Turn rate has tanked with new update

[Hummingbird]

 

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.

 

There is ofcourse serious evidence as we have the real life EM charts to compare with, and I'm 100% sure HB can see the discrepancy the moment they test fly the aircraft.

[Skysurfer]

 

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.

 

Oh yeah I know, I've not flown a A Tomcat in real so my only reference is the B cat in DCS and other modules, which I've gotten pretty used to. I do trust HB with this but just wanted to make sure that there isn't some bug or undesired effect they missed because right now even breaking Mach 1 for a missile launch seems rather difficult. Even completely clean it seems to struggle to go fast as per the charted values.

[Hummingbird]

The cat is currently underperforming, and in some regimes substantially so, there is no doubt about it. This is based on directly comparing ingame performance with the actual EM charts for the real life aircraft.

[Top Jockey]

The cat is currently underperforming, and in some regimes substantially so, there is no doubt about it. This is based on directly comparing ingame performance with the actual EM charts for the real life aircraft.

 

Just so there's no doubt about this:

 

Which variant, -A or -B ?

[Sonoda Umi]

The cat is currently underperforming, and in some regimes substantially so, there is no doubt about it. This is based on directly comparing ingame performance with the actual EM charts for the real life aircraft.

 

In short, the current version F-14 is underperforming - drag is too big and thrust is inadequate.

[Sonoda Umi]

 

Just so there's no doubt about this:

 

Which variant, -A or -B ?

 

So far, I can confirm both A and B have too much drag, and thrust of F-14B has not adequate thrust.

[Skysurfer]

Yeah I'd like HB to re-test the current drag and FM in the current build and see what they think. Something just doesn't seem right anymore.

[IronMike]

Fixed internally.

[Sonoda Umi]

Fixed internally.

 

Nice to hear that!

[jcdata]

If I look in my old DVD ram discs. I computed the net thrust tf30 versus f110 GE 400 engines M versus ALT for the simulator I worked on. There's a dramatic difference at low speeds between the two engines on output that's why you feel that there is some type of draggy or slow sluggish feel at low speeds with the tf30.

 

To give you an idea you're looking roughly 34,000 lb (tf30) of installed thrust versus 46,000 lb of thrust (110).. at speeds less than 100 knots at sea level. However this changes has a speed increases. But the rate of thrust gained with the TF30 isn't as significant. At one point at the lower altitude the tf30 actually is on par with the 110 as you reach the transonic range. However, at low M, the 110 engine is purely a bfm engine with its robust thrust output in this area.

 

@M0.9 TF30 installed thrust 56000lbs ; 110 installed thrust is 60000 lbs. The 110 has a FADEC that will control the thrust output as it declines after this speed when at SL.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

 

[Svend_Dellepude]

Still I managed to take a clean A to 2.45M after some zoom climbs. But loaded up it doesn't seem to move. Still awesome to fly though. Good to hear it has been fixed, that will just make it more awesome. :)

[eatthis]

Fixed internally.

 

thanks for the feedback. what have you done?

[IronMike]

 

thanks for the feedback. what have you done?

 

By trying to fix some minor parts in transsonic drag (and other small stuff), an imbalance got introduced where it was set correctly already.

[Victory205]

If I look in my old DVD ram discs. I computed the net thrust tf30 versus f110 GE 400 engines M versus ALT for the simulator I worked on. There's a dramatic difference at low speeds between the two engines on output that's why you feel that there is some type of draggy or slow sluggish feel at low speeds with the tf30.

 

To give you an idea you're looking roughly 34,000 lb (tf30) of installed thrust versus 46,000 lb of thrust (110).. at speeds less than 100 knots at sea level. However this changes has a speed increases. But the rate of thrust gained with the TF30 isn't as significant. At one point at the lower altitude the tf30 actually is on par with the 110 as you reach the transonic range. However, at low M, the 110 engine is purely a bfm engine with its robust thrust output in this area.

 

@M0.9 TF30 installed thrust 56000lbs ; 110 installed thrust is 60000 lbs. The 110 has a FADEC that will control the thrust output as it declines after this speed when at SL.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

 

FWIW, the “whisper number” was plus 30% at .9 IMN for the TF 30’s. More like a total in the 44,000 pound range. The 34,000 static thrust was correct. It was in the J79 range static.

