Engine Response to throttle input?

Is the current engine response to throttle input accurate? or is this an area that is still a WIP?

It seems to to take (large) fist fulls of of power to get a response from the engines. I'm finding this particularly challenging when on approach.

Thanks

I'd say almost the opposite, they feel very sensitive. I find it difficult to maintain a speed without constantly moving the throttle tiny steps. I tried AAR for the first time today and it's the same, constantly moving the throttle to maintain desired speed. The tiniest increments I can do gives me big(5-10+ knots) changes in speed.

I'd say almost the opposite, they feel very sensitive. I find it difficult to maintain a speed without constantly moving the throttle tiny steps. I tried AAR for the first time today and it's the same, constantly moving the throttle to maintain desired speed. The tiniest increments I can do gives me big(5-10+ knots) changes in speed.

You find the throttle response on approach to be very sensitive? In the Hornet? :pilotfly:

i think the engines are quick to respond -- but the airframe isn't, especially in approach configuration where it's highly draggy.

i find the large throttle motions required for landing to be helpful and not a hindrance.

I found that the throttle response is alot quicker then before.

Fine tune the throttle axis in the settings/Controls of the game

You find the throttle response on approach to be very sensitive? In the Hornet? :pilotfly:

Obviously you won't see an instantaneous response, it might take a second but the change in thrust is definitely large relative to throttle movement.

How big changes to throttle would you say you need to see a difference in engine performance?

Let's say I'm flying approach and I'm at 150 knots and falling slightly. If I make slight increase in throttle then the speed will slowly start increasing instead and after a while I will have to decrease it to maintain 150 knots. I'm definitely not adding quarter throttle or anything like that, I just push it enough that I feel the slightest movement. But this could of course differ between HOTAS. I have an X52, what do you use?

In another thread about the real life Hornet guy who is making vids I read this:

"As of the 3rd vid he has only commented once on the flight model but one observation he has that is shared by many including myself if the throttle response is slow/weak/ iirc. While doing pattern work he had to push the throttle really high and into burner just to achieve another 10 knots or so.

To early to call it a FM issue or something that needs tweaking but I am looking forward to when he turns his attention to the fidelity of the aircraft."

This ^ is what I am noticing also.

I'm using the Warthog Throttle/Stick.

Problem could be the drag as currently modeled...

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=213353

I am not a real jet pilot, but I play one on my PC. With that disclaimer I agree that the throttle seems sensitive enough. Apparent "sluggishness" is likely due to the inertia of the 16 ton mass of the aircraft. Response not dissimilar from VRS F/A-18E. Watch airspeed. You will see it changing before the E bracket starts moving. I find that many hours of practice are required to attain the muscle memory and anticipation needed to prevent constant throttle over-correction. I am still learning, but improving in that area. Acquiring that muscle-memory can be hampered by too frequent adjustment of the throttle thrust curve, so I recommend minimizing that action. Set it and forget it.

In a related matter, I HIGHLY recommend viewing Jar113's third Youtube video on Case 1 recoveries. His explanation of trimming to on-AOA finally turned on the light-bulb for me. You will learn that in proper recovery technique the stick is used ONLY to control bank angle and use ONLY the left hand to control pitch. Call the ball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xso1mMo_1Mg

Well, I'm a former jet pilot and this feels off to me. Never flew a Hornet but I'm going to go with my gut on this one and also the comments of the r/l Hornet driver.

To me, it feels a bit slow to spool-up. Kind of reminds me of the old turbojet engine behavior.

Obviously you won't see an instantaneous response, it might take a second but the change in thrust is definitely large relative to throttle movement.

 

How big changes to throttle would you say you need to see a difference in engine performance?

 

Let's say I'm flying approach and I'm at 150 knots and falling slightly. If I make slight increase in throttle then the speed will slowly start increasing instead and after a while I will have to decrease it to maintain 150 knots. I'm definitely not adding quarter throttle or anything like that, I just push it enough that I feel the slightest movement. But this could of course differ between HOTAS. I have an X52, what do you use?

It may well need a little tweaking here and there perhaps..

This is flying on the backside, so the aircraft will seek this on speed AOA. You should be more concerned with lift and descent rates with power, not speed, I don't even look at the speeds when on speed.

The power setting on the throttle should be 50% to 90% always to keep the engines spooled up.

I keep constant back pressure on my stick so I am always close to stalling (high end of bracket), reducing power will quickly loose altitude, so there's no delay reaction or over correction.

also helps when i'm high on final. pull up on stick and power down to drop altitude, followed by power up to keep from falling straight down.

Have a listen to the comments at approx. 22:30.

Then go back and watch the rest of the vid. Loads of good info.

