Sustained Turn Rate of Fighters

[A.S]

I'd like turn rate value on the F-15 in game at sea level at 200/250/300/350/400 kts like Dubb did. Weapons or no weapons it doesn't matter, the curve you'd get from measuring turn rate is off... it's inverted.

 

To be honest, i have no friggn idea, how in the world he ended up with something like that (just a general overlay of his curve)

 

 

If there are flaws, at low mach speeds or very high mach speeds, then those have also explanations - realistic ones, or due to the sim - but something like that, is just not true.

[A.S]

 

rates are wrong below M0.4. Now we can only pray and hope someone listens :helpsmilie:

 

sooo, are we back at thrust/weight ratios Yoda? :music_whistling: ...or AoA/Drag .....

 

sustain rate curves have an unique look...at low and high speeds (real).....those have reasons, but what happens in lockon, is to find out.

Edited April 5, 2010 by A.S

[RvEYoda]

sooo, are we back at thrust/weight ratios Yoda? :music_whistling:

 

Incorrect afterburner performance at low airspeed,

you can actually fix this yourself by editing one lua file

[A.S]

Incorrect afterburner performance at low airspeed,

you can actually fix this yourself by editing one lua file

 

Are you sure about that =? (incorrect BP)

 

Cuz this is what just confirms Fusions and mine "hey guys, this is way to much thrust" feeling....

(remember=?, back in this post http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=51692 thrust/weigh ratio as so on)

 

btw...noticed in scissors aswell....ask Fusion

Edited April 5, 2010 by A.S

[RvEYoda]

Are you sure about that =? (incorrect BP)

 

Cuz this is what just confirms Fusions and mine "hey guys, this is way to much thrust" feeling....(remember, back in this post with thrust/weigh ratio as so on)

 

btw...noticed in scissors aswell....ask Fusion

 

Thrust is correct above M0.4¨

 

Engine thrust is dependant on speed(airflow into engines) and lots of other factors,

it is not a constant number.

 

Another explanation is that drag is not correct below 0.4M.

Something is wrong starting 0.4M and below and I will let the devs figure it out.

Edited April 5, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[A.S]

obviously Yoda .....

(i asked you that yesterday already i think, if engine performances are depending on AoA, Speed and airdensitly in 2.0, which you confrimed with "yes" as far as i remember )

 

EDIT: ...over mach .4 its pretty accurate, which is a very good result IMO.

The low and high regimes may need a fix...wich is ok... question raises here: what about the other jets in same perspective?

Edited April 5, 2010 by A.S

[RvEYoda]

obviously Yoda .....

(i asked you that yesterday already i think if engine performance in depending on AoA, Speed and airdensitly in 2.0, which you confrimed with "yes" as far as i remember ...also in Yo-yo s graphs explained)

 

EDIT: ...over mach .4 its pretty accurate, which is a very good result IMO.

The low and high regimes may need a fix...wich is ok... question raises here: what about the other jets in same perspective?

 

Maybe you can test them? I must go now.

I must sleep, have been working all day and night and moving tomorrow

 

I dont think high regieme can get a perfect fix, because that would need AFM

Low regieme should be fixable, but it is not my decision to make.

[3Sqn_Dubb]

To be honest, i have no friggn idea, how in the world he ended up with something like that (just a general overlay of his curve)

 

 

If there are flaws, at low mach speeds or very high mach speeds, then those have also explanations - realistic ones, or due to the sim - but something like that, is just not true.

 

A.S. - A sustained turn, with constant G with the loadout specified, provided the curve that I produced at Sea Level 1000ft. I used increments of 10KIAS. Dude, it is what it is. The data was collected several times per speed at sea level. The variance or precision in my turns was at most +/- 50feet each turn. You don't have to take my word for it, and if this is your attitude, then I won't post the rest of the results.

 

This wasn't as bad a result in 1.12 when the data was collected.

[A.S]

With full respect, and this has nothing to do with attitude sir physicist.

 

If the ingame performance matches almost on the dot to the real EM-charts but lacks in precission under 0.4 mach (i use only mach btw for such things)

then your result just cant be right.

I would expect a curve in your calculations which mirrors the real charts, except the curve would tolerate/differ from the real deal under 0.4 mach, or above 0.9 mach

(due to the G/Aoa limiters), but a completly inverted curve like the one you provided

 

 

is REALLY irritating... !

 

you should have gotten someting like that this, morelikely...

