[NO BUG] flight model - Page 7 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-30-2020, 08:36 PM   #61
IronMike
3rd Party Developer
 
IronMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Austria
Posts: 2,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HDpilot View Post
But enough "polemics"



Quite right, thank you. Show us proof, or stop "claiming" things please. Totmacher showed you the exact numbers. And that is that, and yes, again, it is acceptable and most likely closer than any other module you are flying.



And yes, you are starting to break forum rules, from this post on, keep in mind that you have been hereby warned:


1.10 Product feedback and constructive criticism is encouraged when provided in a mature and courteous manner. However, feedback that is abusive, insulting or condescending is not welcome. Additionally, to bring up a particular issue repeatedly after it has already been acknowledged will be considered "trolling" - in such cases a warning will be issued to the author and the post will be removed.


Your tone was aggressive and condescending, you did suggest that we falsified the flight model to be better to paraphrase you "such a coincidence that it turns faster", calling my replies "nonsense" etc etc.. So do not act as if you did not and are the vitcim here, because you are not.

Furthermore I've been warned by several members of the Russian community that you are known as a troll on the russian forums, where you throw around the same unsubstantiated accusations against us, in the same kind of manner and the same kind of tone. Again, don't act as if you do not.

On top of that you don't seem to come here to help, but with a hostile attitude towards us, out of the suspicion we would have intentionally falsified the module to give it an advantage. I will tell you again, that we will not stand for such preposterous accusations.

And lastly, you are time and time bringing up an issue that has been acknowledged, and you give such unsubstantiated input that it does not let us act upon, even if you were genuinely interested to help, which you are not.



You do have the right to dislike our flight model, you also have the right to go around and call it the worst thing in the world, if you like. And we have the right to absolutely not care about your unfounded, unproven and quite honestly, unqualified opinion, in all regards concerning the FM: understanding the charts properly, knowing it's history and employment (and flight) data and the ability to even fly remotely close to what you should, in order to get valuable data.

So here is my warning to you: Bring proof, come with a genuine attitude that you wanna help, or with a legitimate complaint, but any more unsubstantiated posts of yours like this, and you will get a strike under rule 1.10 and your post will get deleted. You are costing us valuable development time with your trolling.
__________________
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/
IronMike is offline  
Old 06-30-2020, 09:25 PM   #62
fat creason
3rd Party Developer
 
fat creason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HDpilot View Post
a sustained 5.6-5,7g turn at 334kts IAS at 5000 feet with 55620lbs and devices on auto. That would be ~ 20 seconds per turn. Decide for yourself whether this is acceptable.
If you make this claim, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove it, not on us to disprove it. Is it not our job to investigate every wild claim that someone makes. We have better things to do with our time.

Is the F-14 FM 100% perfect, with zero error across the entire flight envelope? No, and no flight model on earth can claim this. Is it within an acceptable margin of error in the critical areas? Yes. Even Level D flight trainers have acceptable margins or error (I would know, I used to work on them). I would invite you legitimately test every other module in the game across their entire flight envelope and report your results with proof. I'd bet the F-14 FM is closer than most. Totmacher's testing methodology is by far the most valid way of testing EM chart in-game. We appreciate his efforts and candor regarding his test results, we plan to make the FM even better in the future.

Another aspect beyond pure FM performance is subjective handling qualities which I have been spending far more time on, working closely with our SME pilots, (in addition to the A/TF30) over FM performance aspects. This is far more important to the feel of the FM than a ~7% 1.1 deg/sec turn rate error. I will probably spend more time on FM performance in the future, but it is in a state that does not require immediate attention.

Totmacher's test demonstrates that the actual Ps=0 peak is somewhere in the area of the blue dot. These two claims are wildly different, and only one has validity.

On top of all of this, I would like to point out that these EM charts are purely based on estimations of available energy. These charts are estimated from flight test. It even says it right there, at the top left. There is no way to verify these charts in any real-world scenario, since it would require constant weight (aka no fuel burn) which would be impossible at full after burning power. Once you stray from the Ps=0 line, this testing becomes even more implausible since it would require an instantaneously measured stabilized turn right at 5000 ft while having a significant climb rate at a constant speed. I have seen takeoff climb charts from FAA approved performance manuals that under-report the actual climb rate from real flight test data by 50-100%! The flight test data showed that the aircraft was capable of climbing twice as fast as the manual stated. In this context, I consider a 7% error to be a very minor concern.

