Jump to content

Patch Dec 17th Feedback Thread


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, jojo said:


I’m not a Tomcat expert, but unloading at high altitude to go through transonic speed is quite common practice.

Watch this fun story, the pilot describes the same acceleration procedure.

 

Thanks for the vid', very interesting and funny. :) 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Intel I7 8700K / EVGA GTX 1080 / 32Go DDR4 PC21300 G.Skill Ripjaws V / MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon / Cooler Master Silent Pro Gold - 1000W / Noctua NH-D14 / Acer XB270HUDbmiprz 27" G-synch 144Hz / SSD Samsung 860EVO 250Go + 1To / Cooler Master HAF X / HOTAS Warthog / Thrustmaster TPR / Track-IR v5 + Track Clip Pro / Windows 10 64bits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You pm-ed me about what the turn rate would be - 16 seconds or 23 seconds, and I told you that it never was 23 seconds. If you have that tacview, which you didnt mention at all that you took that from

Thank you.   It is realistic (and will stay like that). SME input finally led us to discover the proper activation criteria. The 16s TTI was a crew rule of thumb, which we interpreted wrongl

Dear all, as always we want to offer a feedback thread for this patch. Our apologies again that we did not manage to include the campaign, it will be in the next patch, but you can download and p

4 hours ago, MBot said:

Trans-sonic performance of the F-14A still seems to be the same. Armed, the jet struggles to go supersonic in level flight.

 

I thought that has been fixed. Very disappointing to have to see this for another month.

 

  

 

Are you suggesting that this is the behaviour we should expect from the F-14A?

 

 

Yeah that is sorta strange. The B seems to now have similar issues of going fast...

 

4 hours ago, *Aquila* said:

It will be a short feedback. Due to the persistent failure in simulating its BVR armament, the F-14 is a rewarding ground attack aircraft in DCS, as soon as there's no air opponents or Hornet guys shot them down. It's also a pleasant toy to buzz all around the place and have some 1v1 ACM fun with a buddy. But it's not a BVR fighter, which is a problem as we're talking about the legendary F-14 Tomcat.

 

I've been one of the most enthusiastic guys about this module but sorry guys : the story is starting to look like the one of some of the most frustrating modules around here. When the Tomcat was released, anger was red hot against ED about the Hornet's development, and everybody who got their hand on the Cat felt reconciled with DCS and modern jet sims. As of today, that feeling is back in the Hornet's seat but fled far away from the Tomcat's ones.

 

Have to agree sadly, this year in particular has been a rough road to say the least. It doesn#t help that ED is taking over a year to get their missile API together, which, given the current AIM7 and AMRAAM performance still isn't even close to being done. Who even tests missile perf on the team?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, *Aquila* said:

It will be a short feedback. Due to the persistent failure in simulating its BVR armament, the F-14 is a rewarding ground attack aircraft in DCS, as soon as there's no air opponents or Hornet guys shot them down. It's also a pleasant toy to buzz all around the place and have some 1v1 ACM fun with a buddy. But it's not a BVR fighter, which is a problem as we're talking about the legendary F-14 Tomcat.

 

I've been one of the most enthusiastic guys about this module but sorry guys : the story is starting to look like the one of some of the most frustrating modules around here. When the Tomcat was released, anger was red hot against ED about the Hornet's development, and everybody who got their hand on the Cat felt reconciled with DCS and modern jet sims. As of today, that feeling is back in the Hornet's seat but fled far away from the Tomcat's ones.

 

 

While I appreciate any and all sorts of feedback - this is simply put, not helpful at this stage; especially in a patch that sees significant, dedicated BVR additions and improvements (TTI, TGT Size, Jester functionality and logic improvements, etc.). We desperately need details! I know it may sometime seem like it falls on deaf ears when we work silently in the background, but we do read and log most of everything. 

 

We see the F-14 performing appropriately and consistently in testing for the most part, which is what is most frustrating when feedback on similar points ends up being negative. Ultimately, we continue to add functionality when new data is available (the recent TTI and target size functionality is a great example of this), but it may seem like we ignore issues that we do not see or do not consider flaws.

 

While I don't want to go down the "user error" route - please make sure that you do always colour your issues with BvR capability through the lens of both understanding the system and it's capabilities appropriately, as well as what are core DCS issues and what can be attributed to the F-14 itself. The last point is especially poignant, as, for example, we've done nothing with chaff or ECM resistance in this patch, and yet it seems to be a recurring point of feedback this time around. That doesn't mean it's not an issue; but it needs to handled differently.

