Jump to content

Feedback Thread - F-14 Tomcat Patch June 8th 2022


IronMike

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

I'm struggling to find the best way to test if the wake turbulence checkbox is piling on extra burble to the Tomcat. I tried a side by side of myself doing a level pass over the deck at 100 feet baro. Full dirty config, DLC extended but not manipulated at all.

No wake turbulence checked on the left, wake turbulence checked on the right. I think I see a tiny bit more disturbance on the right side as I'm passing over the roundown. In tacview it looks like my FPM is bumped upwards instead of down, but in the sim it feels like a down force. I dunno. It's very hard to prove this but I do think I feel a burble increase with the box ticked.

Can you guys double check with ED to ensure they have everything set properly to give us the burble effect Heatblur intended?

My explanation is the the Tomcat nose pitch down when lift is increased (noticeable more on slower speed such as in our case), and nose pitch up when we loose a little lift.

The burble gives a lift upward from the deck, which may give that phenomenon of "lift increase, nose pitches down; drop lift, nose pitches up", which seen as FPM bump up (legitimate lift increase showing) while nose pitches down just a little (feels like a downward movement).

That's my best guess.  Anyone can add their interpretation?

p.s: That lift phenomena is most noticeable when flaps get fully deployed.  It gives more lift, but the Tomcat reacts with a net nose pitch down moment despite the VVI shows a net increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Torbernite said:

Have you test ACLS? I can't make it work with a G940. Every time it connects and CMD control lights up, the aircraft comes into a dive and crash.

So, looking at this:

 

I have tested ACLS and have the same issue than you (DLC is engaged).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had some time free on my hands and managed to do those tests @Noctrach suggested in the Vertical phoenix thread. Short innuendo, taking the 6 on 6 mission as a starting point, i've made a 1 on 1 conversion, 1 phoenix 1 bandit. Bandit is hot, angels 23, mach 0.5. Shooter is angels 28, mach 0.8. The tests include:
1. TWS shot at 50 miles, target size normal;
2. TWS shot at 40 miles, target size normal;
3. TWS shot at 30 miles, target size normal;
4. PD-STT shot at 50 miles;
5. PD-STT shot at 40 miles; 
6. PD-STT shot at 30 miles;
7. TWS shot at 50 miles, target size large;
8. TWS shot at 50 miles, target size small
Test goals, establishing if changes in guidance method or time/range to go active change the loft geometry and the terminal properties of the missile. Secondary goals, establish differences in available energy at the moment of going active and at target impact, depending on the distance the missile is fired.


Conclusions:
1. No visible changes in loft geometry or available energy of the missile based on changes in guidance and target size. All missiles arrive at impact point largely in the same energy state. Wish i had the chance to test this in the previous version of the missile. The missile always follows a similar lofting curve when fired under similar circumstances.   The moment to go active has no bearing on this trajectory either. That is, the missile always starts going down for the target based on range, mach and altitude it's been fired at, and NOT on the choice of target size;
2. The energy state of the missile at the moment of going active changes based on the range it has been fired from, all other factors remaining the same. While the difference between between 50 and 40 miles shot isn't that big, the shot taken from 30 miles, had the missile with a lot more extra energy available. While at first glance all intercepts end up with similar energy states at the moment of impact, this mean the missile has more knots to bleed when fired from closer. This would explain the improvement in performance i've noticed in some BVR missions again the AI. 

All tracks are attached bellow. 

Tacview-20220610-151824-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-151423-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-152235-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-153015-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-153417-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-153918-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-154341-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-154742-DCS.zip.acmi

  • Thanks 1

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38分钟前,Shadok说:

So, looking at this:

 

I have tested ACLS and have the same issue than you (DLC is engaged).

Well... Seems we have to wait for more updates. 

Thank you for your respond and test and wish a better simulation to our tomcat.

Human allowed, demon allowed, Deka never allowed.

Distort allowed, provoke allowed, fight back never allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Auto-throttle light (below NWS light) not coming on. 
  • AT only engaging for me when the throttle is roughly lined-up with the the rivet.  Not when it's between 75 - 90%, as stated in the manual:

 

throttle.jpg


Edited by JupiterJoe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2022 at 4:16 AM, dorianR666 said:

some sparrows can guide without a lock because of HOJ

Thanks. My understanding of sparrows must be wrong then. I thought they were completely passive and simply followed the radar beam in the various STT modes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Indianajon said:

I thought they were completely passive and simply followed the radar beam in the various STT modes. 

They are, but can follow both STT returns, flood and HOJ.