 

I never saw any empirical data for the ram increase, but plus 56,000 seems very high given the actual sustained climb angles attainable in the A. Do you have anything that you can put your hands on? What kind of simulator are you referencing?

[maxsin72]

 

By trying to fix some minor parts in transsonic drag (and other small stuff), an imbalance got introduced where it was set correctly already.

 

Hi IronMike, now flap jamming happens with 100 knots less of speed: at 230/240 knots. Listening to Snodgrass he was able to use full flaps at 325 knots, without any jamming because he gunned his opponenet for 42 seconds.

Was it what you intended to do? Thanks

Please look at this video

[Victory205]

Amazing how snortie boy was able to pull those CB’s from the front cockpit...

[dehowie]

I had a flap jam well below 300 kts yesterday something is broken.

Likewise the accel off the runway is terrible. From gear up with a clean wing to 400kts takes forever in the B and longer in the A.

if something aero has been tweaked its broken them both substantially.

Reading accounts on the B’s accel off the deck its nothing like this slow.

Above 400-450 seems fine its low speed accel is now heavily broken.

Just watch any airshow vid of a B or D and you will see that clearly.

Did anyone even test fly the changes before release?

[fat creason]

 

Hi IronMike, now flap jamming happens with 100 knots less of speed: at 230/240 knots. Listening to Snodgrass he was able to use full flaps at 325 knots, without any jamming because he gunned his opponenet for 42 seconds.

Was it what you intended to do? Thanks

Please look at this video

 

We intended to make flap jamming more realistic, which is what we did. You cannot go 100 knots over the rated speed with no consequences.

Edited November 20, 2020 by fat creason

[captain_dalan]

@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..

 

Did you fly a 5kft profile?

I only had the chance to try them both out down low (sea skimming) and aside from a major drop around the number, and a bit under powered at the very top (for the A alone, some 20-30 knots) they seamed quite all right. Both of them. I didn't have time to do 5kft and 10kft.

Did you do a 4x4 load?

[Benjo0]

Hi Heatblur team,

 

Something definitely isn't right with flaps jammin. I've had them Jam at 250 knots, wings full forward and idle throttle. Considering that the standard recovery procedure is flaps down at 220kts are you sure it's possible they can jam this easily? Even when hearing claims of pilots that they could whitstand 300+kts IAS?

[Hummingbird]

 

Did you fly a 5kft profile?

I only had the chance to try them both out down low (sea skimming) and aside from a major drop around the number, and a bit under powered at the very top (for the A alone, some 20-30 knots) they seamed quite all right. Both of them. I didn't have time to do 5kft and 10kft.

Did you do a 4x4 load?

 

Yes, every condition was exactly as on the charts and I later did it at both alts, and it's significantly underperforming at both SL and 5 kft. It appears HB have fixed it internally though, so now we just gotta hope for a quick patch.

 

[Hummingbird]

 

We intended to make flap jamming more realistic, which is what we did. You cannot go 100 knots over the rated speed with no consequences.

 

Good to hear, it was far to easy to abuse this earlier.

 

That said are the torque tubes G limited or speed limited? Had a discussion yesterday with a fellow flier and he recalls NATOPS talking about a 2.5 G limit for the auxilliary flaps.

[IronMike]

 

Good to hear, it was far to easy to abuse this earlier.

 

That said are the torque tubes G limited or speed limited? Had a discussion yesterday with a fellow flier and he recalls NATOPS talking about a 2.5 G limit for the auxilliary flaps.

 

Both. High overspeeds will likely bend them, too. The NATOPS values are guidelines for safety as well, so not to be taken at face value always. This is why tuning it in with SME support is crucial.

[Sonoda Umi]

 

We intended to make flap jamming more realistic, which is what we did. You cannot go 100 knots over the rated speed with no consequences.

 

I know it well. So I always have my flaps up during ACM/BFM dogfighting. The issue of current version is drag too much than before(with flaps up as well) and underperforming both turning and climbing comparing with real-life data.

[Hummingbird]

 

Both. High overspeeds will likely bend them, too. The NATOPS values are guidelines for safety as well, so not to be taken at face value always. This is why tuning it in with SME support is crucial.

 

Copy that, thanks.