I hate to break it to you, but if you are losing dogfights to Tomcats it is not because of this issue.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Capture.JPG
Views:	67
Size:	125.8 KB
ID:	241366  
__________________
Systems Engineer & FM Modeler
Heatblur Simulations

Last edited by fat creason; 07-02-2020 at 05:36 PM. Reason: Edited for misreading HDPilot's post. (20 sec turn vs 20 deg/sec turn). Regardless, HDPilot's claim is still false as a 20 sec turn would imply an 18 deg/sec turn which he has no proof of.
fat creason is offline  
Old 06-30-2020, 10:19 PM   #63
Freakerr
Junior Member
 
Freakerr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 54
Default

Mike, please, calm down. No one here call f-14 FM bad. Maybe HDpilot a little aggressive, but it all because in our (Russian) community we too sensitive when western aircraft flight better when a log. Do not blame us!
And I hope after F-14A release we will find where are this gap is hiding. In the engines, on the wings or whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quid View Post
Well, this brings up an idea: could Totmacher run a test at 5,000 feet ASL, 4x AIM-9, 4x AIM-7, full gun ammo, no tanks, 50% fuel and see how well it matches given an AI script which can fly the circle "perfectly"? I didn't see a loadout on the last page, only a weight. If it was done with a clean aircraft, there is no impact from stores, a lower DI, and it won't follow the chart as closely.
Titmacher's test made with same conditions. It's show ~0.48 mach for 5g turn, instead ~0.52, if I understand charts right.
Freakerr is offline  
Old 06-30-2020, 10:26 PM   #64
Quid
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freakerr View Post
Titmacher's test made with same conditions. It's show ~0.48 mach for 5g turn, instead ~0.52, if I understand charts right.

I see a weight, but not a loadout. It doesn't tell me if the jet is clean and fuel was added or if there were stores added to make the weight. They'll have a different impact since the aircraft's drag index will be different as a result, and now I'm genuinely interested since it was pretty damn close when I flew it (~.5-.6 degrees off, not 1.2-1.3), but I am not a script, and had to derive my numbers from TACVIEW recordings in sections of the circle where the altitude and airspeed didn't vary.
Quid is offline  
Old 06-30-2020, 10:30 PM   #65
Freakerr
Junior Member
 
Freakerr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 54
Default

4 aim-9, 4 aim-7
https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.p...0&d=1589796419
Freakerr is offline  
Old 06-30-2020, 11:13 PM   #66
IronMike
3rd Party Developer
 
IronMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Austria
Posts: 2,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freakerr View Post
Mike, please, calm down. No one here call f-14 FM bad. Maybe HDpilot a little aggressive, but it all because in our (Russian) community we too sensitive when western aircraft flight better when a log. Do not blame us!


I am happy to discuss any discrepancies that come with substantiated proof or even hand flown, if at least attempted correctly and/or deviating slightly, all that is fine, and we are happy to receive any kind of criticism. I also never take things personally, so no worries.

But, accusations like us intentionally tweaking the FM to be "OP" is not something I take lightly. We put a lot of effort in getting everything as right as we can and we listen to everyone, also HD pilot. But if his conclusions are wrong more than once and without proof, toned aggressively and as if we didnt knew what we are doing, but he does, what do you expect? We're not here to stand for that kind of stuff, and at this point we are losing time with this thread. I'm not angry about it at all, but I call it as I see it. Because this is where it becomes trolling. It is ok to let anger go, I don't mind. But one or two ranting posts should be enough. I totally understand the passion behind it. But we have a certain level, too, where we say "ok, that's enough now". It does not lead anywhere else than us re-explaining things which have been explained and losing time, while meanwhile other issues get pushed back. Such accusations steal our attention away from "more important" things, and I say more important, because as explained, perfomance does not require immediate attention with the margin as is. We're talking about negligable margins. It should be enough if we say this once, I've repeated it at least 5 times now.

I don't like to be "forced" by a "loud minority" to focus on something which has a small priority, because it is unfair to others who have (more) legitimate concerns and do not get the attention then which they require from us more immediately than this.