 

Hope this doesn't come off as too defensive; but it gets tiring hearing "The AIM-54/AWG-9 gets worse with every patch!" - when that is rarely the case from our perspectives, and often times when it is: it is a realistic function of the system and the way it works in reality. Communicating that better may be something we need to work on.

 

 

11 hours ago, monacoBMW said:

I've had some odd Phoenix behavior too after today's update. I've had multiple shots run out of energy from a target within 20 miles or so, which I've never had happen before unless I'm chasing a target - in these instances I was either head on or they were flanking. When I F6 them I can see them maneuver way more than the target is and thus bleed off a ton of speed in the process.

 

And then in two scenarios I've had the first Phoenix shot track while the second goes straight off into the nether even though it appears that Jester has both targets queued up correctly. They're either never tracking to begin with or lose lock by the time they go pitbull. I'm not exactly an expert on this but I've engaged two ships with Phoenixes numerous times and never had this happen before. I'll see if I can get a track of this. And yes, it's definitely possible that I'm just doing something wrong lol

 

edit: of course now I can't reproduce

 

 

Thanks for reporting. If you can reproduce, please make sure to detail parameters, situation, MP or SP- etc.  It would be most helpful.

 

That said- we have made no changes to ECM resistance or the FM of the AIM-54 in this patch.


Edited by Cobra847
  • Like 1

Nicholas Dackard

 

Founder & Lead Artist

Heatblur Simulations

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to post
Share on other sites

The accurate TTI display is a very nice addition. Other then that, I see no changes in PH performance (i.e. its good if you know how to use it).

What I really don't like is the tendency to introduce small bugs with every update without fixing them, like AoA indexer light test not working, start valve light not working, DLC not working on the ground, all these things used to work at some point.


Edited by sLYFa

i5-8600k @4.9Ghz, 2080ti , 32GB@2666Mhz, 512GB SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cobra847 said:

 

 

While I appreciate any and all sorts of feedback - this is simply put, not helpful; especially in a patch that sees significant, dedicated BVR additions and improvements (TTI, TGT Size, Jester functionality and logic improvements, etc.) and when it offers absolutely no detail.

 

We see the F-14 performing appropriately and consistently in testing - and ultimately, we continue to add functionality when new data is available (the recent TTI and target size functionality is a great example of this). 

 

While I don't want to go down the "user error" route - please make sure that you colour your issues with BvR capability through the lens of both understanding the system and it's capabilities appropriately, as well as what are core DCS issues and what can be attributed to the F-14 itself. The last point is especially poignant, as, for example, we've done nothing with chaff or ECM resistance in this patch, and yet it seems to be a recurring point of feedback this time around. 

 

Hope this doesn't come off as too defensive; but it gets tiring hearing "The AIM-54/AWG-9 gets worse with every patch!" - when that is rarely the case, and often times when it is: it is a realistic function of the system and the way it works in reality.

 

You read all that was written here about the AIM-7 and AIM-54 final tracking issues. You complain about the lack of details in my post? Well, dude, all is said: the plane is fantastic, flies like a charm, is a killer in ACM and in air to ground. The AWG-9 as of today is fantastic. The new Jester features are useful. But please, understand that when you use all that fantastic stuff in BVR and the missiles go stupid, it's frustrating. Especially when that happens with the AWG-9 at its best development status. The rifle is the best you can imagine, the sights are the most wonderful you can dream about but we shoot dud cartridges and it's frustrating.

 

User mistakes? Well, no. I think I'm quite a fine driver and RIO, who read a lot and flied a lot to do things correctly. I experience what others do experience with the AIM-54s and -7s while using them by the book. The -54s in TWS fly to the target until they go pitbull, which is when they become stupid. Even the AIM-7s which work fine when you launch them from a Hornet go nuts with the Tomcat.

 

What we get today is a wonderful plane wonderfuly modeled launching paper missiles. That's why I said it was fun in ACM, A/G and aerobatics but not in BVR. Well, as soon as shooting down stuff is the purpose of the operation.

 

No hard feeling, dude. I really love the plane and I stil consider it one of the best, probably even the best modern fighter model one can find in a civilian simulation. That's probably why the old die-hard trolls ruining both the AIM-7 and AIM-54 make the experience really frustrating.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Cobra847 said:

Thanks for reporting. If you can reproduce, please make sure to detail parameters, situation, MP or SP- etc.  It would be most helpful.

 

That said- we have made no changes to ECM resistance or the FM of the AIM-54 in this patch.

