Turn rate has tanked with new update

[GGTharos]

seeing as how the Tomcat haterz were the only ones questioning the accuracy and complaining about the F-14 not being realistic or modeled correctly

 

... so you don't want a realistic tomcat?

 

Are the SMEs tomcat haterz?

[GGTharos]

I was more trying to say builds of the Tomcat preceding the current one with the altered flap damage model(which I'm told used tons of input from SMEs) and had gone without major change for a year

 

Loads of stuff gets missed. So what? There have been other aircraft which have also had problems for a long time and they were brought up by 'individuals' a long time later. The corrections were still the thing to do.

 

and a bit was only brought into question by the individuals(ie DCS players) who were salty about getting beat by the Tomcat

 

They were right to make the observation that some UFO capability was added to the Tomcat. The Mirage itself had such issues for a long time.

 

ironically there was a large change to the flap damage model that led to a dramatic decrease in F14 turn performance following those members of the user base who were questioning of it.

 

There's absolutely nothing ironic about it, it was simply something that slipped past the FM review. Every aircraft has limitations on flaps, but somehow the F-14 was to magically not have them and thus have magical turn rates without consequences. Isn't that ironic, too? Think about it :)

[Hummingbird]

They were right to make the observation that some UFO capability was added to the Tomcat. The Mirage itself had such issues for a long time.

 

 

and still does...

[Snappy]

Its funny how people like to bash the mirage FM at every opportunity, while EDs Hornet sustained-rate wonder is apparently completely fine..

 

But getting OT.

[IronMike]

Its funny how people like to bash the mirage FM at every opportunity, while EDs Hornet sustained-rate wonder is apparently completely fine..

 

But getting OT.

 

We don't like to compare ourselves to other devs anyways. Everyone has their own approach, everyone brings their own good and bad. That's how it should be, it enrichens the game. So yes, let us please stay on topic. It doesn't matter here what other modules do or do not do.

[GGTharos]

Its funny how people like to bash the mirage FM at every opportunity, while EDs Hornet sustained-rate wonder is apparently completely fine..

 

But getting OT.

 

The point was simply that is happens everywhere ... I mean I could write up the laundry list, because you're right, there are other FMs/modules with their own issues.

[Skysurfer]

I find it kinda funny how a former several thousand hour Tomcat driver can deem the flight model spot on and very accurate yet you have these forum monkeys bickering about their performance charts and 0.1dps deviation at mach 0.5. :lol:

[Hummingbird]

If the aircraft doesn't follow the charts then it's obviously not accurate performance wise. A pilot is human like everyone else, and hence he won't know the exact performance at every single knot and foot, that's what the EM charts are there for.

 

The FM is currently off, and HB knows this and has acknowledged it, so let's not make this into something it isn't.

[HDpilot]

 

Based on this the expected RL performance at SL would be:

 

 

0.60 = 6.60 G (+0.35 G vs DCS)

 

not quite

MAXIMUM AFTERBURNER GROSS WEIGHT = 55,620 POUNDS (50% FUEL) 6.5 g + (4)AIM-7 AND (4)AIM-9

 

If the aircraft doesn't follow the charts then it's obviously not accurate performance wise. A pilot is human like everyone else, and hence he won't know the exact performance at every single knot and foot, that's what the EM charts are there for.

 

The FM is currently off, and HB knows this and has acknowledged it, so let's not make this into something it isn't.

 

 

IronMike: "Anything that falls below a margin of 1.5 seconds is acceptable and negligable"

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...40#post6297540

;)

Let's not be petty. The Flanker, for example, is even more clearly below the official charts and nobody has seen the Hornet EM's here

[IronMike]

 

not quite

MAXIMUM AFTERBURNER GROSS WEIGHT = 55,620 POUNDS (50% FUEL) 6.5 g + (4)AIM-7 AND (4)AIM-9

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"\u041d\u0430\u0436\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0443\u0432\u0435\u043b\u0438\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f. \u041d\u0430\u0437\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435:\t1.JPG \u041f\u0440\u043e\u0441\u043c\u043e\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0432:\t0 \u0420\u0430\u0437\u043c\u0435\u0440:\t67.9 \u041a\u0431 ID:\t7155387","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"7155387","data-size":"custom","height":"231","title":"1.JPG","width":"277"}[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

 

IronMike: "Anything that falls below a margin of 1.5 seconds is acceptable and negligable"

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...40#post6297540

;)

Let's not be petty. The Flanker, for example, is even more clearly below the official charts and nobody has seen the Hornet EM's here

 

Yep, however we will tackle these 1.2 seconds or what it was, too. That hasn't been forgotten. :)

[HDpilot]

:)

[IronMike]

 

Who knows? Perhaps Paco could also tell us some of the stories about duels between F14 and F15, it would be great!

