Turn rate has tanked with new update

[Skysurfer]

1 hour ago, Hummingbird said:

 

 

 

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 flying module I've ever had the pleasure of flying. In short I'm a fan who desperately wants to help, not a mindless critic.

 

 

Can only second that. Probably why the userbase puts it under so much scrutiny and wants all the details to be right. The module has a huge potential and I am certain we'll get there in the end.

[r4y30n]

 
ED does not provide any FM tools so any type of automated testing needs to be developed by each 3rd party individually.

I hope they have such tools for their own use. If they do it would be a huge benefit to standardization across modules if they shared them, never mind the massive amount of time saved by third party testers.

[captain_dalan]

Also never forget that we as a community are here for that reason as well, to provide feedback and help, if asked for. There are quite a few of us here that are quite passionate about this stuff, and wouldn't mind sharing a part of the load in performing these tests. Especially on weekends. Besides, more people, means we can distribute the and share in the responsibilities so we fly and test different parts of the envelope!

[Captain Mete Pitchell]

On 1/12/2021 at 12:26 PM, Hummingbird said:

I'm not pissed off at all, I just want the aircraft to perform as it should, and want to know when to expect that to happen. Nothing else from here.

 

That said, it would be nice if updates that screw up the FM would be postponed until they don't, and that we can run with the version that performs correctly performance wise until then though. 

 

I sorely miss flying the thing.

 

IDK for me it's infuriating the module that I flew 98% of the time the past year and a half because it was so fun and badass performance-wise in relation to other DCS fighter modules is now very much the opposite. Flying the F14B with the flight model the way it's been since the 11/23/2020 update is miserably insufferable-but what's more aggravating is the fact it's been a known issue for ~2-3 months-I decided to step back from DCS and go fullturboautismo playing racing sims. It would have been one thing if the issue had been fixed in a timely manner, but it seems in DCS things usually remain broken for months to years.

Also, super funny IMO, just from the extreme irony of it. I had posted something in a DCS "Stable" thread that the F14B FM was broken in OB saying ED shouldn't push the potato F14B FM OB build to DCS "Stable" because "Stable" was the only remaining bastion of F14B FM not being miserably insufferable. Literally the next day, ED pushed the potato F14B FM OB build to DCS "Stable". So I guess screw my life.

 

Then I try to tell HB I'm unequivocally getting my eyeballs gouged out/head kicked in 99/100 times at BFM in the F14B in ways I've never been since the F14B was released so the FM seems broken and they want to see some kind of a data chart/table with algorithmic functions proving my statement like I've got a double Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering and Mathematics. Bruh, you guys are the experienced engineers, right? Seems like HB demanding a lot from someone like me which the DCS community has unanimously regarded for years as an inferior incompetent imbecile/ignoramus.

 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Ur_A_Cop

[TLTeo]

3 hours ago, Ur_A_Cop said:

Then I try to tell HB I'm unequivocally getting my eyeballs gouged out/head kicked in 99/100 times at BFM in the F14B in ways I've never been since the F14B was released so the FM seems broken and they want to see some kind of a data chart/table with algorithmic functions proving my statement like I've got a double Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering and Mathematics. Bruh, you guys are the experienced engineers, right? Seems like HB demanding a lot from someone like me which the DCS community has unanimously regarded for years as an inferior incompetent imbecile/ignoramus.

 

It's not possible for any one on the planet to fix an issue in thousands and thousands of lines of code with just a "bruh, code's f***ed, doesn't perform", especially when reports with that claim and/or similar amounts of information are reported over, and over, and over again for years. The tests required to provide relevant information, like Hummingbird's, don't even require any advanced knowledge, just being a good pilot and having lots of free time.

[Orwell]

OK so it's not just me? I bought the F14 on sale, and I find it's very hard to dog fight with. Beyond the normal difficulties noobs have, I find I just cannot get the plane to rate.

I just end up in endless circle fights with AI. Online I just get trashed every time I take the plane out. I suck, but not THAT much, geez.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Orwell

[draconus]

7 hours ago, Orwell said:

I just end up in endless circle fights with AI

Pick on Su-27.

[Hummingbird]

On 1/18/2021 at 10:36 AM, draconus said:

With possible update next week (as we heard they already made some changes) I doubt it is worth doing now, don't you think? And Victory205 already got similar results before you tested: "This is very similar to what I found on the F14A, it was slightly underperforming at low speeds and over performing at higher velocities."

 

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.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Hummingbird

[P0G0]

 

Next week there are a update ?!

 

Oh no I have a tournament january 30th !!!

 

I had lost the tournament which took place 3 days after the update with the release of the F14A. Now that I've learned to do a few things with the new FM it's off for a ride :(((

Edited January 21, 2021 by P0G0

[fat creason]

On 1/18/2021 at 10:36 AM, fat creason said:

These changes are still WIP, do not assume they will show up in the next patch unless I specifically say the changes are ready.