 

 

Other users are reporting midcourse guidance issues with the AIM-120 which sounds familiar to what I saw last night, and I remember hearing the AIM-54 uses the same guidance in the game. Can probably chalk this up to a core game issue especially if you guys didn't touch anything. Next time I see it happen I'll be sure to save the track just in case 👍

Thrustmaster T.16000M HOTAS - i7-9700K - MSI GTX 1060 6GB (waiting for a sale) - 32GB DDR4 - 2TB M.2 SSD - ASRock Z390 Pro4 - Corsair 275R

F/A-18C - F-14B - F-16C - Spitfire

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, *Aquila* said:

It will be a short feedback. Due to the persistent failure in simulating its BVR armament, the F-14 is a rewarding ground attack aircraft in DCS, as soon as there's no air opponents or Hornet guys shot them down. It's also a pleasant toy to buzz all around the place and have some 1v1 ACM fun with a buddy. But it's not a BVR fighter, which is a problem as we're talking about the legendary F-14 Tomcat.

 

I've been one of the most enthusiastic guys about this module but sorry guys : the story is starting to look like the one of some of the most frustrating modules around here. When the Tomcat was released, anger was red hot against ED about the Hornet's development, and everybody who got their hand on the Cat felt reconciled with DCS and modern jet sims. As of today, that feeling is back in the Hornet's seat but fled far away from the Tomcat's ones.

 

 

   I have no idea what you guys are talking about...I use the F-14 on a daily basis on the 104th server against very good competition. 90% of the time I'm flying just BVR air to air and I have no problem. The radar and aim-54 work now and they worked mostly fine before this patch with the exception of the RWR warning problem. I have said this before but it remains true that most of the complaints come from operator error. Your missile is not going to hit every time, just like aim-120s don't hit all (most) of the time, but if you think the F-14 is not good at BVR...I'm afraid you may be living in an alternate universe.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all I wanted to say that I admire and understand how complicated it is to develop an aircraft as complex as the F-14 but as previously reported, the Aim-54 is not working correctly according to what I have read and studied about the missile, in shots where the missile should do the LOFT it simply makes a straight path towards the target (for example in the photo that I am posting in a 35 nm launch at practically equal altitudes with the target illuminated on the radar in tws mode until the supposed impact time) I believe that the way the missile behaves until the terminal guidance is broken somehow there are times when it tries to climb but it looks like he is "fighting" with himself to stay on a straight path.

Screenshot_20201218-161115.png


Edited by Katsu
Grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cat crews still seem to think The A is a Hornet I think, I'm still getting the "raise launch bar" hand signal after hooking up.

"These are NOT 1 to 1 replicas of the real aircraft, there are countless compromises made on each of them" - Senior ED Member

 

Modules - Damn near all of them

System - i7-8700K, 32Gig DDR4 RAM, GTX-1080Ti, 3 32" monitors at 5760 x 1080, default settings of High (minor tweaks)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of my first quick impressions on the FM changes.

 

The F-14A turn rate feels better. I have been flying the dogfight quickmission against the Israeli F-15C a lot and it is now noticeable easier to out-turn.

 

Trans-sonic performance is still bloody awful. This is very disappointing.

 

Fuelflow and power settings for the F-14A in the pattern and the groove are now higher and feel a lot more reasonable. 4000 PPH seems to be the baseline power setting for on-speed in the downwind. With the higher power, managing AOA and the ball in the groove became a lot more easier again. Over the past month I had considerable trouble with flying good approaches, which I felt was because of the unusually low fuel flow. Now I just flew a couple of very nice approaches with rock solid AOA and a fine ball control. The Tomcat feels great in the groove again and I am very pleased with it.

 

Screen_201218_221021.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, IronMike said:

tacview, video, etc. helps greatly here.

Yes I completely understand. The problem is, I tried to make tracks but they are so buggy and useless: I flew an IA mission where the Phoenix doesn't even go near the target, so I quit the mission, saved the track and decided to watch the replay, only to see the Phoenix go for a perfect Bullseye (while the mission debriefing clearly shows the missile didn't hit).

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600MHz CL16 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 960Pro NVMe 1TB | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | TM Warthog (with custom spring, 10 cm extension, custom TDC, replacement pinky switch) on Wheelstand Pro | TPR rudder pedals

My in-game DCS settings (PD 1.0 SteamSS 76%):

EduSYaK.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Yes I completely understand. The problem is, I tried to make tracks but they are so buggy and useless: I flew an IA mission where the Phoenix doesn't even go near the target, so I quit the mission, saved the track and decided to watch the replay, only to see the Phoenix go for a perfect Bullseye (while the mission debriefing clearly shows the missile didn't hit).