  • Thanks 1

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final observations related to the changes in the missile guidance and lofting, but this time around regarding the changes in the AI. Tested the target size settings to see how the AI responds to the changes in the time-distance the missile goes active from the target. Turns out, it doesn't. The AI will always defend inside 10 nautical miles, no matter how the missile is set to go active. In the first 3 tracks, the setting is set to small target, in the second 2 tracks to large target and finally in the last 2 track set to normal. The TTI numbers flashed accordingly, however, the bandit time-distance from the missile when starting to do defensive maneuvers never changed. Just something i think PvE and SP users should find useful. As of this patch, there are absolutely no benefits from setting the target size to small. 

As always, tracks attached bellow...

Post testing addendum:
It would appear the AI (at least when supporting a missile) will defend exactly the same even when fired in PD-STT. That is, it will crank after firing it's own missile, but at 10 miles will go full defensive and treat the AIM-54 shot as a FOX-3 threat. 
 

Tacview-20220612-163118-DCS-F-14A_IA_PG_BVR.zip.acmi Tacview-20220612-163434-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220612-163742-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220612-164558-DCS-F-14A_IA_PG_BVR.zip.acmi Tacview-20220612-164907-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220612-170200-DCS-F-14A_IA_PG_BVR.zip.acmi Tacview-20220612-170524-DCS-F-14A_IA_PG_BVR.zip.acmi


Edited by captain_dalan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello its me again...

Still learning the F14 and have been getting it on with AOA and landings, still a WIP but thx to IronMike tips and video at least i know im doing it right, it will come.

However, i wanted to try Autothrottle and AOA, my understanding was you could do a normal landing using this and DLC is all you need to work once on glideslope.

Well watched a video or three and they just flick the switch and boom all is well.  So i tried it and nope its allez uber da platz...

No light shows, switch defo locks in and throttle twitches really dramatically then im nose up till slow then nose down till i pull up (crash if im not testing it at 10000feet up.

So i think maybe i need to engage autopilot... and all of a sudden it starts to work and while im typing this my bird is flying to kobuleti 50 miles away at 4900feet on AOA, perfect...

But wait, i cant trim it cos im in autopilot, its janky to correct glideslope, didnt think changing pitch was a good idea, DLC dont seem to have much authority, but yeah it flys forever like this

But i wont be able to land like this... My guess is AP should NOT be on, but it seems thats the only way to get so throttles are auto'ing.... (if there is such a word)

So is it janked or did i watch the wrong video....

@IronMike over to you buddy...  (hmm i got this to @ you last time,, ahh wait i got to type all the way to Ironmi before it pops)

 

Oh, just to confirm im not going ACLS here just autothrottles, i see above there is a problem there also, maybe be linked i dont know...


Edited by GremlinIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GremlinIV said:

Hello its me again...

Still learning the F14 and have been getting it on with AOA and landings, still a WIP but thx to IronMike tips and video at least i know im doing it right, it will come.

However, i wanted to try Autothrottle and AOA, my understanding was you could do a normal landing using this and DLC is all you need to work once on glideslope.

Well watched a video or three and they just flick the switch and boom all is well.  So i tried it and nope its allez uber da platz...

No light shows, switch defo locks in and throttle twitches really dramatically then im nose up till slow then nose down till i pull up (crash if im not testing it at 10000feet up.

So i think maybe i need to engage autopilot... and all of a sudden it starts to work and while im typing this my bird is flying to kobuleti 50 miles away at 4900feet on AOA, perfect...

But wait, i cant trim it cos im in autopilot, its janky to correct glideslope, didnt think changing pitch was a good idea, DLC dont seem to have much authority, but yeah it flys forever like this

But i wont be able to land like this... My guess is AP should NOT be on, but it seems thats the only way to get so throttles are auto'ing.... (if there is such a word)

So is it janked or did i watch the wrong video....

@IronMike over to you buddy...  (hmm i got this to @ you last time,, ahh wait i got to type all the way to Ironmi before it pops)

 

Oh, just to confirm im not going ACLS here just autothrottles, i see above there is a problem there also, maybe be linked i dont know...

 

Hm, so first things first - Autothrottle helps to say on speed. However, it should only be flown in combination with ACLS or on a stable recovery/groove, not to fly around (while technically ofc you can, if flying at 15 units AOA is your thing hehe). If you however engage autopilot of the general kind, while offset from glideslop/ setup/ landing config/ line up etc, then you basically interrupt your landing sequence, especially if you say use altitude hold.
 

