Jump to content

Hummingbird

Members
  • Content Count

    3767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hummingbird

  • Rank
    Veteran
  • Birthday 08/22/1987

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's just a rehash of the earlier hushkit article. The aerodynamics part is pure guesswork as no'one besides the manufacturers have access to the EM charts of either aircraft. In STR the Eurofighter is most likely superior, whilst in ITR the Rafale is most likely superior due to a higher alpha capability, and this should hold true at any altitude where either aircraft can operate. Other than that it's a good comparison though.
  2. Tested it one update ago, and experienced no changes to performance, and none are listed for the last one. So I think nothing has changed and it's still underperforming in STR & ITR at certain speed ranges. Hoping the FM gets more love this year. No worries, it's sort of my hobby, although it's one I'd gladly trade for all the aircraft behaving as they should, as I could then start focusing on just BFM'ing
  3. I'll wait to see what the update next week brings. If nothing then I'll continue with the tests at 10 kft & 15 kft.
  4. I'm still waiting for the FM updates, they're sadly very slow to roll those out.
  5. Understandable, and I know about the last bit all too well having dedicated large amounts of my own time to test fly most modules in DCS after every major patch (biggest hobby as I never got to chase the test pilot dream IRL, my hearing simply wasn't good enough), it is anything but easy and takes a lot of time to be able to finish these tests accurately and consistently, even with a lot of experience. Hence why I was sure you probably had a bot to do this for you, as the amount of time you'd have to spend on it otherwise didn't seem reasonable in my mind considering all the adjustments &
  6. Oh I always knew that, I was however under the impression that either: a) You had a scripted autopilot which could test this stuff super accurate or b) that you had a bunch of test pilots who's finest job was to test this after every patch The FM is by far the most important of any module (IMHO atleast), so hence I'd always place it as priority no.1 to get just right. Also please take this as constructive criticism, not a hetz, as like I've said fsince the launch of this module, you did a fantastic job with the F-14 FM, it's one of, if not THE most believable flyin
  7. First round of results, these are for 5 kft, and they are interesting: ISA, 55,620 lbs, 5,000 ft: F-14B DCS vs RL TMN 0.35 / KTAS 227 = ~2.70 vs 2.80 (-0.10 G) TMN 0.40 / KTAS 260 = ~3.30 vs 3.40 (-0.10 G) TMN 0.45 / KTAS 292 = 3.95 vs 4.20 (-0.25 G) TMN 0.50 / KTAS 325 = 4.50 vs 4.80 (-0.30 G) TMN 0.55 / KTAS 355 = 5.00 vs 5.40 (-0.40 G) TMN 0.60 / KTAS 390 = 5.45 vs 5.65 (-0.20 G) TMN 0.65 / KTAS 422 = 5.90 vs 5.90 (-0.00 G) TMN 0.70 / KTAS 455 = 6.40 vs 6.40 (-0.00 G) TMN 0.75 / KTAS 487 = 7.10 vs 6.80 (+0.30 G) TMN 0.80 / KTAS 520 = 7.90 v
  8. Yup, those are easy benchmarks to check.
  9. Yes, the difference is largest at SL. Also we absolutely need to test at SL, we'd be doing everyone a great disservice if we didn't, as performance at SL ofcourse also has to be realistic. For example it wouldn't make any sense if the F-14 suddenly lost any advantage in STR over the F-15 at the speeds where it holds it at 5 kft. Infact at SL the difference should be slightly larger in terms of sustainable load factor at the speeds where F-14 holds the STR advantage, with it gradually decreasing as altitude increases and available G's to both decrease. I will t
  10. Not really, it's easy to calculate what the performance would be when we have the 5 kft, 10 kft and 15 kft for reference. Only thing that would make it problematic was if the engines somehow didn't behave as predicted at SL vs 5 kft, but since we have performance vs alt charts for the GE engines, that isn't an issue and we know there's no unpredictable change to performance at SL, which would also have been very odd. In other words the performance to be expected as SL and targets are: Est. F-14 perf @ Sea Level, based on the real life 5 kft, 10 kft & 15 kft figures
  11. Will be running a full set of tests at SL, 5 kft and 10 kft this weekend and then report back the results. Conditions will be as always: - Std. Atmosphere, 15 C @ SL - Zero wind - Unlimited fuel on - Load out 4xAIM9 + 4xAIM7, 50% fuel (55,620 lbs total weight)
  12. We always test with correct fuel load and unlimited fuel set to on, otherwise weight will ofcourse change with time and thus ruining the accuracy of the results. If you're not using unlimited fuel option, then that would probably explain why you're getting the feeling the a/c is overperforming as it gets lighter and lighter during the time needed to settle into a stable Ps=0 turn, which can take quite some time and thus once you get a reading you're already much lighter than on the chart you're comparing with.
  13. Absolutely 100%, every single thing you can check mark. Also using KTAS to check vs TMN. That said regarding flap setting, everything is ofcourse in AUTO, and as I've noted earlier in a bug report the maneuver devices don't actually start deploying at 0.58 mach as they should, instead they stay in until speed drops to 0.51 mach. So that's an issue. HB already have it, but I'll PM it to you. According to the charts the Ps=0 at 5 kft should be: M 0.30 = 2.30 G M 0.35 = 2.90 G M 0.40 = 3.45 G M 0.45 = 4.15 G M 0.50
×
×
  • Create New...