I'll remind you for sure to contact him :D

 

@maxsin72 Skysurfer looked up the timestamp on Paco's comments I mentioned above (thanks for that). Essentially he is saying exactly the same thing as Victory. Also note that he points out that the F-15 story was not based solely on his own experiences but accounts. He mentions that he himself didn't fly much against F-15s. He also mentions that if you did pull a stunt like that you had a "long way home at 250kts" (because the flaps would Jam)... Just wanted to follow up on that, since you wanted to hear it from him directly.

 

 

on the timestamp, if it doesn't work, it starts at 35:59

Edited November 28, 2020 by IronMike

[Baz000]

Here is a relevant excerpt from the Haynes F-14 owners workshop manual.

 

It is written by NFO Bill “Libby” Lind in chapter 5 Back-seat magic.

 

written verbatim as the following in relation to circuit breakers in the back seat.

 

”Although strictly forbidden, breakers controlling flaps could also be articulated, temporarily giving the Tomcat outsized lift in a visual engagement but with great risk to flight control mechanical gear if not done properly. Woe betide the crew who came home after such a stunt went poorly.”

 

so lets grab a few key words out of that, “strictly forbidden”, “temporarily giving the Tomcat outsized lift”, “great risk to flight control mechanical gear”, “Woe betide”, “stunt”, “went poorly”.

 

It sounds like it is not a recommended practice, and flying good BFM is far more preferable... Also by the simple addition of the word “stunt” shows that the mindset is it isn’t a viable Tomcat tactic and far more can go wrong with limited temporary gain in lift.

 

Sounds like the cons of doing it far outweigh the pros, or one could also say the cost vs. benefit analysis.

 

Also, that temporary gain in lift should come with a drag penalty which you don’t necessarily want additional drag for energy retention in traditional BFM fighting.

 

Anyways that was my .02, just remembered reading a blurb about it in the book.

[Hummingbird]

not quite

MAXIMUM AFTERBURNER GROSS WEIGHT = 55,620 POUNDS (50% FUEL) 6.5 g + (4)AIM-7 AND (4)AIM-9

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"\u041d\u0430\u0436\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0443\u0432\u0435\u043b\u0438\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f. \u041d\u0430\u0437\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435:\t1.JPG \u041f\u0440\u043e\u0441\u043c\u043e\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0432:\t0 \u0420\u0430\u0437\u043c\u0435\u0440:\t67.9 \u041a\u0431 ID:\t7155387","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"7155387","data-size":"custom","height":"231","title":"1.JPG","width":"277"}[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

Well this was my final estimation:

 

Expected F-14 perf vs RL F-15 perf @ Sea Level, based on the real life 5 kft & 10 kft figures above

M 0.3 = 2.85-2.90 vs 2.60 (+0.35-0.40 to F-14)

M 0.4 = 4.25-4.30 vs 3.65 (+0.60-0.65 to F-14)

M 0.5 = 5.65-5.70 vs 4.80 (+0.85-0.90 to F-14)

M 0.6 = 6.50-6.55 vs 6.00 (+0.50-0.55 to F-14)

M 0.7 = 7.40-7.45 vs 7.40 (~equal)

M 0.8 = 8.20-8.25 vs 8.80 (+0.55-0.55 to F-15)

 

So I was pretty dang close I'd say.

 

Also 1.5 DPS is definitely not negligable, that translates into quite some angles after a couple of turns. Hence why we care about so much about 0.1 G.

[GGTharos]

Let's not be petty. The Flanker, for example, is even more clearly below the official charts and nobody has seen the Hornet EM's here

 

The flanker, for example, is bang on for the charts and fuel configuration according to the manual. If there's some place where you can point out a discrepancy, post it in the bugs for FC3.

[HDpilot]

So I was pretty dang close I'd say.

Sure, like this one too:

400/0.60 = 6.25 G

 

Skysurfer looked up the timestamp on Paco's comments ....

Maybe was already been posted

https://hushkit.net/2020/03/16/flyin...ornet-veteran/

in any case, the cat vs hornet part is also interestig

 

"This was the only time I fought the Hornet with nothing on it. A slick Hornet was a BFM machine. I found it amazing that the removal of the centerline tank and the wing pylons would make such of difference, but it did. The Hornet accelerated much faster and its ability to fight in vertical was even more pronounced. To say the Tomcat, even a newer one with better engines, was at a disadvantage, would be an understatement."

[Hummingbird]

Sure, like this one too:

400/0.60 = 6.25 G

 

That's what it currently achieves in DCS...

 

Note the headline:

"DCS F-14B, 55,678 lbs, 4x AIM-9 + 4xAIM-7, Std. ICAO (15 deg C), Sea level (unlimited fuel):"

 

 

[SgtPappy]

I find it kinda funny how a former several thousand hour Tomcat driver can deem the flight model spot on and very accurate yet you have these forum monkeys bickering about their performance charts and 0.1dps deviation at mach 0.5. :lol:

 

I find it kinda funny that you wouldn't even make an attempt at understanding why. Many of us "monkeys" are competitive gamers so we fly merge after merge, endlessly to learn more and become better. We try to simulate ridiculous situations most pilots and even fewer non-pilots would ever see - this is in essence the experience of simulation. Doing things we could not really do in real life. After all, no pilots who are alive died 15 times in a row just to respawn and try again at a merge.

 

If there is an obvious difference in the flight model compared to the quantifiable charts, it's already proven beyond reasonable doubt which is all we can do if we didn't fly the thing in real life no matter the anecdote because anecdotes are subjective. Data is not.

 

Of course the SME's have authority and their opinions are a gold mine of information but "bang on" is subjective whether you're a real pilot or not and quantifiable data simply can't be disproven once the source is verified as reliable. Back in the day, a real pilot might have called the FC2 F-15 spot on - but it's worlds away from what we have today. It isn't surprising if we have built a subconscious bias towards what we see realistically "simulate-able" given the technology available. Furthermore how you (or any of us) take the anecdotal information adds further uncertainty.

 

I think other than the 0.1 - 0.5 G that the Tomcats are lacking, there's another thread showing that the Tomcats are highly discrepant in climb rates, especially making the F-14A very difficult to fly in the vertical. This argument in particular is a good example of anecdote vs. quantification. We've heard from many F-14 crew that the F-15A was stronger in the vertical than the F-14A, but others will not imply it as strongly. So what do we have to get a better idea? Quantifiable data. The issue that often occurs is when there is no data and ONLY anecdotes - how well do you think that goes? Yet if we have data and no anecdotes, well.. I think it's obvious which one you can actually use to create action.

 

Yes, there's more to BFM but when you're playing a GAME (i.e. SIM whatever you call it) - numbers mean a lot. When you program or use a virtual airplane - numbers are literally all you have.

[IronMike]

Please also don't forget that the subject of this topic has been fixed the very day after the last patch released, unfortunately we have to wait till the next patch, is all. :-)

[Biggus]

I don't suppose ED would be willing to maybe let a hotfix happen a little earlier than the 16th of December?

[HDpilot]

 

That's what it currently achieves in DCS...

 

Note the headline:

"DCS F-14B, 55,678 lbs, 4x AIM-9 + 4xAIM-7, Std. ICAO (15 deg C), Sea level (unlimited fuel):"

 

 

Yes, and pretty close, not to forget

 

The flanker, for example, is bang on for the charts and fuel configuration according to the manual. If there's some place where you can point out a discrepancy, post it in the bugs for FC3.

:D Everything happened very often, from me and many others, but that wasn't the point here

[Skysurfer]

I don't suppose ED would be willing to maybe let a hotfix happen a little earlier than the 16th of December?

 

They won't because they don't care.

[HDpilot]

I am personally interested in performance areas, wich are not directly shown in the charts. For example a clean configuration with 70% of fuel at sealevel.

Not meant as an affront:

Whether you agree with ED or not, but i wish that the 3rd parties would be similar "scientific" (like here https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.c...provements.pdf from time to time), if they let us take a look behind the scenes

[Hummingbird]

Yes, and pretty close, not to forget

 

0.25 G is beyond what is acceptable (it's quite some angles lost in a couple of turns), esp. when I know it can be spot on, because it was previously.

[Hummingbird]

Please also don't forget that the subject of this topic has been fixed the very day after the last patch released, unfortunately we have to wait till the next patch, is all. :-)

 

Exactly :thumbup: