Thoughts on the new flight model changes?

[markom]

I finally got around to spending time with the new update (also new PC and a few more panels needed to be installed).

While I am not an expert in any way about what a real Hornet may behave like, or a real jet for that matter, one thing I noticed and like quite a bit is that the engines are a lot more responsive. In the past I had flashbacks of flying PMDG's 737 -- move throttle lever, wait, hear 'em spool up. Now, it's a lot faster. It's still not as nimble as Viper, but certainly nice. 

It was fun using the new model for AAR, and I am happy that it didn't change much for me. If anything, it appears to be easier to do back-and-forth dance, especially when I inevitably lose the basket.

Never before the model change did I have 4 consecutive "OK" carrier traps, and last night I did just that... 

So, all in all, I kinda like it.

Edited March 5, 2024 by markom

[darkman222]

10 hours ago, oldcrusty said:

I think Hornet dampens the inertia a bit better

Its not that the wobbling oscillations should not happen at all. But once they start in the lateral axis, it wont stop unless you stop pulling. Not really sure if thats intended.

[maxTRX]

4 hours ago, darkman222 said:

Its not that the wobbling oscillations should not happen at all. But once they start in the lateral axis, it wont stop unless you stop pulling. Not really sure if thats intended.

Hmm, I'll do some tests later on with different weights and loads.  The problem you're describing was 'sort of' fixed years ago. The exaggerated wobble was always there even after the fix but the oscillations would eventually die out    This was especially evident at very low weights.  

[darkman222]

35 minutes ago, oldcrusty said:

This was especially evident at very low weights

Exactly. No loadout and low fuel state. Its still there.

Edited March 6, 2024 by darkman222

[rfxcasey]

17 hours ago, oldcrusty said:

Not even a twitch in my test

I should have better specified, in landing configuration.

[maxTRX]

7 hours ago, rfxcasey said:

I should have better specified, in landing configuration.

There was/is an issue with configuring to landing mode without disengaging the A/P beforehand.  The trim would start acting wild.  I'm not sure if this is what's causing your trim problems.

[maxTRX]

9 hours ago, darkman222 said:

Exactly. No loadout and low fuel state. Its still there.

 

I just tried it at various weights and I can't see it anymore.  Even when pulling some g's before violent rolls. It would simply cause 'loaded rolls'.  There is a very small FPM wobble (one or two) before it dies out.  Give me your exact weight/loadout, altitudes and whatever might make a difference.

Edit: I'll give it couple more tries.  2k lbs fuel, clean (no pylons)

Edited March 7, 2024 by oldcrusty

[maxTRX]

Well, with 2000 lbs of fuel, yanking and banking... can't do it for too long but during this hop I've only seen one instance of yaw oscillations when rolling and pulling on the stick. I can't really say what I did differently before this particular roll. I tried to unload before every violent maneuver.  Overall it wasn't bad at all.  The roll-outs were quite crisp and stable.

Short clip from this test:

 

[Chaffee]

22 hours ago, oldcrusty said:

Well, with 2000 lbs of fuel, yanking and banking... can't do it for too long but during this hop I've only seen one instance of yaw oscillations when rolling and pulling on the stick. I can't really say what I did differently before this particular roll. I tried to unload before every violent maneuver.  Overall it wasn't bad at all.  The roll-outs were quite crisp and stable.

Short clip from this test:

 

Okay, thanks for the video. This is not a criticism of your flying, but I can't say that what's happening here is a bug. Here's why:

1) You start the turn in a 2.5-degree stable descent at 0.9G. So I'm not sure you're in good trim. Maybe you are, but there are some indications that you're not.

2) Your pull from 0.9 to 8.8G takes 0.95 seconds. That's a pretty severe pull. FBW flight computers aren't magic. Looks to me like it's doing everything it can to do what you're telling it to do without allowing the aircraft to depart into an accelerated stall.

3) 8.8G is beyond the operational rating of the aircraft. Are you hitting the paddle? I don't know what the flight computer starts thinking about when you do that, but I'm guessing, based on knowing something about such systems, that you're entering a flight control mode that's suspending certain safety parameters, again resulting in a near accelerated stall. If you didn't use the paddle, that just shows how behind the plane the flight computer was...

In other words, the number of actual pilots who have done what you're doing here in real life likely approaches zero. Further, the extreme edges of the flight envelopes of any of these aircraft are likely not in documents that can be used by any content producer (like ED). I can't speak directly to that, but my thought is that simmers should have reasonable expectations at the extremes of any flight model.

Part of this is framing. From my seat, I'm like "wow, the flight computer didn't allow the plane to depart when rolling 90 and pulling from 0.9 to 8.8Gs in less than 1 second."

The wobble is a result of this. Is it accurate? I have no real idea. Is it likely under these conditions? I'd say yes.

Edited March 8, 2024 by Chaffee

[Cepheus76]

Well, since there is no "Flight Controls, Flight Controls" warning, but the "Fuel Low" warning is clearly understandable, it can be safely assumed that the paddle switch wasn't engaged.

[Chaffee]

27 minutes ago, Cepheus76 said:

Well, since there is no "Flight Controls, Flight Controls" warning, but the "Fuel Low" warning is clearly understandable, it can be safely assumed that the paddle switch wasn't engaged.

Then the flight control computer isn't keeping up with slamming the stick back, probably starting to enter an accelerated stall, and then catching up to keep the plane from departing.

That's just a guess. It could be a bug. It also might not be a bug... If you can exceed the G-limit with the flight computer still on line, then you're giving it a whole set of problems to deal with to keep the plane airborne. Outside parameters is outside parameters. Anything can happen.

Edited March 8, 2024 by Chaffee

[darkman222]

It really seems to need the quick "off parameter" part to it. 9.1 G is not what the jet is rated for. Interesting tho that this small amount of over G already is enough to induce the oscillations.

[maxTRX]

8 hours ago, Chaffee said:

Okay, thanks for the video. This is not a criticism of your flying, but I can't say that what's happening here is a bug. Here's why:

1) You start the turn in a 2.5-degree stable descent at 0.9G. So I'm not sure you're in good trim. Maybe you are, but there are some indications that you're not.

2) Your pull from 0.9 to 8.8G takes 0.95 seconds. That's a pretty severe pull. FBW flight computers aren't magic. Looks to me like it's doing everything it can to do what you're telling it to do without allowing the aircraft to depart into an accelerated stall.

3) 8.8G is beyond the operational rating of the aircraft. Are you hitting the paddle? I don't know what the flight computer starts thinking about when you do that, but I'm guessing, based on knowing something about such systems, that you're entering a flight control mode that's suspending certain safety parameters, again resulting in a near accelerated stall. If you didn't use the paddle, that just shows how behind the plane the flight computer was...

In other words, the number of actual pilots who have done what you're doing here in real life likely approaches zero. Further, the extreme edges of the flight envelopes of any of these aircraft are likely not in documents that can be used by any content producer (like ED). I can't speak directly to that, but my thought is that simmers should have reasonable expectations at the extremes of any flight model.

Part of this is framing. From my seat, I'm like "wow, the flight computer didn't allow the plane to depart when rolling 90 and pulling from 0.9 to 8.8Gs in less than 1 second."

The wobble is a result of this. Is it accurate? I have no real idea. Is it likely under these conditions? I'd say yes.

 

,  I threw the NATOPS in the trashcan like we know who...   First, the only time I use a paddle is to kill the A/P.   Second, I actually failed to induce oscillations that both darkman222 and I remember from olden days... they were severe and would continue forever.  This would only occur in a clean jet with low fuel. In my short and wild flight I was actually quite happy with the results.  Oh, occasional over g can definitely happen... w/o a paddle.

[rfxcasey]

On 3/6/2024 at 7:08 PM, oldcrusty said:

There was/is an issue with configuring to landing mode without disengaging the A/P beforehand.  The trim would start acting wild.  I'm not sure if this is what's causing your trim problems.

Interesting, I'll do a bit more testing.

