Jump to content

Flight model of my dreams


TheBigTatanka

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the flight model updates, it's everything I've been looking forward to. Flies like a dream. I'm gitty with joy over how well it rates. Being able to pitch to 9Gs at the merge, and hold that until the bandit exits your turn circle, and still hold 400+ knots until the next merge..... It's fantastic. Thank you. Now.... Let's go kill some hornets. Don't follow them downhill!

 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

 

  • Like 10

Dances, PhD

Jet Hobo

https://v65th.wordpress.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, karasawa said:

A sample pvp combat:

 

Check 17:00. There is a hornet entering the merge with higher initial energy and the F-16 turned the table after an ascending turn.

Video quality is only 360p 😞

That Hornet wasn't flown well tho. He basically overshot and tried to slow down but got killed. Also your fights seems to be in the free for all area. 

If you could show 1v1 fights with good Hornet pilots, I would love to see. 

BTW I like the music. 


Edited by SCPanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BuzzU said:

Now, everybody will fly Vipers. What have you gained?

DCS is not about "balanced" gameplay, it's about simulating every aircraft (every asset) as close to reality as possible.

If the Viper dominates the Hornet or other aircrafts in certain conditions - bad luck.

 


Edited by Hiob
  • Like 10

"Muß ich denn jedes Mal, wenn ich sauge oder saugblase den Schlauchstecker in die Schlauchnut schieben?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This update reflects improvement, but still lacking power on the aircraft. 

In RL a viper with 2 bags, 4, 0, 2, ALQ can easily fly at FL300-350, but with the current FM it is almost impossible to fly on MIL power to such altitudes. Another comparison with RL, a clean hornet and viper, the hornet can sustain the viper or even overtake in MIL power.

For me it is lacking of power in all the regime until MIL.

 

I hope it will be solved one day.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zeagle said:

I don't think balanced is more fun. It's arcade like. If DCS ever goes "balanced", then I am out.

Don't worry. Won't happen. That is simply not what ED does.

They may not always succeed right from the get go - but they are certainly aiming for simulating as close to reality as possible.

"Muß ich denn jedes Mal, wenn ich sauge oder saugblase den Schlauchstecker in die Schlauchnut schieben?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Zeagle said:

I don't think balanced is more fun. It's arcade like. If DCS ever goes "balanced", then I am out.

I meant balanced if the real planes are balanced.

You don't think the best pilot should win instead of the best plane? Balanced makes the field even and now you need skill to win.

Buzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will still be a lot of fight in which the opponent will succeed over the Viper. If you put a less proficiant Peter Pilot (like me) in the Viper and let him fight against Growling Sidewinder in a Mig 29.... well.....

I will die.

"Muß ich denn jedes Mal, wenn ich sauge oder saugblase den Schlauchstecker in die Schlauchnut schieben?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Spartan111sqn said:

This update reflects improvement, but still lacking power on the aircraft. 

In RL a viper with 2 bags, 4, 0, 2, ALQ can easily fly at FL300-350, but with the current FM it is almost impossible to fly on MIL power to such altitudes. Another comparison with RL, a clean hornet and viper, the hornet can sustain the viper or even overtake in MIL power.

For me it is lacking of power in all the regime until MIL.

 

I hope it will be solved one day.

I just noticed this last night, 2 bags , 4 38s, hts,tpg,alq long, 2 long 2 short...fl300 and barely sustaining .65mach at mil....FL 250 was .69 to .7 mach...i was scratching my head

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened in regards to cruise at a given altitude...for instance loaded up with 4 gbu 38s, 2 wing bags, HTS, ECM long, TGP 2 aim 120c and 2 9x im getting .65mach at 30k and .7 at 25k...all with 6 degree aoa. This is after decelerating from full ab in mil power and about 6500lbs of gas. Before patch this load out would cruise around .8mach or so. I constantly was checking to see if my boards were out. Im not posting as a bug as I dont know but who knows...it just feels off. Good job on the rate fight though 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carbon715 said:

I just noticed this last night, 2 bags , 4 38s, hts,tpg,alq long, 2 long 2 short...fl300 and barely sustaining .65mach at mil....FL 250 was .69 to .7 mach...i was scratching my head

This is probably ED getting a more accurate pylon/stores drag model on the Viper. The Hornet in this little test mission I created before yesterday's update has a better than 1:1 thrust to weight over the Viper's only 0.75:1 (the weights of both jets are shown in the screenshots attached).  The Viper achieved Mach 1 in the exact same amount of time (32 seconds from mission start with full A/B and altitude hold, at the same altitudes and starting airspeeds) as the Hornet that had thrust to spare. Additionally, the Viper achieved a maximum speed of Mach 1.26 while the "slicker" Hornet only achieved Mach 1.2. Again, the Lot 20 Hornet's two F404-402s produce a total of 35,400 lbs of thrust while the Block 50 Viper's F110-GE-129 only produces 29,499 lbs of thrust. It sounds like they have gotten the drag values more realistic for the Viper.... but I've yet to test my attached mission on yesterday's new update. 