 

I am planning to look at the slat schedule in the subsonic region for this coming patch, that maybe help a bit, but all the other work that affects turn rate (and a ton of other stuff) is being done in its own branch and being tested by our SME. It will only release once it's 100% finished.

Edited January 21, 2021 by fat creason

[Hummingbird]

54 minutes ago, fat creason said:

 

I am planning to look at the slat schedule in the subsonic region for this coming patch, that maybe help a bit, but all the other work that affects turn rate (and a ton of other stuff) is being done in its own branch and being tested by our SME. It will only release once it's 100% finished.

 

 

Sounds good FC

[jcdata]

If the flight model with spot in previous builds, then why did they adjust it?

Data is data... I understand the SMe's put in so much and put that the developers keep changing it..



Not blaming anybody. Everyone's human everyone once so something supposedly perfect.. However, charts are there are just use the charts.. This is why publishing houses push the release dates for because someone wants perfectionism it's not gonna happen. With the following this plane has you will be constantly updating a plane to appease everyone. At some point you're going to stop and look realisrealistically what is fact and what isn't.

I bet you that Psub chart is all messed up now. By the looks of your G chart.. looks like TF30 thrust curve...tf30 was weak at slow speeds that's where the F110 shined.

Been there, done that!! Use what data is there and be objective about it and get the job done and work on a next project!



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[TLTeo]

Because it's not that easy and a very large number of complex variables go into coding a FM as realistic as those in DCS. They can't just go "lol tweak elevator effectiveness why not" as if this was War Thunder. They may adjust parts of the FM to make it more realistic in one part of the envelope, only to realize that as a result, it goes off on some other part of the envelope. Or, they may update the FM with improved physics, by, say, computing the airflow going into the engine more accurately to have more realistic TF-30 compressor stalls, only to accidentally cause thrust to be slightly off if a certain combination of parameters is reached.

 

On top of that as Hummingbird and Fatcreason have highlighted in this very thread, testing the FM is very very time consuming, so these unintended changes can very easily slip through the cracks.

 

And despite all of that, Hummingbird's tests show that the performance is still within about 10% of the charts, if consistently underperforming, across the entire envelope. That means that despite the systematic offset, the FM is still very, very close to reality. Compared to issues like aileron behavior in the Sabre at high Mach numbers, the F5 engines having wrong thrust values depending on wind direction, the mig-19 wing occasionally losing almost half its lift, stores drag being all over the place, or DCS aircraft in general having their top speed completely neglect thermal effects (which allows e.g. the Viper and Viggen to hit insane Mach numbers when it should be extremely unsafe to do so), that's peanuts.

Edited January 21, 2021 by TLTeo

[fat creason]

22 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Because it's not that easy and a very large number of complex variables go into coding a FM as realistic as those in DCS. They can't just go "lol tweak elevator effectiveness why not" as if this was War Thunder. They may adjust parts of the FM to make it more realistic in one part of the envelope, only to realize that as a result, it goes off on some other part of the envelope. Or, they may update the FM with improved physics, by, say, computing the airflow going into the engine more accurately to have more realistic TF-30 compressor stalls, only to accidentally cause thrust to be slightly off if a certain combination of parameters is reached.

 

On top of that as Hummingbird and Fatcreason have highlighted in this very thread, testing the FM is very very time consuming, so these unintended changes can very easily slip through the cracks.

 

And despite all of that, Hummingbird's tests show that the performance is still within about 10% of the charts, if consistently underperforming, across the entire envelope. That means that despite the systematic offset, the FM is still very, very close to reality. Compared to issues like aileron behavior in the Sabre at high Mach numbers, the F5 engines having wrong thrust values depending on wind direction, stores drag being all over the place, or DCS aircraft in general having their top speed completely neglect thermal effects (which allows e.g. the Viper and Viggen to hit insane Mach numbers when it should be extremely unsafe to do so), that's peanuts.

 

 

Essentially this. Just because the cat was turning close to the charts in a small mach range does not mean it was perfect everywhere else. Once we had the F-14A, our SME (who only flew the A) determined there were other issues with airframe drag in general, especially in the transonic and supersonic regions. This is half expected because the primary wind tunnel data source only contains data at wind tunnel (read: very low) speeds. On top of that, we have been taking a closer look at stores drag in the tunnel since we believe there are issues with that, too. The amount of data in the performance manual is only enough to spot-check particular things and give an idea of "being on the right track", and is not enough to build or fully verify a FM with. That's why we have a SME to fly it. I typically don't divulge a ton info about the FM issues here since it tends to lead to a lot of armchair "experts" and Dunning-Kruger effect responses.

[captain_dalan]

On 1/21/2021 at 8:06 PM, fat creason said:

 

 On top of that, we have been taking a closer look at stores drag in the tunnel since we believe there are issues with that, too. The amount of data in the performance manual is only enough to spot-check particular things and give an idea of "being on the right track", and is not enough to build or fully verify a FM with.