 

 

But - allow me a personal line - what really made me *i must admit*- giggle was a 19,5deg/sec rate at eta 165ktas *with 50% fuel, 1000ft, 8 missiles* in your curve *no offense, and im really going to try if i can pull that "stunt" too in 2.0. :detective_2:

Edited April 5, 2010 by A.S

[3Sqn_TomAce]

Not commenting on who's right or wrong here AS so I'm not talking about the figures. But I have to say this, I'm pretty sure I speak for a lot of us not only 3Sqn when I say check your attitude at the door. Your consistent "talking down" to other Lomac members is appalling. It must be lonely at the top

[A.S]

Not commenting on who's right or wrong here AS so I'm not talking about the figures. But I have to say this, I'm pretty sure I speak for a lot of us not only 3Sqn when I say check your attitude at the door. Your consistent "talking down" to other Lomac members is appalling. It must be lonely at the top

 

I please you not to throw wild conclussion or accussations on me in lockon.ru forums. And btw, if there was such attitude ever present, then it was a 3Sqn real pilot, talking to me "what do you know, im real"...so ... (dont respond on this and i wont either, im not im mood for such things, especially considering it is not in interest of this post or the forum rules)

Edited April 5, 2010 by A.S

[A.S]

@ DUBB:

 

Yes you are rigth !

 

I just made a wild test:

 

1000ft

50% fuel

8 Missiles

Full Pull. 4G constant !!!! my "horn" went crazy (AoA)

constant speed at 190 (hud)

 

=== eta 19deg/sec

 

THIS IS BOLLOKS !!!

 

 

 

but it explains many things....let me go into details:

 

First of all it supports my guess with the thrust errors under certain regimes, which luckily has been noticed meanwhile.

 

Other thing i want to say about this, is, that it has (also had in 1.12) dramatic consequences in terms of dogfighting.

You always had that feeling in Lockon, that you cant punish your bandit for his misserable energymanagement in slow speed fights, cuz he always was STILL able to jank or pull up his nose on you. No wonder with that kind of ueber-power TVC like FM error.

Furthermore, it shoudnt be easy at all to regain speed so fast once so low.

"Getting out of this" should take way more time.

In BFM there are for good reasons very special rules, when you attack, how you enter scissors for example, how and when you create or need turningroom, what you should avoid etc etc ...the list goes on, but with this kind of slow-speed performance you cant apply those fundamental things, bascially you can just ignore them. (look test above or replicate it)

 

I remember back in days (1.12) sending a dogfight track to a Navy Dogfight Instructor (with who im still in touch if i wish)...also his first comment was :

"No way in the world, you can regain so fast speed back once down low..."

 

I dont wanna compare FalconAF again with Lockon, but those who fly it

- may it be just for comparsion reasons - will instantly notice, what it means to be THAT slow at above mentioned speed with that payload.

In that condition using the word "sustain" alone is :huh:

 

I hope, they will fix that.

Edited April 5, 2010 by A.S

[Yo-Yo]

Stay cool, gentlemen... :)

 

I should say that F-15 turn performance is spoiled at low M... it's our fault and I have to apologise... we already fixed it, by the way. Before we release the patch we will carefully retest it again.

 

The turn performance excluding the low speed area is accurate and you can check it but please keep in mind that there is an area at SL where TR is limited only with the max G- limit, so the testing in this area is senseless :) because you can not maintain sustained turn at full AB staying within the G-limit.

The second hint measuring TR is to measure average TR not g because it is more accurate especially if you use LUA-export tool.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Yo-Yo

[A.S]

KISSES FOR Yo-Yo

 

:love:

 

... i know i know...that sounds just soo wrong :lookaround:

[Kuky]

I did some testing myself tonight

 

35000 pounds weight, clean configuration (no weapons or fuel tanks) so I matched the chart provided in earlier thread.

 

Altitude: 9000ft

200 kts / Mach 0.350 ... ~ 16.36 deg/sec (chart ~ 13.00 deg/sec)

250 kts / Mach 0.444 ... ~ 15.65 deg/sec (chart ~ 14.00 deg/sec)

300 kts / Mach 0.532 ... ~ 15.65 deg/sec (chart ~ 14.50 deg/sec)

350 kts / Mach 0.622 ... ~ 15.65 deg/sec (chart ~ 15.50 deg/sec)

400 kts / Mach 0.713 ... ~ 16.36 deg/sec (chart ~ 16.00 deg/sec)

 

Altitude: Sea Level

200 kts / Mach 0.300 ... ~ 21.18 deg/sec (chart ~ 17.00 deg/sec)

250 kts / Mach 0.380 ... ~ 20.00 deg/sec (chart ~ 18.00 deg/sec)

300 kts / Mach 0.455 ... ~ 18.95 deg/sec (chart ~ 18.50 deg/sec)

350 kts / Mach 0.530 ... ~ 20.00 deg/sec (chart ~ 19.00 deg/sec)

400 kts / Mach 0.610 ... ~ 20.00 deg/sec (chart ~ 19.75 deg/sec)

 

Now, there is definitely some error in measuring (timing the full turn) so it shows why some values are same (nearest accuracy in measuring time I could make is 1sec). I've kept the speed and altitude pretty spot on so there should be minimal error in there. This shows the trend and its obvious that the lower you fly to sea level and slower you get the more the values are off what they should be. Up higher and with more speed it gets more accurate but slow and low it's off... no question about it. I didn't even try with flaps, I think there's no need for it.

 

@AS, so maybe you should appologise to Dubb now as you can see he was not so off like you claimed and "giggled" about it ;)

 

EDIT: Thanks Yo-Yo for having this fixed... patch will be good :)

Edited April 5, 2010 by Kuky

[Sanch0]

I should say that F-15 turn performance is spoiled at low M... it's our fault and I have to apologise... we already fixed it, by the way. Before we release the patch we will carefully retest it again.

 

Good to know that this bull**** will be corrected :)

[A.S]

@AS, so maybe you should appologise to Dubb now as you can see he was not so off like you claimed and "giggled" about it ;)

 

Where do you read, that i *giggled* about him? Maybe i giggled about 2.0? :smilewink:

 

Just the fact reading "sustain" and 150ktas in one line is always worth a *giggle*, especially with that payload.

 

PS: i already confirmed, that he is right and PS2: dont take everything so personal dudes....;)

[Kuky]

Don't take so personal?

 

You said following at Dubb's test:

But - allow me a personal line - what really made me *i must admit*- giggle was a 19,5deg/sec rate at eta 165ktas *with 50% fuel, 1000ft, 8 missiles* in your curve *no offense, and im really going to try if i can pull that "stunt" too in 2.0. :detective_2:

 

So you didn't "giggle" at FC2, you "giggled" at what Dubb presented as if he had no idea... so please... don't tell me not to take it too personal

[A.S]

puuuuuuuuuuuhhhhleeeaase Kuky. :doh:

 

(kuky, dont! i already had a priv pm with him. all good, no worries and stop interpreting everything how you wish)

Edited April 6, 2010 by A.S

[Kuky]

AS, PM or not, you started trash talk and were personal... and were proven wrong so take it up like a man and 1. stop denying you were not personal when you were and 2. you could publicly apologize to Dubb for past comment because (back to 1.) you were wrong. Now I'm done with you.

[A.S]

Sorry, im really not going into this :cry_2:.

[*Rage*]

AS, PM or not, you started trash talk and were personal... and were proven wrong so take it up like a man and 1. stop denying you were not personal when you were and 2. you could publicly apologize to Dubb for past comment because (back to 1.) you were wrong. Now I'm done with you.

 

Agreed.

[*Rage*]

Stay cool, gentlemen... :)

 

I should say that F-15 turn performance is spoiled at low M... it's our fault and I have to apologise... we already fixed it, by the way. Before we release the patch we will carefully retest it again.

 

The turn performance excluding the low speed area is accurate and you can check it but please keep in mind that there is an area at SL where TR is limited only with the max G- limit, so the testing in this area is senseless :) because you can not maintain sustained turn at full AB staying within the G-limit.

The second hint measuring TR is to measure average TR not g because it is more accurate especially if you use LUA-export tool.

 

Perhaps I missed it in earlier posts but are there innacuracies in Su27/33 and Mig29 TR moddeling as well?

[Yo-Yo]

Perhaps I missed it in earlier posts but are there innacuracies in Su27/33 and Mig29 TR moddeling as well?

 

 

I hope no :). Excluding flaps of course. As far as I can see now F-15 low M turns and turns with flaps down(more or less for differerent planes) is wrong.

[Sov13t]

I hope no :). Excluding flaps of course. As far as I can see now F-15 low M turns and turns with flaps down(more or less for differerent planes) is wrong.

 

So, the flaps issue will not be fixed? I saw your previous post saying that "it" has already been fixed and just being tested, will flaps be part of "it"?

 

Thanks in advance