 

16C.png.2e63d8c43d5878c20d511e91c26c7419.png

18C.png.154dd5ea6b38c585404872e79f209e6a.png

ViperHornet TtoW (1).miz


Edited by wilbur81
  • Like 1

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

This is probably ED getting a more accurate pylon/stores drag model on the Viper. The Hornet in this little test mission I created before yesterday's update has a better than 1:1 thrust to weight over the Viper's only 0.75:1 (the weights of both jets are shown in the screenshots attached).  The Viper achieved Mach 1 in the exact same amount of time (32 seconds from mission start with full A/B and altitude hold, at the same altitudes and starting airspeeds) as the Hornet that had thrust to spare. Additionally, the Viper achieved a maximum speed of Mach 1.26 while the "slicker" Hornet only achieved Mach 1.2. Again, the Lot 20 Hornet's two F404-402s produce a total of 35,400 lbs of thrust while the Block 50 Viper's F110-GE-129 only produces 29,499 lbs of thrust. It sounds like they have gotten it right for the Viper. 

 

16C.png.2e63d8c43d5878c20d511e91c26c7419.png

18C.png.154dd5ea6b38c585404872e79f209e6a.png

ViperHornet TtoW (1).miz 7.58 kB · 0 downloads

Thrust to weight ratio means nothing on its own when comparing two completely different airframes. Just to mention one factor as an example (there are a lot more), the F/A-18C and it's stubby P-51 wings will have worse straight line performance at transsonic speeds compared to the F-16C's more swept wings.

I know that you are always trying to prove that the DCS F-16 should be nerfed, but if you want to make a comparison that proves anything at all, you need to use actual charts that take all of these different kinds of factors kinds into account. You can't just pick a single variable like thrust to weight ratio and assume that it is the be all end all metric that single-handedly decides how fast an aircraft accelerates across all speed regimes.

  • Like 7

-Col. Russ Everts opinion on surface-to-air missiles: "It makes you feel a little better if it's coming for one of your buddies. However, if it's coming for you, it doesn't make you feel too good, but it does rearrange your priorities."

 

DCS Wishlist:

MC-130E Combat Talon   |   F/A-18F Lot 26   |   HH-60G Pave Hawk   |   E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound   |   EA-6A/B Prowler   |   J-35F2/J Draken   |   RA-5C Vigilante

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, WHOGX5 said:

Thrust to weight ratio means nothing on its own when comparing two completely different airframes. Just to mention one factor as an example (there are a lot more), the F/A-18C and it's stubby P-51 wings will have worse straight line performance at transsonic speeds compared to the F-16C's more swept wings.

I know that you are always trying to prove that the DCS F-16 should be nerfed, but if you want to make a comparison that proves anything at all, you need to use actual charts that take all of these different kinds of factors kinds into account. You can't just pick a single variable like thrust to weight ratio and assume that it is the be all end all metric that single-handedly decides how fast an aircraft accelerates across all speed regimes.

I have taken these other variables into account... there is absolutely no question that the Viper is a sleeker (and in my opinion, a better looking 🙂) and less draggy design than the Hornet, with less parasitic and overall airframe drag clean than an also clean Hornet airframe.

The question you're seeking to answer is this: Does a three bag, six missile Viper at nearly full weight, heavier than the Hornet, have less drag than a no-bag, two pylon and lighter/higher T:W Hornet? I will let you PM the devs to have their experts answer that question and/or explain to you the rationale behind why they (may) have adjusted the drag on our latest Viper.
 

As to your "Always trying to prove that the DCS F-16 should be nerfed" comment... I am a day-one pre-purchaser of the DCS Viper, have a 1:18th scale Viper hanging over my simpit (which is covered in 5 different Viper Sqd patches) have some real simulator time on the USAF ANG Blk 30 sim, close contact with a good friend who flies Viper's for the 75th (YGBSM) at Shaw, etc. I've been a Viper fan longer than the Hornet...

...but getting closer to reality is not nerfing. Ad hominem never makes one's case look very plausible.