Something weird i noticed tonight. Maybe the guys with more experience in DCS can chime in.
I won't go into more details on how and why, but i did flew half a dozen turns today, at sea level and 5000ft. One with a slick Alpha and one with the standard load we've been testing. Difference in gross weight of about 5%. 350 KIAS, level turn, max sustained rate. Resulted in about 5.1g for the loaded plane and about 5.4g for the clean bird. A 5% difference all right. But shouldn't the difference be larger? What about stores drag? It's as if DCS doesn't....or to be more precise, always models the drag. At least the induced component. Has it always been this way? I never noticed it before, as i usually don't fly clean birds all that often. Is it the same for the other planes too?

[Spurts]

Induced drag should be dominant in that turn, meaning weight will have more impact than form drag.

[Snappy]

On 1/21/2021 at 5:26 PM, fat creason said:

 

I am planning to look at the slat schedule in the subsonic region for this coming patch, that maybe help a bit, but all the other work that affects turn rate (and a ton of other stuff) is being done in its own branch and being tested by our SME. It will only release once it's 100% finished.

 

@fat creason,

 

did the subsonic slat schedule change make it into today's fix? I can't find it in the  F-14 patch notes, but I know not everything is listed sometimes.

Kind regards,

 

Snappy

[fat creason]

Yes it should be in this update. It's in the changelog but not worded very clearly, I think my editing of the changelog didn't make it in time. I didn't have time to test the aero effects of the change, however. Hopefully it improved things a little bit.

Edited January 27, 2021 by fat creason

[Sideburns]

F14a seems a lot more sprightly now, easier to get to mach and also corners without losing as much speed. Feels like a fighter again.

[Snappy]

@fat creason

 

Ok, thank you very much fat creason  for your efforts and the quick reply to my question! Very kind of you. Glad to hear the slat schedule

rework made it in .   

 

 

Kind regards,

Snappy

[captain_dalan]

Didn't have time to fly her much, just a quick  run of the high altitude and sea skimming mission. F-14A, 200ft ASL, mach 0.48 (315-317 knots), 4x4 with 50% internal fuel, still 4.6-4.7g. The effects may be further up or down the mach though. Need a full test run from 220 to 700+.
High above, say 35-37000ft, the engines no longer explode! That's a good news. The plane still has a very hard time accelerating. Tends to get stuck around mach 1.2. Had to wait nearly 10 minutes in 8x accelerated time and infinite fuel to reach mach 1.8. Same load as before. I just gave up after that. It was already 3 AM here.

Edited January 28, 2021 by captain_dalan

[draconus]

11 hours ago, Snappy said:

did the subsonic slat schedule change make it into today's fix? I can't find it in the  F-14 patch notes, but I know not everything is listed sometimes.

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/201735-dcs-f-14-changelogs-amp-updates/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-4551665

Quote

Fixed Man devices partial deploy issue

 

[Hummingbird]

Been away for a while, so didn't notice the update. Will get around to testing how she handles this upcoming weekend to see what difference the corrected maneuver devices schedule might have resulted in.

Edited February 8, 2021 by Hummingbird

[illegal1984]

The performance is still subpar. I should be able out rate and radius pretty much anything at low-speed and low level. There is a slight improvement with the new control surface schedule, but this problem is clearly drag related to the flight model.

 

To be honest, flight models are messed up across the board on DCS. There are AOA shots people are getting off that are simply absurd. Granted, guns only 1v1 is just wholely unrealistic to begin with, but if anything the Hornet flight model needs some serious guidance. We can't all come down on HeatBlur when the ED is just 'anything goes' at this point. In the hands of the proper stick, the Tomcat still kills most anything that it comes up against.

 

Dead horse time though, find a middle ground with the flaps. Trying to figure when, at what speed, and what G they would typically break down is hard. I am sure that they were a cardinal sin in the NATOPS syllabus. WHATEVER. Connecting with former Tomcat pilots and speaking candidly, though they were not routinely used...they still were used and they didn't all die at 225 knots. When we are engaging Hornet gnats that regularly abuse their paddle, when we alley cats routinely over-G the airplane in engagements, whatever the point was becomes moot. There is a middle ground. Okie, Hoser, and Snort are not just asshole hotshots with stories to tell...they are (reflections eternal) largely considered, rightfully, the best at their business.

 

Still, I look forward to some dramatic improvements in drag reduction, whenever that happens.

Edited February 12, 2021 by illegal1984

[Skysurfer]

1 hour ago, illegal1984 said:

 I should be able out rate and radius pretty much anything at low-speed and low level.

 

And you know this how and based on what data? Even a F-16? The published charts speak a very different picture as far as the raw numbers go. 

 

Not arguing that the cat isn't currently underperforming, but so are various other jets in DCS and that by a pretty substantial amount.