’s just wait for the patch.

@all, I will calm down now and am sorry for going ballistic.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Snappy

[TAW_Blaze]

For a good video comparison you would have to fly a simple mission with a maximum load turn initiated from a certain speed and altitude. Then update your DCS and replay the track to see what it does with the updated FM. Recording both replays would result in a plain comparison of energy bleed rate and G onset for those given initial conditions.

But in the posted GS video he is wildly deviating in speed, attitude (you can see him using vertical in one side and not so much in the other), not mentioning his altitude. He also tested all of this with G effect disabled which makes me a bit cautious. A lot of the turns he made started from 550 IAS or higher without much vertical, in the previous Viper iteration this would generally result in a fast GLOC. I understand he clearly states "this is not a scientific comparison". But he could have spent a little bit more effort to provide a fair comparison.

I'm optimistic though and I'm happy about the changes. About the only thing I could see from the videos is that the energy retention seems to be better. By how much is hard to say.

[darkman222]

GS does these videos for entertainment, sensation and clicks. What more do you expect? Maybe the Grim Reapers will do a more in depth comparison when the fix is rolled out. Anyway. That fix is a long awaited thing and if we finally get a viper that can be flown, and fights can be won, like it is taught in public available documents, I will be more than happy.

Looking forward to finally outrate aircraft the F16 should be able to outrate and not ending up running away, extending and resetting the fight just 5 turns after merge.

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by darkman222

[karasawa]

7 hours ago, Snappy said:

Didn’t ED always claim the sustained turn rates were already spot on, matching the data they used to model it?

Now given the first side by side comparison in the video it seems they further boosted STR significantly.

Certainly hope they re not catering to the complaining crowds, it seems to become a recurring scheme lately.

 

 

"be spot on" is a vague claim. You need to pay attention to the errors.

Last year ED measured the sustained turn rate of the DCS viper vs the real viper. At sea level the peak turn rate is still 0.5deg/sec slower than the real viper, and at low speed the turn rate is 0.9 deg/sec slower than the real viper. There is an official PDF issued from ED.

At other altitudes the ED viper also turns 0.2-0.4deg/sec slower than the real viper.

And there is another thing I keep mentioning: having accurate STR doesn't mean you have accurate energy bleed rate. It is noticeably higher than the real viper.

ED never claimed their viper has accurate energy bleed rate. The new version seems to be a valid fix.

Edited March 10, 2022 by karasawa

[Glide]

4 hours ago, TAW_Blaze said:

I would take poorly prepared video comparisons with a grain of salt.

Sure, but I can hear the smile on his face as he's flying it. 

[darkman222]

2 hours ago, karasawa said:

And there is another thing I keep mentioning: having accurate STR doesn't mean you have accurate energy bleed rate. It is noticeably higher than the real viper

They have not talked about that, but I was expecting that this needed to be tuned as well. Aparently they did and had to do it too.

[nima2014]

So I’ll ask once again….does anyone know if according to ED the drag for all stores is correct and left as it is or does it also get a treatment?

 

cheers

[Spurts]

1 hour ago, nima2014 said:

So I’ll ask once again….does anyone know if according to ED the drag for all stores is correct and left as it is or does it also get a treatment?

 

cheers

in short, no, not AFAIK.  ED models each store with a given drag property.  IRL different stores have different properties depending on their mounting locations and aircraft.  I'd be happy to be wrong on this though

[wilbur81]

22 hours ago, schmiefel said:

Looks pretty cool, indeed. I just wonder if we would get some simulation of physical limitations to the virtual pilot to prevent abusing those technical possibilities beyond the limits of human beeings, because no one could stand high G loads forever and keep fighting under those circumstances...

Indeed... here's an actual Viper pilot G-loc'ing for less than 2 seconds of 7G... life saved by GCAS. A person sitting still, staring straight forward in a centrifuge or in the back seat is WAY different than a pilot trying to actually fly, think, process, keep SA, check six, etc...

As for the reclined seat... all indications are that General Dynamics made that design decision for really one reason only: to make the seat and pilot fit into the tiny cockpit of the Viper. The little bit of extra G-comfort was merely serendipitous... Hence why all the new modern fighters that are 9-G capable (Rafale, Typhoon, F-35, F-22, etc.) did not implement the 30 degree sit incline. People that think a pilot can tool around at 9 G's at will are just wrong. One of the main reasons for the G-warmups done before every BFM flight isn't merely to check the bleed air to the suit, but also for the pilot to see where he's at that particular day. His sleep, hydration, diet, mood, etc. could all dictate that, on one day, he might be able to pull and sustain 9g for a few goes... on another day, 6 or 7G might be too much. Anyone who's ever done any weight-lifting knows that some days feel like you've lost a ton of ground compared to what you lifted last week.

[schurem]

Dealing with G is very much a physical thing. Some guys are good at it, some less so. Some gals *rock* at it. We'll never get a complete simulation of it. It'd take a deep RPG like layer of character development and training to simulate that. So we'll have to make do with an averaged out approximation. An abstraction. 

