alexbap Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Was training refuel after patch and notice that right now I can't get over 225kt where in same mission with same payload before patch I could reach easy over 260. It was very hard just to get near tanker. 30% fuel, 20000ft, no wind, (4 mav, 2GBU12, 2mk82, pods) I'm no A10 expert so I'm not sure if this is suposed to be correct. This also happened with my mate. Any one can confirm this? Windows 7 Professional x64, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB, Intel Xeon W5650(i7) @ 4.1ghz, Asus P6TWS motherboard, 24gb DDR3, 500GB SSD. Hybrid joystick(Base: Saitek X55 - Grip:CH Fighterstick), Saitek X55 throttle, Saitek ruder pedals.
aceviper Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Flight model selected in options....sim as opposed to game has more powerful engines..read that here somewhere
alexbap Posted October 2, 2012 Author Posted October 2, 2012 Everything on simulation mode as always. What I can't confirm is if this reduce speed is because of reduced engines power or increased airframe or bombs drag. But at least on my computer and on my friend computer is real. This happend on begining of Operation Hacienda. Windows 7 Professional x64, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB, Intel Xeon W5650(i7) @ 4.1ghz, Asus P6TWS motherboard, 24gb DDR3, 500GB SSD. Hybrid joystick(Base: Saitek X55 - Grip:CH Fighterstick), Saitek X55 throttle, Saitek ruder pedals.
agathorn Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 I don't know about this specific issue, as I haven't tried refueling, but to me this feels like a completely different aircraft in 1.2.1 More stable hands off, but much more sensitive on the stick. Intel i7-4770k @ 4.4ghz, 32gb ram, GTX 1080ti, Oculus Rift S Advanced apologies if my post contains typos or missing letters. Many of my posts are typed on a laptop with an old keyboard that has a personality all its own.
KLR Rico Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 I haven't noticed a change in engine power, but one of the things that stood out for me was more adverse yaw now. i5-4670K@4.5GHz / 16 GB RAM / SSD / GTX1080 Rift CV1 / G-seat / modded FFB HOTAS
sobek Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 I haven't noticed a change in engine power, but one of the things that stood out for me was more adverse yaw now. The ball was made more sensitive. Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
Corrigan Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 The ball was made more sensitive. More sensitive? I thought the old SAS issue was because of the ball being too sensitive. Win10 x64 | SSDs | i5 2500K @ 4.4 GHz | 16 GB RAM | GTX 970 | TM Warthog HOTAS | Saitek pedals | TIR5
sobek Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 The ball was made more sensitive, which made it look like SAS was non-functional compared to older versions, IIRC. Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
Corrigan Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Right, that was my understanding of what happened in 1.2.0. Has anything changed now? Win10 x64 | SSDs | i5 2500K @ 4.4 GHz | 16 GB RAM | GTX 970 | TM Warthog HOTAS | Saitek pedals | TIR5
wess24m Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 I've noticed a big difference in power, much smoother flying. it seems to feel better in terms of the flight model.
KLR Rico Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 The ball is just passively indicating the increased adverse yaw though, isn't it? i5-4670K@4.5GHz / 16 GB RAM / SSD / GTX1080 Rift CV1 / G-seat / modded FFB HOTAS
Leto Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 It feels like power/drag/weight/lift ratio has changed. In critical flight situations (high AoA/very slow) behaviour is more sluggish now. Yesterday while testing I lost the right elevator and rudder. The impact on flight behaviour was more severe than I ever noticed before what felt right. I like it :thumbup: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Ariescon.com Intel i7-6700K | 32GB RAM | NVIDIA GTX 1080 | 1TB m.2 SSD | TM Warthog | Logitech G-35 | TrackIR 5 | Windows 10 Ultimate 64bit | 3 monitor setup @5760x1080 | Occulus Rift
badger66 Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 I haven't noticed a change in engine power, but one of the things that stood out for me was more adverse yaw now. Ive noticed engine power somehow , flew into a bloody hill today , when normally I should have been able to make that recovery .
Revelation Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 I too have noticed that power is lacking as compared to before. I didn't have time last night to try multiple loadouts and see how it effected performance. I typically set my total weight to just under 18k lbs and I can usually climb really well. I will test tonight to see if munitions effect the "speed" as it may be a better calculation on drag. I can also attest that I strictly fly sim mode. Win 10 Pro 64Bit | 49" UWHD AOC 5120x1440p | AMD 5900x | 64Gb DDR4 | RX 6900XT
Echo38 Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 The ball was made more sensitive, which made it look like SAS was non-functional compared to older versions, IIRC. As Corrigan mentioned, the yaw SAS wasn't functioning correctly in 1.2.0; adverse yaw was not sufficiently accounted for by the SAS, which was one of the things which I recall was to be addressed in 1.2.1. I haven't been able to install 1.2.1 yet; does the SAS now, when fully engaged, keep the ball centered during rolls, as (if I understand correctly) it should?
Dejjvid Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Either drag is increased or power decreased. Not near the same performance as before. But then i don't know the real performance of the A-10C, if this is accurate, so be it. Edit: I hope this thread doesn't turn out like the collective pitch thread with multiple moderators bashing us without checking. i7 8700K | GTX 1080 Ti | 32GB RAM | 500GB M.2 SSD | TIR5 w/ Trackclip Pro | TM Hotas Warthog | Saitek Pro Flight Rudder [sigpic]http://www.132virtualwing.org[/sigpic]
Echo38 Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 So far, no one's posted in this thread any hard test results, just feelings. If someone can do a real test, that is, replicating conditions exactly, then that would be one thing, but so far here I've only seen subjective remarks about the A-10's speed, rather than anything definitive. I have 1.2.0 still installed, so maybe I'll do a few tests, which I can later compare to the new version.
badger66 Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 I have 1.2.0 still installed, so maybe I'll do a few tests, which I can later compare to the new version. Good idea :thumbup:
Pyroflash Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 I'd wager to say that munitions simply have a better, more realistic impact on performance. Though if this were true, performance should have been increased, surely not the other way around. If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
alexbap Posted October 3, 2012 Author Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) So far, no one's posted in this thread any hard test results, just feelings Echo38, read my opening post. Same mission, same conditions, same pilot, very diferent speeds. I would like to have any official information about this because patch readme doesn't say anything specific about this. Understand that this not a complain. If this is more real, than it's good to be this way. Just want to be sure if this has to do with A10 engine performance, bombs or airframe drag or simply mission over patch porked. Edited October 3, 2012 by alexbap Windows 7 Professional x64, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB, Intel Xeon W5650(i7) @ 4.1ghz, Asus P6TWS motherboard, 24gb DDR3, 500GB SSD. Hybrid joystick(Base: Saitek X55 - Grip:CH Fighterstick), Saitek X55 throttle, Saitek ruder pedals.
Pyroflash Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Try this. On 1.2.0, make a mission with 50% fuel, no external weapons, but full ammo, chaff,etc., at 15,000 feet. Engage autopilot and fly straight and level for five minutes. Do the exact same thing on 1.2.1. After this is finished, repeat the process except add eight mk.82's on the aircraft. Post the results of both tests. This should pretty conclusively resolve the debate on whether or not engine performance has been altered. As it stands now, no one has produced any hard data on this matter. If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
Echo38 Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 As Pyroflash's post hints at, Alex, your conditions aren't nearly complete enough for a proper test. Even with what you've mentioned (mass, altitude, loadout), there are so many different variables which you are not taking into account.
Corrigan Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 As Corrigan mentioned, the yaw SAS wasn't functioning correctly in 1.2.0; adverse yaw was not sufficiently accounted for by the SAS, which was one of the things which I recall was to be addressed in 1.2.1. I haven't been able to install 1.2.1 yet; does the SAS now, when fully engaged, keep the ball centered during rolls, as (if I understand correctly) it should? I also want to know this. As I remember, the reason for the 1.2.0 issue was given as the ball being too sensitive -- are you now saying that the ball has been made even more sensitive? I don't get it. Win10 x64 | SSDs | i5 2500K @ 4.4 GHz | 16 GB RAM | GTX 970 | TM Warthog HOTAS | Saitek pedals | TIR5
alexbap Posted October 4, 2012 Author Posted October 4, 2012 Echo38, I was flying with same payload, same fuel, same mission with same weather, same bearing and same altitude. Right after mission start so same time of day. Auto pilot on. Full throttle. Top speed 1.2.0: over 260kt Top speed 1.2.1: 225kt This was verified by me and two other mates. What conditions are you saying that are missing? Windows 7 Professional x64, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB, Intel Xeon W5650(i7) @ 4.1ghz, Asus P6TWS motherboard, 24gb DDR3, 500GB SSD. Hybrid joystick(Base: Saitek X55 - Grip:CH Fighterstick), Saitek X55 throttle, Saitek ruder pedals.
Echo38 Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 All right, that's more like it. Now tracks or video and you'll be all set. : )
Recommended Posts