I know you just want it fair. And trust me, we want that, too. We don't care if you are direct customers or not, if you have it or not, we want everyone in DCS to have a great sim experience. But the Tomcat is what it is, and once we will have brought the margins down even further, it will not change in that aspect to any level where you would notice a difference without looking very, very closely.

Mind you we started with the MiG-21 back when we were still with LNS, and the same kind of approach went into both. We would approach any russian aircraft in the same way, with the same pride. Within the limits of DCS we always strive for maximum realism, if only possible. If we cannot agree on that, it is quite pointless to discuss, because then the accusations start to fly around left and right and it leads nowhere. Rest assured: we want the same things. And I've always had a special place in my heart for REDFOR and so does everyone on the team. But you guys also need to trust us, when we say the margin is acceptable. And that we will improve it even further. This is where this thread could have stopped, because we do hear you and we decided almost immediately that we want to get the margins even better than they are. There is atm just no point in going on more about it, unless of course you find something new, and can show us, we will always be happy to look into it. Or if you have a question, etc, always happy to answer. But at this point going on about how off it is or not, without proof next to already provided proof (by Totmacher), we will start to turn in circles. I hope that makes sense and thank you for your kind understanding.




__________________
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/
IronMike is offline  
Old 07-01-2020, 12:52 AM   #67
captain_dalan
Senior Member
 
captain_dalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,215
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMike View Post
Ok, I see which chart you went for, however you are not flying the test stabilized enough. You got very large deviations in climb reate, deviations in G and deviations in speed. They all need to be very stable, practically no change on any parameter over a 10 second period before you take the measurement.

You would have to fly it stabilized right there, at the red dot in the chart attached below. You can then either close on speed or on G with the stick while keeping the rate of climb very low. If you choose to close on G, check to see if the speed is correct. If you choose to close on speed, you'd check for the constant G load.

Flown like in your video, your numbers are anything but reliable. It btw is only really possible to hand fly points on the Ps=0 curve, all other tests require an automated testing system with a perfect "automatic pilot"... Your tests are appreciated still, because they give us insight in how you guys fly, how she performs in your hands and so forth, which is all valuable to us, too. As is your input. But data wise, please try to stick to the Ps=0 curve and even then, you need to take your own results with a huge grain of salt for above mentioned reasons.
Copy that. The video was done in a hurry yes. As soon as i'm able i'll do a sea skimming one (hopefully tomorrow) . But a script would work even better i think. Eliminating the human factor from the equation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freakerr View Post

Titmacher's test made with same conditions. It's show ~0.48 mach for 5g turn, instead ~0.52, if I understand charts right.
Hey guys, can you make the test for a best sustained turn at mach 0.45-0.46, 55620 lbs gross weight in a 4X4? Sea level? It's the best break point we can use to find how much deviation is there right now.
captain_dalan is offline  
Old 07-01-2020, 07:24 AM   #68
IronMike
3rd Party Developer
 
IronMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Austria
Posts: 2,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain_dalan View Post
Hey guys, can you make the test for a best sustained turn at mach 0.45-0.46, 55620 lbs gross weight in a 4X4? Sea level? It's the best break point we can use to find how much deviation is there right now.



I'm sorry, but no, it is not. Best is the Ps=0 curve (from the other chart, Delan)... And the deviation is already known, see Totmacher's test. It's 1.2 seconds in the first and 1.3 seconds fast in the second test. This was the scripted test.

Please guys, stop doctoring with stuff you do not understand fully. You are not the experts on this. I do not mean this in any kind of condescending way, but that's how it is, and when we say you need to test the Ps=0 curve for best results, then we mean that. I really don't know why we have to repeat ourselves here so often.



"Once you stray from the Ps=0 line, this testing becomes even more implausible since it would require an instantaneously measured stabilized turn right at 5000 ft while having a significant climb rate at a constant speed."

You have our promise that we will make the FM even more precise than it is and that atm nothing is off outside of a margin that is not acceptable. If you do not want to take our word for it (including the many repeated explanations), fine, that is up to you. But please understand that we will not be repeating ourselves any further. Thank you for your kind patience and understanding in the meantime.

This thread will be closed until further notice. [We will reopen the thread for further discussion once we have made further tweaks on FM performance.]
__________________
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/

Last edited by IronMike; 07-01-2020 at 09:13 AM.
IronMike is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:10 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.