aircraft performance after patch 1.2.1

[Revelation]

alexbap, loadout? Here's one thing I noticed, now I don't have 1.2 installed any longer, the reduction in performance is really noticeable with CBUs.

 

When I put on just two CBUs I see a hug reduction in performance of the aircraft. This may be the correct modeling of drag, but I personally don't know.

[dikkeduif]

Yesterday flew a flight where me and 2 friends were doing some gun runs in between mountains. Normally we can get out safely enough, this time we just flew one by one into the side of the mountain :)

So what changed?

[Corrigan]

We want an official comment! Is the new high drag intentional/realistic?

[Corrigan]

We want an official comment! Is the new high drag intentional/realistic?

 

Bump!

[Speacy]

We want an official comment! Is the new high drag intentional/realistic?

Yes, and please tell us a honest answer...

[Jona33]

alexbap, loadout? Here's one thing I noticed, now I don't have 1.2 installed any longer, the reduction in performance is really noticeable with CBUs.

 

When I put on just two CBUs I see a hug reduction in performance of the aircraft. This may be the correct modeling of drag, but I personally don't know.

 

A-10's over Kosovo says the difference between four Mk-82's and two CBU-87's (same weight) was enormous

[Eddie]

Indeed it is.

 

The drag index value of a Mk-82 is 0.14, whereas the index for a CBU-87/97/103/105 is 1.17. To give some perspective, 3 Mk-82s on a TER have a drag index of 1.16.

[Corrigan]

Thanks for the info, Eddie. How are you finding the FM in 1.2.1?

[Echo38]

All right, I've done the first two tests in version 1.2.0. I've attached the mission and track files. I don't know if they'll work properly in 1.2.1, but I've examined both tracks and they function correctly in 1.2.0.

 

Procedure was the same; the only difference was that the first test was clean, while the second test I was loaded with Mavericks, CBUs, etc. Oh, and I also did some fiddling with my CDU, HUD, and some other systems. Sorry about that unnecessary variable, but none of the fiddling had anything to do with anything that should affect flight in any way. I didn't think of it until after I'd done it, and I C.B.A. to spend another 15 minutes re-doing the test.

 

In both tests, I did the same sequence: I slid my throttle slider all the way down and back up as soon as the mission unloaded, and then unpaused. I activated the autopilot at 12:00:04, then made a tiny jiggle of the throttle at 12:00:10, just to be sure that it was at max. I then flew until 12:06:00, and then measured my speed.

 

Clean, it was 318 kts. Loaded, it was 310. One major variable I noticed is that the autopilot kept the ball centered when clean, but not while loaded. The ball was considerably off-center during the loaded test.

A-10C 1.2.0 Speed Test 1.trk

A-10C 1.2.0 Speed Test 2.trk

Test001.miz

[Leto]

@Echo:

 

reproduced your test flights in 1.2.0 6192 like this: loaded your track, paused, took over control. So all parameters should be the same.

 

First flight clean after 6min: 317 IAS

Second Flight with loadout after 6min: 284 IAS (ball centered by SAS)

 

In your clean configuration there is still around 800kg of GAU ammunition. Weight and/or drag seem to have been changed. And for me a delta of 33kts with the loadout is more believable than 8kts in 1.2.0

 

Could you do another testflight with same configuration @ altitude 20000ft?

And also some tests clean with different weight (100% fuel compared to 20%)

Edited October 7, 2012 by Leto

[KLR Rico]

It seems like the weight/drag changes have definitely changed the handling, probably more realistic now, but it sure can be tougher. Energy management needs much more careful attention now.

 

I never did a back to back comparison between the versions, but with the standard instant action load out, I can only pull ~2 g's in a turn before I get into chop tone. It makes it much harder to dodge SAM's.

[EtherealN]

It makes it much harder to dodge SAM's.

 

And here, gentlemen, we have the reason why the real jets don't habitually fly with more ordnance than they actually need. :)

[cichlidfan]

And here, gentlemen, we have the reason why the real jets don't habitually fly with more ordnance than they actually need. :)

 

^^^^

Quotable quotes for $1000. ;)

[Yo-Yo]

There are no changes in FM itself.

The changes were made for temperature distribution at altitude - now it's more close to real things and has 6 0C/km gradient regardless of SL initial temperature. Old model was not correct as this temperature changes. Thus, the engines thrust change is significant not only at SL but at higher altitudes.

 

The second change was for payloads drag translation into AFM. The mistake was found and fixed.

 

Concerning the topic starter's observation I can say that current numbers are very close to performance charts.

[PFunk1606688187]

And here, gentlemen, we have the reason why the real jets don't habitually fly with more ordnance than they actually need. :)

 

When facing some Buks with lots of ordnance and going to make my evasive turn in my head I said to myself "Gotta ride a bit lighter in the future".

 

So I'd say that the changes to the game have unconsciously reproduced your wisdom to the observant and the less stubborn (I can see stubborn people sticking with full load and whining that they saw an A-10 full up in a video somewhere).