This is also highly dependent on what throttle hardware you're using. Throttles with lots of throw, such as the TM Warthog, will require more movement for an equivalent engine adjustment compared to a shorter throw throttle, such as the T16000M. I just switched to the Warthog HOTAS and I can tell you that getting used to the throttle movement per equivalent response is not easy, especially during sensitive stages like carrier recoveries.

Its not throw, (at least on the TM Warthog), as the difference between gaining and losing altitude whilst on speed AOA is about 2cm of travel on my throttle.

It's engine response for me at least. The hornet engines as currently modelled make the A-10 seem quick to respond. I'm constantly wallowing during final approach and over-compensating. I'll get used to it....Then have to re-learn when patched.

All part of the beta fun! It was the same during A-10 beta. It's only frustrating when we don't know whether its WAD and a "training issue" or its a WIP feature and we'd just better live with it for now.

The engine response is delayed deliberately, it doesn't instantly reach the inputted commands, like the delay in anything with an input and output, it's based on the design on the mechanism. The specific time of that delay is something OP noticed because they flew something that had an engine with a faster response. That's been coded very specifically as it's extra work to model and engine spooling up to speed. It's no accident, ED did it this way for a reason and based on some data (that I don't have or want to look for). So the fact it's been modelled deliberately means that logically speaking someone had some data to suggest that this is how it works, as opposed to how the driver wants it to feel.

The rest of the debate is down to engine manufacturing specs and real pilot data, so for now, you can assume it's nothing more or less than modelled as accurately as ED can.

We don't see acceleration on the screen

Due to the inertia of the rotating masses, it will inevitably take a little bit of time for the turbine to spool up to the new rev rate after a throttle input and deliver the desired thrust resulting in acceleration. That spool-up time is probably not the issue and I expect that acceleration builds up very quickly. And the RL pilot doesn't need to look at any screen or gage he or she feels the acceleration in the body.

We simmers however are handicapped as we neither feel nor see the acceleration. We only see the speed changing as a function of acceleration and TIME. I did a bit of calculation, using a mass of 17,000 kg and a thrust of 10 kN. If we disregard drag, this would result in acceleration = 5.88 m/s2, which results in a speed increase of 11.4 kt after 1 s. Now in reality there is drag, and it increases with the square of speed. So in reality the speed will increase by significantly less than 11.4 kt when you are already at a high speed; but it should be close at final approach speed around 140 kt. Unfortunately, I could not find any numbers for the drag of the F/A-18.

Even 1 second in a tense situation seems like a very long time, and this might be why we feel that the response to throttle input is too sluggish. Unlike the SU-27, the F/A-19C cockpit doesn't indicate acceleration, which would be desirable from a sim point of view but probably too unrealistic.

PS: I only know basic physics so I'd be happy to be corrected by an expert.

If it’s accurate then I’m ok with it. However, my initial impression is that the spool up time in general seems excessive for a fighter. Feels like a turboprop in terms of lag and that just seems odd in a high performance aircraft.

If it’s accurate then I’m ok with it. However, my initial impression is that the spool up time in general seems excessive for a fighter. Feels like a turboprop in terms of lag and that just seems odd in a high performance aircraft.

This is very alien to most sim pilots and IRL pilots because only the Navy fly this way when landing at the carrier or when always practicing at an airfield. The power feels off to most because your are flying the backside technique at the optimal wing coefficient and not a normal approach. Controlling speed with the stick and rate of descent with the throttle. Curly (Engineer) wrote and provided great links in this post here and more in this one.

Quote

"It was found in a lot of aircraft configurations that the lift to drag ratio decreases at high lift coefficients. Total drag increases with decreasing airspeed, this is as the region of reverse command or the backside of the drag curve."

He also has this thread going about some change he thinks are needed to the FCS.

I have a thread consolidating On speed AOA here.

Also, make sure you are under 33,000 pounds when landing or she becomes a real pig to fly on speed AOA.

Yeah it's not very responsive on my end either. I'll try to tweak it out a little and see if it changes

In using a warthog throttle and setitng saturation to 85% on the y axis of the throttles has helped increase the response by quite a bit so it's better now. Give that a shot if you have a warthog and see if it makes a difference for you.

In using a warthog throttle and setitng saturation to 85% on the y axis of the throttles has helped increase the response by quite a bit so it's better now. Give that a shot if you have a warthog and see if it makes a difference for you.

Yes but surely that means that at 100% throttle fwd movement you are only getting 85% in game? bye bye afterburners?

Yes but surely that means that at 100% throttle fwd movement you are only getting 85% in game? bye bye afterburners?

In using a warthog throttle and setitng saturation to 85% on the y axis of the throttles has helped increase the response by quite a bit so it's better now. Give that a shot if you have a warthog and see if it makes a difference for you.

On a Saitek X52 but I'll try it thanks :thumbup: