Thoughts on the new flight model changes?

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all, 

please stay on topic for the thread

thank you 

[Fulgrim]

8 hours ago, Cab said:

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!”

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

 

All talk, Simmer In Name Only.

The flight model is what it is. You may not want to use it to it's full extent, and it's ok if you want to fly that way, but for the rest of us is perfectly valid so please don't come here to gatekeep the rest of us while cherry picking what you simulate and what not based on your convenience.

For the rest of us that elect to use the plane as the makers intended, here is the latest EM data by @contactlight

[Cab]

5 hours ago, Fulgrim said:

All talk, Simmer In Name Only.

The flight model is what it is. You may not want to use it to it's full extent, and it's ok if you want to fly that way, but for the rest of us is perfectly valid so please don't come here to gatekeep the rest of us while cherry picking what you simulate and what not based on your convenience.

For the rest of us that elect to use the plane as the makers intended, here is the latest EM data by @contactlight

I never said to use the paddle or not, so I was not gatekeeping. I was merely pointing out that performance using the paddle is not realistic, but rather a gaming technique. 

[oldcrusty]

On 3/8/2024 at 1:42 AM, darkman222 said:

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.

I think this adverse yaw oscillation (in the recent FM update) is caused by aggressive roll input, followed by an attempt to stop the roll with a quick stick movement in the opposite direction,  especially with c/l tank or heavier weight. It's not exactly the same as we've seen in early OB builds.  I've read or heard somewhere this was a thing in Hornets circa mid 80's.

I have no idea what 'proms' or blocks of Hornets and if indeed ED was trying to model it or this is something that needs to be tweaked.  Another thing is damping... in later Hornets.  I think 'may be' could be a bit better.  It would be refreshing to hear some input from someone who flew it at one time or another

[Grodin]

On 3/10/2024 at 1:14 AM, Cab said:

I never said to use the paddle or not, so I was not gatekeeping. I was merely pointing out that performance using the paddle is not realistic, but rather a gaming technique. 

It's not a performance issue, it's a maintenance issue. The plane can do 9G just fine, land based air forces have their hornets rated for 9G because they don't have to endure the stress of carrier landings so using a paddle is fine if you operate from an airfield and pretend it's a swiss, finnish or some other land based air force.

[Cab]

1 hour ago, Grodin said:

It's not a performance issue, it's a maintenance issue. The plane can do 9G just fine, land based air forces have their hornets rated for 9G because they don't have to endure the stress of carrier landings so using a paddle is fine if you operate from an airfield and pretend it's a swiss, finnish or some other land based air force.

I think there's a little more involved than that, but I also know there's no point in discussing it.

[darkman222]

I am not interested in the whole "use the paddle or not" discussion, as we have been there 1000 times. The only thing I really want to know if there are EM charts of real F18 for the 9G regime? Dont care if its from swiss or what ever F18s. As the DCS F18 has been released so long ago the internet is flooded with EM diagrams of the DCS F18 version. I cant find one for the real thing.

Edited March 14 by darkman222

[Cab]

On 3/14/2024 at 4:45 AM, darkman222 said:

I am not interested in the whole "use the paddle or not" discussion, as we have been there 1000 times. The only thing I really want to know if there are EM charts of real F18 for the 9G regime? Dont care if its from swiss or what ever F18s. As the DCS F18 has been released so long ago the internet is flooded with EM diagrams of the DCS F18 version. I cant find one for the real thing.

 

Unless the Swiss (and maybe the Finns?) made them for themselves, I doubt there are any.

But I agree they would be very interesting to look at if they did exist.

[darkman222]

Thats the entire point in this. ED cant model the F16 gear damage due to overspeed as there is no data available, so there is no overspeed damage.

But how can they model the 9G or 13,5G  regime for the pulled paddle, if there is no data. This is against their own philosophy.

[GGTharos]

5 hours ago, Cab said:

Unless the Swiss (and maybe the Finns?) made them for themselves, I doubt there are any.

But I agree they would be very interesting to look at if they did exist.

The most likely answer is 'yes and you can't have it'.

[Cab]

6 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

The most likely answer is 'yes and you can't have it'.

Maybe. But that fact is none of us know

[Atazar SPN]

I think only a true Hornet pilot could appreciate the degree of realism.

What I have observed as an armchair pilot is that there are situations where the Hornet is more difficult to control. In straight and level flight it is like silk, perfect for refueling in flight.

In combat situations with sudden turns, things change and the plane is more difficult to control.

It's also more prone to crashing into the ground and mountains on dodges because it's harder to recover on steep descents.

During turns the plane understeers or oversteers in all its axes, sometimes causing the loss of absolute control with the famous oscillation.

It's as if FBW no longer corrects the pilot's inaccuracies or has less authority.

My opinion is not the absolute truth, just my observation, as a desk pilot who has never flown a JET.

[Figaro9]

9 hours ago, darkman222 said:

Thats the entire point in this. ED cant model the F16 gear damage due to overspeed as there is no data available, so there is no overspeed damage.

But how can they model the 9G or 13,5G  regime for the pulled paddle, if there is no data. This is against their own philosophy.

Exactly the same as non fbw-aircraft like f5,m1, f14 ect. can be modeled above their g-limits (outside em-charts) in game. 

Search  for the  Flight model principles document.  Ed shows how the magic potion is prepared. A pinch of drag polar (preferably data from a rw wind tunnel), a bit of thrust (if possible installed) and above all a lot of math and physics...

Em charts are not the basis of the fm, it is a result. There are also programs that can do the math.

http://www.alr-aerospace.ch/index.php?id=fighter-performance-mission-analysis

 

By the way, great update ED. Thanks for that.

[IvanK]

Is their a definitive reference that states the Swiss and Finn FA18C's are rated to an in service limit of 9g ?

[Cab]

11 hours ago, IvanK said:

Is their a definitive reference that states the Swiss and Finn FA18C's are rated to an in service limit of 9g ?

I don't remember what interview it was, but I do remember hearing someone I thought reputable say that about Swiss Hornets. I don't recall that about the Finnish ones. But they also said the Swiss Hornets had structural enhancements that allowed it.

Other than that, I don't remember seeing a definitive reference.

Edited March 17 by Cab

[Figaro9]

The swiss do have a 7.5g peace time limit, but the aircraft is 9g rated. Here is a vid with a demo pilot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS2LwzbjWhs&t=952s

They have a reinforced structure using titanium instead of aluminium in some parts and a customized 9g flight control software. 

https://www.slideserve.com/kaspar/strategic-engineering-designing-systems-for-an-uncertain-future-powerpoint-ppt-presentation

[SkateZilla]

13 minutes ago, Figaro9 said:

The swiss do have a 7.5g peace time limit, but the aircraft is 9g rated. Here is a vid with a demo pilot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS2LwzbjWhs&t=952s

They have a reinforced structure using titanium instead of aluminium in some parts and a customized 9g flight control software. 

https://www.slideserve.com/kaspar/strategic-engineering-designing-systems-for-an-uncertain-future-powerpoint-ppt-presentation

USN hornets were allowed to G Limit Override to 9 Gs in Emergency / Wartime..

The titanium upgrades allow for more flight time hours before depot level maintenance is required, the limiting factor of the hornet's design isn't the aluminum components, it's the wing fold mechanism.

[Canada_Moose]

1 hour ago, SkateZilla said:

USN hornets were allowed to G Limit Override to 9 Gs in Emergency / Wartime..

The titanium upgrades allow for more flight time hours before depot level maintenance is required, the limiting factor of the hornet's design isn't the aluminum components, it's the wing fold mechanism.

Wing fold mechanism. Finally been mentioned. Thank you.

[AKarhu]

Finnish Hornets are (normally) rated to 7.5 g just like any other. "Paddle" is not used in air show routine as far as I am informed but it would work like in any Hornet, adding some 33 % to the CAS-scheduled limit g.

I am not sure where the wing fold being an issue comes from, and perhaps it can be in case of gross overload (I doubt that though, based on how lift distribution over wings generally is). But in terms of regular in-service fatigue, the central fuselage "barrel" structure, into which the wings attach, has been the main source of issues, requiring some repair slash reinforcement earlier in their life than what was predicted by US service experience. The cause for this was speculated (at least in public) to be that of aircraft spending more time in maneuvering flight than in cruise due to very close proximity of the training areas to the airbases they primarily operate from.

Edited March 17 by AKarhu

[Figaro9]

2 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

USN hornets were allowed to G Limit Override to 9 Gs in Emergency / Wartime..

The titanium upgrades allow for more flight time hours before depot level maintenance is required, the limiting factor of the hornet's design isn't the aluminum components, it's the wing fold mechanism.

Sure, it is a design for a specific spectrum (5000h, max 9g, A/A only, 40’ sortie, 30 years lifetime). In addition to the structure and software, other critical parts were strengthened like  landing gear uplock pawls, fuel cell retaining clips and wing fold hinges.

[Paveway333]

The latest update brought a great feel to the aircraft. However I feel that there is still something off with roll rate, acceleration, g-onset and alpha.
I have no evidence to back this up other than 10+ years of watching this aircraft in the air, and in my opinion it seems a bit more agile in real life. 
Two examples being in this video at this timestamp down below:

First, look at that alpha and how he slides trough the air almost backwards, and second look how fast he is accelerating out of that manouvere. Tried to recreate this in DCS so many times, it is not far off so I give the devs credit for that.  Recreating stuff like this in game just make it seems that there is a couple of things a little bit off, same with demonstrations off roll rate etc. However like i said they have done an incredible job with the likeness of how she manouvers, just hope they continue refining some details. Thanks!

[IvanK]

"USN hornets were allowed to G Limit Override to 9 Gs in Emergency / Wartime.."  how would that be done ? The paddle just gives you 33% more than the current Nzw calculated limit, so the best it will give you is about 9.8G. Its I am about to hit the ground I need more G type thing.  If you are saying the pilot would use the paddle  then monitor the G to not exceed 9 I think is not workable. If you go for the paddle you would use whatever G you need. A 9G usable limit would need FCS Code modification.

Interesting Presentation Figaro9 thanks for sharing.

Edited March 17 by IvanK

[wilbur81]

On 3/17/2024 at 2:27 PM, Paveway333 said:

The latest update brought a great feel to the aircraft. However I feel that there is still something off with roll rate, acceleration, g-onset and alpha.
I have no evidence to back this up other than 10+ years of watching this aircraft in the air, and in my opinion it seems a bit more agile in real life. 
Two examples being in this video at this timestamp down below:

First, look at that alpha and how he slides trough the air almost backwards, and second look how fast he is accelerating out of that manouvere. Tried to recreate this in DCS so many times, it is not far off so I give the devs credit for that.  Recreating stuff like this in game just make it seems that there is a couple of things a little bit off, same with demonstrations off roll rate etc. However like i said they have done an incredible job with the likeness of how she manouvers, just hope they continue refining some details. Thanks!

Agreed. I've had a good bit of time to play with the new FM. They've done an amazing job overall (no surprises there )... but we still do not seem to get the kind of pitch authority/nose rate at those speeds that you see demonstrated by real world Legacy Hornets in (absolutely incredible) videos such as these. We are getting close...

Edited March 23 by wilbur81