 

Anyway, I can't *wait* to get my viper unleashed. It sure feels anemic when turning now. 

[wilbur81]

1 hour ago, schurem said:

Dealing with G is very much a physical thing. Some guys are good at it, some less so. Some gals *rock* at it. 

Indeed. And that guy or gal that is good at it may have days where they are not... or they'll be good at it for 15 minutes of intense BFM, then they start to tire... that's the point. DCS already actually does a fairly cool job with G tolerance. Put the wheels up and immediately crank into a 7+ g turn in the Hornet... the pilot will immediately start to black out in DCS. Do a few G warm up turns... the pilot will handle 7+ no problem. It would be super easy for ED to simulate accumulative G-exhaustion on a flight (e.g. first 9G turn after warmup: golden. second 9G sustained turn: getting tired and seeing a bit of the tunnel. third turn: starting to black out).

Edited March 10, 2022 by wilbur81

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, wilbur81 said:

The little bit of extra G-comfort was merely serendipitous... Hence why all the new modern fighters that are 9-G capable (Rafale, Typhoon, F-35, F-22, etc.) did not implement the 30 degree sit incline.

It's hardly a little bit, cosine of 30 is 0.86, which converts about 1.3G vertical into horizontal, which is a fair bit. Regardless of what the designers intended, it plays a part in making the Viper such a monster in a dogfight. I suppose the other fighters didn't implement it because it's not actually that comfortable (Viper pilots complained of neck strain issues with the position), and these fighters were designed in an era when BVR and ground pounding reign supreme. The Viper was originally a pure, lightweight, day dogfighter. It needed those extra Gs. This is one of the reasons why I'd like to see the A model someday.

[wilbur81]

48 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

it's not actually that comfortable (Viper pilots complained of neck strain issues with the position)

Indeed. This is very true... particularly with JHMCS.

[SCPanda]

9 hours ago, Spurts said:

in short, no, not AFAIK.  ED models each store with a given drag property.  IRL different stores have different properties depending on their mounting locations and aircraft.  I'd be happy to be wrong on this though

I can confirm. Putting 120s and sidewinders on whatever station makes no drag difference in DCS. I have tested it. In real life, there are differences. 

4 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

DCS already actually does a fairly cool job with G tolerance.

Nope, not at all. Pulling 8Gs forever until your fuel runs out is not realistic at all. No human on this planet can do that. 

Same goes for almost instant GLOC when hitting 9G. 

The other F-16 sim does a far better job that creating the realitic G tolerance. 7 or 8G for too long? GLOC. 9G for a short period of time? No problem. 

[Spurts]

13 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

 Anyone who's ever done any weight-lifting knows that some days feel like you've lost a ton of ground compared to what you lifted last week.

One day you pull a 350lb deadlift and it feels great, the next week 325 feels impossible.  This is very much a thing.

12 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It's hardly a little bit, cosine of 30 is 0.86, which converts about 1.3G vertical into horizontal, which is a fair bit. 

I thought this too until this week.  Having recently had this discussed by someone who did this study, the gain is about the vertical distance between the eyes and heart.  The first 10deg of recline actually makes it worse, the next 10 get you back to normal, and going to 30 only gets you a net 10deg gain.  This also means if you "look up" to follow a bandit you are increasing that distance and are more likely to black out.

 

Edited March 11, 2022 by Spurts

[Dragon1-1]

Well, that's physiology for you. Nothing is ever simple.  Although, blackout is only one effect of high G, and it's specifically affected by blood supply to the eyeballs. I would expect tunnel vision and GLOC, which depend on blood supply to the brain, to be affected differently. So, when looking up, you'd stay conscious for longer, but might black out earlier. Of course, GLOC is rather harder to study than blackout (and get volunteers for, do it too much and you may get permanent brain damage from hypoxia). Come to think of it, DCS already tracks head position... 

[wilbur81]

[wilbur81]

11 hours ago, SCPanda said:

Nope, not at all. Pulling 8Gs forever until your fuel runs out is not realistic at all. No human on this planet can do that. 

 

Pulling 8G's forever? You're right, not realistic. As with most things DCS, they've got a ways to go and they often (to our benefit and frustration) bite off more than they can chew.  But "not at all" means not at all. And their present simulation of the benefits of G-warmup for tolerance are not "not at all." But who needs nuance?

Edited March 11, 2022 by wilbur81

[TheBigTatanka]

To be fair, when we (our virtual squadron) flies BFM, we turn off G effects. No need to have distractions when you are trying to teach aspect angles, range cues, and turn circles.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[wilbur81]

1 hour ago, TheBigTatanka said:

To be fair, when we (our virtual squadron) flies BFM, we turn off G effects. No need to have distractions when you are trying to teach aspect angles, range cues, and turn circles.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

That is perfectly valid.