Edited March 8, 2024 by rfxcasey

[Chaffee]

5 hours ago, oldcrusty said:

,  I threw the NATOPS in the trashcan like we know who...   First, the only time I use a paddle is to kill the A/P.   Second, I actually failed to induce oscillations that both darkman222 and I remember from olden days... they were severe and would continue forever.  This would only occur in a clean jet with low fuel. In my short and wild flight I was actually quite happy with the results.  Oh, occasional over g can definitely happen... w/o a paddle.

Oh yeah, I took your post as not seeing a problem or seeing only a minor problem. Mine was supportive of that as much as anything and trying to suggest an explanation.

I hadn't tried to over-g before, so did some testing, and yes, it's clear the pilot can overwhelm the flight control computer with wild maneuvering, and the results are different at different weights, likely because the airframe has a different instantaneous response that the FBW FCS is trying to react to.

That makes sense to me, at any rate, and doesn't look like a bug but an expected response (if the FBW FCS is really like this: e.g. doesn't have a "clipping" limit on inputs). I have no real-world experience in the F-18 or data, so take that with a grain of salt.

It reminds me a bit of something I saw over in the Huey forum with a recent complaint on mast-bump rotor separation: eventual video showed what I can only describe as insane flying -- profound abuse of the controls and any reasonable flight envelope; (your experiment was completely tame by comparison, FWIW, and this, apparently, is how the Huey guy normally flies, lol).

It showed me why a track/video is always requested and hugely valuable. Again, thank you for that.

Edited March 8, 2024 by Chaffee

[maxTRX]

18 minutes ago, Chaffee said:

It showed me why a track/video is always requested and hugely valuable. Again, thank you for that.

 

Speaking of tracks.  I'm slowly changing my opinion on accuracy of track replays.  Since the recent updates I haven't noticed any discrepancies in my replays, including some crazy missions with lots of maneuvering... well, I'm talking single player here.  I'm aware of some complaints in MP sessions.  As long as I don't get too carried away with changing the replay speed. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

7 hours ago, oldcrusty said:

occasional over g can definitely happen... w/o a paddle.

Yup I’ve hit 8.6g in a dogfight - I only noticed after it was over - and 9.7g during a high-altitude 180 degree turn at M1.4.

[Fulgrim]

On 2/27/2024 at 12:13 PM, Cab said:

It doesn't count because using the paddle does not reflect the actual real-world performance of the jet. In other words, if you want to play a game, use the paddle. If you want to fly a simulator, don't. It really is as simple as that.

I sincerely trust you're not commiting the heresy of landing, taxing to the hammerhead, refueling, rearming, and getting back in the air in 5 minutes. You're waiting another 55 min for the sake of simulation, right?

[Cab]

21 minutes ago, Fulgrim said:

I sincerely trust you're not commiting the heresy of landing, taxing to the hammerhead, refueling, rearming, and getting back in the air in 5 minutes. You're waiting another 55 min for the sake of simulation, right?

lol If you want to compare those administrative tasks with overperforming the jet so that it flies and fights like no jet that's ever existed, knock yourself out.  

[Steel Jaw]

Thoughts?  It porposes up violently when the gear goes down.

[Fulgrim]

4 hours ago, Cab said:

lol If you want to compare those administrative tasks with overperforming the jet so that it flies and fights like no jet that's ever existed, knock yourself out.  

You're overperforming your ground crew, you know?

[MAXsenna]

You're overperforming your ground crew, you know?

They're on virtual steroids, so I see no issues.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Cab]

2 hours ago, Fulgrim said:

You're overperforming your ground crew, you know?

Your logic is impeccable and super-duper convincing. We’re foolish to only pick and choose certain aspects of military aviation to simulate. Or more concisely, if we can’t simulate everything, we should not expect to simulate anything.

Come to think of it, with that new direction, ED can eliminate their short-sighted requirement for extensive “public data”. “Throw away the EM diagrams, boys, cause we don’t need ‘em anymore!”

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

They're on virtual steroids, so I see no issues.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

I simulate they’re U.S. Marines. Over-performing is the minimum. 

Edited March 9, 2024 by Cab

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

5 hours ago, Cab said:

I simulate they’re U.S. Marines. Over-performing is the minimum. 

The few. The Proud. The Marines

[Cab]

4 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

The few. The Proud. The Marines