Edited by wilbur81

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wilbur81 said:

I have taken these other variables into account... the question you're asking is this: Does a three bag, six missile Viper at nearly full weight have less drag than a no-bag, two pylon Hornet? 
 

As to your "Always trying to prove that the DCS F-16 should be nerfed" comment... I am a day-one pre-purchaser of the DCS Viper, have a 1:18th  scale Viper hanging over my simpit, have some time on the USAF ANG Blk 30 sim, close contact with a good friend who flies Viper's for the 75th (YGBSM) at Shaw, etc. I've been a Viper fan longer than the Hornet... but getting closer to reality is not nerfing.

First of all, I am fully in favour of having the DCS F-16 be as realistic as possible whether that means nerfing or buffing. That's why I'm trying to emphasize the importance of actual proof to support your claims rather than just saying "I have taken these other variables into account" without any further elaboration.

So for example, when you mention that a fully kitted F-16 had a higher top speed than a "slicker" F-18, you can't just look at the thrust-to-weight ratio and the drag of the weapons and pylons. As you transition into supersonic regions you have to start looking at shockwave generation and how that impacts different airframes in different ways, especially how it affects the air intakes and how efficiently they can ingest air at those kinds of extremely high speeds. And this is without even looking at the inherently different drags of the F-16 and F-18's airframes. The most important point that I'm trying to convey is that the performance of an aircraft is not linear. The generated thrust of an engine will vary depending on airspeed. The acceleration of an aircraft will be different at different airspeeds. The AOA will be different for different airspeeds. So naturally, two different aircraft can not be compared by taking one value for the TWR and one for the drag and than assuming this is the basis for all acceleration speed related performance and that this also stays true across all speed regimes.

But you know what? There is a easy solution to all of this. If you were just to use performance charts from real world test you don't have to give two hoots about any of the things I've mentioned above as nature has already taken care of the physics for us. Aerodynamics is extremely complicated and even with some super CFD software you won't get fully accurate calculations. So observe the real world examples instead and then compare those to it's virtual counterparts.

  • Like 2

-Col. Russ Everts opinion on surface-to-air missiles: "It makes you feel a little better if it's coming for one of your buddies. However, if it's coming for you, it doesn't make you feel too good, but it does rearrange your priorities."

 

DCS Wishlist:

MC-130E Combat Talon   |   F/A-18F Lot 26   |   HH-60G Pave Hawk   |   E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound   |   EA-6A/B Prowler   |   J-35F2/J Draken   |   RA-5C Vigilante

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, WHOGX5 said:

So for example, when you mention that a fully kitted F-16 had a higher top speed than a "slicker" F-18, you can't just look at the thrust-to-weight ratio and the drag of the weapons and pylons. As you transition into supersonic regions you have to start looking at shockwave generation and how that impacts different airframes in different ways, especially how it affects the air intakes and how efficiently they can ingest air at those kinds of extremely high speeds. And this is without even looking at the inherently different drags of the F-16 and F-18's airframes. The most important point that I'm trying to convey is that the performance of an aircraft is not linear. The generated thrust of an engine will vary depending on airspeed. The acceleration of an aircraft will be different at different airspeeds. The AOA will be different for different airspeeds. So naturally, two different aircraft can not be compared by taking one value for the TWR and one for the drag and than assuming this is the basis for all acceleration speed related performance and that this also stays true across all speed regimes.

Literally everything you've stated in the above quotation is valid. I was responding to Carbon715's post with my test, not trying to say all there is to say about 'all the things.' Taking into account ALL that you've stated above, it is still VERY WELL possible that the DCS Viper is now more accurately depicting stores drag, which is why it appears draggier than before in highly loaded configs compared to more well-baked flight models like the Hornet.


Edited by wilbur81

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is indeed more draggy with 2 bags and a 5x1 loadout. On an 80nm commit, i was just able to break mach 1 by the time I was ready to shoot floggers at ~35nm and 36k feet. Previously, i would be around 1.1 or 1.2 mach at that point. Not complaining though, the jet really feels better in all regimes. I too hope it's all accurate, but that's for more physics minded people than me to figure out. Glad we've got the updates we got anyway.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Dances, PhD

Jet Hobo

https://v65th.wordpress.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My observation was .65 at 30k and .7 mach at 25k seems a bit extreme. If its right so be it, but its not extremely heavy like i have 4 105s, or 2 31s or 6 mk 82s loaded for ordinance. Im all for realistic so if it is thats cool...just seems a touch slow for mil power

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...