Jump to content

HWasp

Members
  • Posts

    443
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Real aircraft's flight controls are very different to the simple sticks most people use. A stick extension + force feedback would solve this issue for many people instantly. Aircraft with hydraulic flight controls do have either artificial feel / force feedback or a system like MiG-21/19 where the control ratio is adjusted as speed changes. I think it is a valid problem, that the F-5 needs very careful hands at high speeds with the average joystick, but the correct approach to this is not letting people get away with their 15 g turns, but rather to adjust the flight controls a bit for the DCS F-5. There could be an option (in the control options menu), where you could select a help option, that would change the control ratio a bit as speed increases, making it more controllable for users with average equipement. (I mean just change it a bit not dumb it down completely, damage should still be very much possible if someone is too hamfisted) That being said, I don't find it too difficult at all to avoid ripping the wings off. I've been flying the F-5 in MP and I think it is not a huge issue at all. I think many people have developed some bad habits previously, finishing every single mission always with the G meter maxed out both directions...
  2. So, just a quick test: Barrel roll at 8,6-8,9G with 2 aim-9s, and the same at 7,6-7,8 Gs with a full large centerline tank. Both cases I'm far beyond all the red lines and nothing happens. Why is this not enough? Was this maybe adjusted last patch? F-5wing1.trk F-5wing2.trk
  3. 1. That doc, what Wilbur linked, is a different document. 2. You can't simply disregard the whole diagram based on that, it can still be a good source of information. Possible differences should be considered. 3. Keed in mind, when being so strict about docs, that ED had to develop this without access to the official EM charts, as they are classified... We use what we have, results can be argued based on known differences. No blanket statements based a single sentence somewhere please.
  4. Works for me, but original link is on the top of page 3, by Figaro9
  5. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19950007836
  6. Hi! Thanks for testing this. I completely agree regarding the STR performance. I think the current problem, what can be verified using this chart is regarding the ITR and Lift Limit line: The corner speed is quite a bit lower, there is a significant amount of extra lift for the DCS Hornet.
  7. I searched the forums regarding the infobar accuracy, and the only problem I have found, is regarding TAS and IAS. In case of TAS wind messes up the readout, it's a known bug. But in my tests wind = 0, so that is a non-issue. I did not use the IAS readout on the infobar. I have not found anything against the infobar G readout's accuracy. I don't think, that the script calculated turn rate should take priority against ingame infobar G value, unless there is proof, that it is bugged.
  8. Sorry, but why are you so sure, that a slight G overshoot cannot occur? The FCS is not perfect. I would not disregard the infobar only based on that... Is there any test / source / thread saying, that the infobar Gz is incorrect? I have never heard of that. I did not see Gz values in the data dump, only longitudinal acceleration.
  9. Thanks, I'll check that. Could you please tell me, on your chart, which G lines represent which G value? It seems in your chart DCS hornet tops out at 7 G. Am I reading that correctly? If so, why is that?
  10. For me, as you can see, there is consistently a close to +1 G advantage on the lift limit line for the DCS Hornet vs the Nasa doc chart. This is consistent with the HUD footage. STR does seem to be correct for me as well up at 15000 feet in this config. Again, I tested at 34000 lbs G limit is 7,3G. NASA doc G limit is 7,33 so that config cannot be much heavier. Could you please check your testing data again please? I'm quite sure that Viper numbers are spot on, as they say. When I checked it last time STR was perfectly lined up to the HAF manual EM chart.
  11. F-18_maxITR_15k.trk Just 3 datapoints from DCS: M 0.60 7,4G AoA 30 M 0.42 4,4G AoA 36 M 0.38 3,6G AoA 36
  12. At 33700 lbs (2x9 2x7) I have this for max ITR: M= 0,60 AoA= 30 N= 7,5 I used the weight on your chart, 33700 lbs. I did not see the weight in the nasa doc. Maybe it is a bit heavier (7.33 limit G?) EDIT: just checked, G limit is 7,3 at 34000lbs, so difference is marginal.
  13. Great stuff, thanks for posting that! Could you please confirm, which G lines represent which G values on your chart? The source document shows a 7,33 G limit on the chart, in DCS I get 7,5 G at M 0,6, but on your chart it seems like max ITR happens at a lower G and also the DCS line is at a lower G over the corner speed. For me in the same config corner is M0.6 AoA=30 at 7.5 G (DCS)
  14. Very good question! They are flying in Canada not in Iraq, so I would gess, it is not extremely hot. How much ISA deviation would be required to have a difference of around 19% in your opinion?
  15. I think you are right. Having more G/AoA than it should could easily cause both the higher STR and the better than expected acceleration under G load while the straight line acceleration is exactly matching the data. What can also be seen on the HUD tape vids in the linked thread, is that when they do a quite agressive high AoA (up to 30 degrees) pull, the speed loss is less drastic than in DCS. My theory is, that if in DCS, the Hornet would have a less steep lift curve to match the G/AoA in the vid, that would also cause lift induced drag to be less, meaning overall worse STR but also speed loss would be less drastic pulling high AoA, so it would give more nose authority I think.
×
×
  • Create New...