Jump to content

Turn rate has tanked with new update


Hummingbird

Recommended Posts

With the new update the sustained turn rate of the Tomcat has decreased below EM chart values for some reason, so much so that the F-15 is actually matching the F-14 in sustainable load factor at 0.5-0.6 mach atm. There also seems there's an issue with stores drag, as if removing stores doesn't help with drag at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS F-14B, 55,678 lbs, 4x AIM-9 + 4xAIM-7, Std. ICAO (15 deg C), Sea level (unlimited fuel):

 

KTAS/Mach vs G's

450/0.68 = 7.00 G

425/0.64 = 6.65 G

400/0.60 = 6.25 G

350/0.53 = 5.25 G

300/0.45 = 4.60 G

250/0.38 = 3.70 G

200/0.30 = 2.70 G

 

 

 

RL chart values for same weight & load out but at 5 kft:

 

Mach vs G's

0.68 = 6.25 G

0.64 = 5.85 G

0.60 = 5.70 G

0.53 = 5.25 G (Same as the DCS F-14 at sea level !)

0.45 = 4.15 G

0.38 = 3.30 G

0.30 = 2.35 G

 

 

Based on this the expected RL performance at SL would be:

 

0.68 = 7.35 G (+0.35 G vs DCS)

0.64 = 6.95 G (+0.30 G vs DCS)

0.60 = 6.60 G (+0.35 G vs DCS)

0.53 = 5.85 G (+0.60 G vs DCS) !

0.45 = 4.75 G (+0.15 G vs DCS)

0.38 = 3.80 G (+0.10 G vs DCS)

0.30 = 2.75 G (+0.05 G vs DCS)

 

 

 

In short a our cat has suffered a noticable drop in performance above 0.45 mach (at 0.53 the difference is big), and a slight one below that, as compared with the real thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heatblur should be able to quickly test this and overlay the performance over the available charts, and then see if something funny is going on with thrust, drag or lift with decreasing altitude and/or with drag when removing/adding stores.

 

And yes hopefully they can fix this soon. Feels very odd how it's performing now, esp. the wild dip in turn performance above ~0.5 mach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Hummingbird, saw your remarks in the other thread as well. We're not sure what or why this happened, and are looking into it.

  • Like 6

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update notes say:

  • Adjusted F110 AB thrust below mach 0.7.
  • Adjusted subsonic airframe drag per SME comments

Perhaps one of these had some unwanted effects? Or maybe something went wrong implementing them.

 

I agree. It contributed some unexpected negative effects - the turning performance of F-14B is considerably downgraded, and not matches real life performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree. It contributed some unexpected negative effects - the turning performance of F-14B is considerably downgraded, and not matches real life performance.

 

it drives me nuts when patch notes say adjusted x or y. WHIICH WAY HAS IT BEEN ADJUSTED???? lol

  • Like 2

7700k @5ghz, 32gb 3200mhz ram, 2080ti, nvme drives, valve index vr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

it drives me nuts when patch notes say adjusted x or y. WHIICH WAY HAS IT BEEN ADJUSTED???? lol

 

IKR? I always do expect things to be worse when it says that - just to be positively surprised when it's gotten better and not to be disappointed when things get worse.

 

At least our SME does have an idea already and it's probably going to be addressed soon™.

dcsdashie-hb-ed.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

it drives me nuts when patch notes say adjusted x or y. WHIICH WAY HAS IT BEEN ADJUSTED???? lol

 

Same!!! Whenever I read that something got "adjusted" it drives me mad, as I would like to know if it gut tuned down or up!

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Same!!! Whenever I read that something got "adjusted" it drives me mad, as I would like to know if it gut tuned down or up!

 

I did try asking before the patch went live, as I couldn't understand why thrust below 0.7 M had to be adjusted as the a/c was already perfectly matching the charts, but they must have missed it:

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...49#post7138149

 

I actually thought they might have increased thrust a bit and then adjusted L/D to take account for it, or vice versa.

 

But yeah, it would indeed be nice if they wrote in which direction or if at all their adjustment are meant to affect performance going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least the A seems very draggy to me, any jet in DCS currently out-performs it in speed and accel.

 

The TF-30's in the F14A provide 21000lbf thrust each, the F-110-400's in the F-14B provide 30000lbf each. You're basically lost 18000lbf in total, so sustained turn rates will suffer tremendously.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the new update the sustained turn rate of the Tomcat has decreased below EM chart values for some reason, so much so that the F-15 is actually matching the F-14 in sustainable load factor at 0.5-0.6 mach atm. There also seems there's an issue with stores drag, as if removing stores doesn't help with drag at all.

 

Can you check the maneuvering flap schedule or if they deploy at all? If memory serves, the hard wing's F-14 Ps profile closely resembles an F-15 one bellow mach 0.7. Also, can you check what would happen if you bring the maneuvering flaps down using the thumb-wheel? I'd test this myself, but it will be some hours before i can get to my DCS....

 

 

The TF-30's in the F14A provide 21000lbf thrust each, the F-110-400's in the F-14B provide 30000lbf each. You're basically lost 18000lbf in total, so sustained turn rates will suffer tremendously.

 

Actually, they will suffer a bit, but noting too dramatically. The excess power recovery rates on the other hand......well those are a different story.

 

At least the A seems very draggy to me, any jet in DCS currently out-performs it in speed and accel.

 

Subsonic acceleration is supposed to be bad. At least bellow 420 or so.

  • Like 2

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least the A seems very draggy to me, any jet in DCS currently out-performs it in speed and accel.

 

it is not a matter of comparing with other planes but to make things accurate to real life. I find the new A FM AMAZING! and more realistic than most other planes which feel overpowered so please, unless there are serious proofs of it not performing as it should let it alone.

Take a look at my MODS here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@captain_dalan I did check the flap/slat schedule, and it's the same as before, which actually wasn't entirely correct in that they don't extend at 0.58 M @ SL as they should, but instead at 0.50 M. But since performance before this patch was spot on, that doesn't explain the loss in peformance.

 

Based on the testing done so far it seems as though the root cause is a noticable reduction in thrust, whilst drag vs AoA might also have changed. The latter appears to have had an affect on how the aircraft feels in terms of feedback in the turn, atleast to me it definitely seem a lot less buffety..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...