Adding ATT hold is possible, but I would not do it, if I were not perfectly in the sweetspot, which you know, does not exist. Aka never. The reason is very simple: the AP has if you will certain deadzones (thresholds really), which you need to cross in order for control stick steering to take effect, or in other words for you being able to adjust pitch, roll or whatever attitude the AP is "grabbing/holding". And if you are able to be nicely on speed, then you don't need it anyway.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the other way around works very well. that is if you first engage AP, and setup your aircraft as desired with ATT hold or ALT hold, then add AT, but you should be here fairly close to on speed, as especially with ALT HOLD, it will try to overcompensate, while the ALT HOLD will immediately pull opposite. ATT hold ofc is also needed before engaging ACLS, so training flying level with ATT hold + AT is good for CASE3s for example.

The AT reacting so dramatically points to your pitch corrections being very intense. The AT is not very powerful, it is not a fly by wire aircraft where everything communicates in a perfectly organized orchestration, but merely reacts to changes it can register. So if you pull hard and add a lot of AOA it will ramp up and if you drop the nose heavily and it registers a fast AOA, etc. it will try to reduce a lot of RMP. Then you will try to correct the correction that the AT just tried to do of your initial mistake, which if you will makes it react even more opposite of what you actually wanted, and thus you are even easier prone to be stuck in pilot induced oscillations, with the help of AT.

The AT is best used during case2s and case3s, manually flown or with ACLS. it can be used in a case1 ofc, but I would not do it, as you need to be already very well trimmed on your pitch, stable and small in your inputs and know how to react to its over-corrections. On a long "straight in", like on a case3, manual or not, you have more time to dial in your fine adjustment. I know that plenty use it during case1s, but I do not, as imo it defeats the purpose of learning a very important skill. Pro-active throttle work. 🙂
 


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 1

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2022 at 9:54 AM, captain_dalan said:

Had some time free on my hands and managed to do those tests @Noctrach suggested in the Vertical phoenix thread. Short innuendo, taking the 6 on 6 mission as a starting point, i've made a 1 on 1 conversion, 1 phoenix 1 bandit. Bandit is hot, angels 23, mach 0.5. Shooter is angels 28, mach 0.8. The tests include:
1. TWS shot at 50 miles, target size normal;
2. TWS shot at 40 miles, target size normal;
3. TWS shot at 30 miles, target size normal;
4. PD-STT shot at 50 miles;
5. PD-STT shot at 40 miles; 
6. PD-STT shot at 30 miles;
7. TWS shot at 50 miles, target size large;
8. TWS shot at 50 miles, target size small
Test goals, establishing if changes in guidance method or time/range to go active change the loft geometry and the terminal properties of the missile. Secondary goals, establish differences in available energy at the moment of going active and at target impact, depending on the distance the missile is fired.


Conclusions:
1. No visible changes in loft geometry or available energy of the missile based on changes in guidance and target size. All missiles arrive at impact point largely in the same energy state. Wish i had the chance to test this in the previous version of the missile. The missile always follows a similar lofting curve when fired under similar circumstances.   The moment to go active has no bearing on this trajectory either. That is, the missile always starts going down for the target based on range, mach and altitude it's been fired at, and NOT on the choice of target size;
2. The energy state of the missile at the moment of going active changes based on the range it has been fired from, all other factors remaining the same. While the difference between between 50 and 40 miles shot isn't that big, the shot taken from 30 miles, had the missile with a lot more extra energy available. While at first glance all intercepts end up with similar energy states at the moment of impact, this mean the missile has more knots to bleed when fired from closer. This would explain the improvement in performance i've noticed in some BVR missions again the AI. 

All tracks are attached bellow. 

Tacview-20220610-151824-DCS.zip.acmi 128.82 kB · 2 downloads Tacview-20220610-151423-DCS.zip.acmi 125.52 kB · 2 downloads Tacview-20220610-152235-DCS.zip.acmi 238.43 kB · 2 downloads Tacview-20220610-153015-DCS.zip.acmi 127.56 kB · 2 downloads Tacview-20220610-153417-DCS.zip.acmi 130.18 kB · 2 downloads Tacview-20220610-153918-DCS.zip.acmi 129.86 kB · 2 downloads Tacview-20220610-154341-DCS.zip.acmi 123.57 kB · 2 downloads Tacview-20220610-154742-DCS.zip.acmi 126.18 kB · 2 downloads

I didn't look at your recordings, but are you playing the release version or beta? I don't know if they made the same update to both versions. I played the F14 a lot in beta yesterday, the missiles are completely different since the update. They act like they used to. I fired around 100 A's and C's, and they didn't loft at all. They actually tracked targets unless notched or chaffed. Before the update, they wouldn't track at all if fired within parameters where the missiles would loft. As far as energy, they have a ton of drag. So, the missiles are pretty easily drained by the bandit dragging them down, or if you are at high altitude and the bandit is low the drag will drain them pretty easily at even moderate ranges. But, the missiles actually tracking at least pushes the bandit defensive so you can push up on them and get close enough to fire a dangerous missile. Before, I would just push up on F14s with impunity because I knew their AIM54s wouldn't track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HarryCooter said:

I didn't look at your recordings, but are you playing the release version or beta? I don't know if they made the same update to both versions. I played the F14 a lot in beta yesterday, the missiles are completely different since the update. They act like they used to. I fired around 100 A's and C's, and they didn't loft at all. They actually tracked targets unless notched or chaffed. Before the update, they wouldn't track at all if fired within parameters where the missiles would loft. As far as energy, they have a ton of drag. So, the missiles are pretty easily drained by the bandit dragging them down, or if you are at high altitude and the bandit is low the drag will drain them pretty easily at even moderate ranges. But, the missiles actually tracking at least pushes the bandit defensive so you can push up on them and get close enough to fire a dangerous missile. Before, I would just push up on F14s with impunity because I knew their AIM54s wouldn't track.

All the tests are performed in the latest open beta. The original tracks from the previous version and the mission are attached on a post in the Phoenix goes vertical (or to space) or something like that (a paraphrase) topic. In short, the shots are meant to recreate the 6 on 6 firing test. Not gonna go into the details of the test as they are already mentioned twice in the previous posts and the tracks are available for all to see.

Link to original post:

 

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, IronMike said:

Hm, so first things first - Autothrottle helps to say on speed. However, it should only be flown in combination with ACLS or on a stable recovery/groove, not to fly around (while technically ofc you can, if flying at 15 units AOA is your thing hehe). If you however engage autopilot of the general kind, while offset from glideslop/ setup/ landing config/ line up etc, then you basically interrupt your landing sequence, especially if you say use altitude hold.
 

Adding ATT hold is possible, but I would not do it, if I were not perfectly in the sweetspot, which you know, does not exist. Aka never. The reason is very simple: the AP has if you will certain deadzones (thresholds really), which you need to cross in order for control stick steering to take effect, or in other words for you being able to adjust pitch, roll or whatever attitude the AP is "grabbing/holding". And if you are able to be nicely on speed, then you don't need it anyway.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the other way around works very well. that is if you first engage AP, and setup your aircraft as desired with ATT hold or ALT hold, then add AT, but you should be here fairly close to on speed, as especially with ALT HOLD, it will try to overcompensate, while the ALT HOLD will immediately pull opposite. ATT hold ofc is also needed before engaging ACLS, so training flying level with ATT hold + AT is good for CASE3s for example.

The AT reacting so dramatically points to your pitch corrections being very intense. The AT is not very powerful, it is not a fly by wire aircraft where everything communicates in a perfectly organized orchestration, but merely reacts to changes it can register. So if you pull hard and add a lot of AOA it will ramp up and if you drop the nose heavily and it registers a fast AOA, etc. it will try to reduce a lot of RMP. Then you will try to correct the correction that the AT just tried to do of your initial mistake, which if you will makes it react even more opposite of what you actually wanted, and thus you are even easier prone to be stuck in pilot induced oscillations, with the help of AT.

The AT is best used during case2s and case3s, manually flown or with ACLS. it can be used in a case1 ofc, but I would not do it, as you need to be already very well trimmed on your pitch, stable and small in your inputs and know how to react to its over-corrections. On a long "straight in", like on a case3, manual or not, you have more time to dial in your fine adjustment. I know that plenty use it during case1s, but I do not, as imo it defeats the purpose of learning a very important skill. Pro-active throttle work. 🙂
 

 

Thx Ironmike, as ever good info.. will likely not bother with it then, except case 3 at some point in the future within the ACLS stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just started learning APC and Case III landings here after the arrival of the June 8th patch.  While I'm new to both, it seems very possible that the burble effects are being "added" together.  I've now done 9-10 approaches with APC and almost everytime the burble is significant and ends up pushing my Tomcat dangerously low behind the stern.  I can fly it by hand and be much safer.  It seems the APC simply isn't reacting strongly enough to whatever burble effect is there now.  

The other challenge is that I can't seem to get ACLS to engage.  I've never used it before, but I've walked through multiple YT videos and guides, and the steps don't work.  First, instructions I've seen say that the RIO needs to set ACLS Radar Beacon Selector to SINGLE.  Yet that doesn't create the Push-To-Test light.  Only setting ACLS Radar Beacon Selector to ACLS does that.  

When I do this, I get the VOICE, then the LANDING CHK, then the ACL READY, but I can't seem to get the next step of AP/CPLR.  I have datalink setup with CVN, AP mode is set to ACL (down), AP selector is Engage (up), APC is engaged, DLC deployed, flying ICLS needles with STEER mode engaged for ACLS.  Is ACLS just broken for the moment?  


Edited by Istari6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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