 

If you like, share the mission and I can try it.

 

 

18 minutes ago, MBot said:

Trans-sonic performance is still bloody awful. This is very disappointing.


I wouldn't be aware that it is off (minus that engine fire bug). In what way does it seem off to you? Or could you be over-expecting performance from the TF-30s? She's defo a lot more sluggish, when comparing to the B.


Edited by IronMike

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/

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, IronMike said:

I wouldn't be aware that it is off (minus that engine fire bug). In what way does it seem off to you? Or could you be over-expecting performance from the TF-30s? She's defo a lot more sluggish, when comparing to the B.

 

This is just a very quick and dirty test. Spawn at Mach 0.9 at 30'000 ft and measure time to accelerate in level flight.

 

First column loadout 4-4-0, second column loadout 2-2-2, third column louadout 2-2-4. Spawn at full fuel, no fuel tanks.

 

Mach 0.9: 0:00 - 0:00 - 0:00

Mach 1.0: 0:38 - 0:43 - 0:58

Mach 1.1: 1:57 - 2:34 - 10:01

Mach 1.2: 2:59 - 4:03 - 12:19

Mach 1.3: 3:40 - 4:55 - X                     (2-2-4 out of fuel)

Mach 1.4: 4:06 - 5:26

Mach 1.5: 4:29 - 5:52

Mach 1.6: 4:52 - 6:19

Mach 1.7: 5:20 - 6:52

Mach 1.8: 6:14 - 8:28                           (2-2-2 topspeed)

Mach 1.84: ~8:00                                 (4-4-0 topspeed)

 

 

Now I am no expert and don't have the manual, but 4 minutes to move 2 Phoenix from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.2 sounds excessive.

 

Also it has been my understanding that somewhere around Mach 1, the TF30 is about as powerful as the F110. So I wonder why supersonic performance of the A is so much worse than the B.


Edited by MBot
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, IronMike said:

If you like, share the mission and I can try it.

I accidentally overwrote that first track, but here are 2 more (both exhibit the same problem of the track replay being different from what actually happened). I hope they are somewhat useful:

- in the SoH IA mission I ended the mission after both Phoenixes missed;
- in the Syria one the first Phoenix connected, the 2nd and 3rd missed, so I shot the 2nd MiG with a Sparrow.

Phoenix_SoH_1.trk Phoenix_Syria_1.trk

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600MHz CL16 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 960Pro NVMe 1TB | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | TM Warthog (with custom spring, 10 cm extension, custom TDC, replacement pinky switch) on Wheelstand Pro | TPR rudder pedals

My in-game DCS settings (PD 1.0 SteamSS 76%):

EduSYaK.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MBot said:

 

This is just a very quick and dirty test. Spawn at Mach 0.9 at 30'000 ft and measure time to accelerate in level flight.

 

First column loadout 4-4-0, second column loadout 2-2-2, third column louadout 2-2-4. Spawn at full fuel, no fuel tanks.

 

Mach 0.9: 0:00 - 0:00 - 0:00

Mach 1.0: 0:38 - 0:43 - 0:58

Mach 1.1: 1:57 - 2:34 - 10:01

Mach 1.2: 2:59 - 4:03 - 12:19

Mach 1.3: 3:40 - 4:55 - X                     (2-2-4 out of fuel)

Mach 1.4: 4:06 - 5:26

Mach 1.5: 4:29 - 5:52

Mach 1.6: 4:52 - 6:19

Mach 1.7: 5:20 - 6:52

Mach 1.8: 6:14 - 8:28                           (2-2-2 topspeed)

Mach 1.84: ~8:00                                 (4-4-0 topspeed)

 

 

Now I am no expert and don't have the manual, but 4 minutes to move 2 Phoenix from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.2 sounds excessive.

 

Also it has been my understanding that somewhere around Mach 1, the TF30 is about as powerful as the F110. So I wonder why supersonic performance of the A is so much worse than the B.

 



This looks like a stores drag issue. We test performance clean, because we have no influence on stores drag in DCS. We will investigate, thanks! (We do test stores as well, for different needs, turn performance, etc, too... but generally performance gets tweaked against a clean ac ofc)

 

2 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

I accidentally overwrote that first track, but here are 2 more (both exhibit the same problem of the track replay being different from what actually happened). I hope they are somewhat useful:

- in the SoH IA mission I ended the mission after both Phoenixes missed;
- in the Syria one the first Phoenix connected, the 2nd and 3rd missed, so I shot the 2nd MiG with a Sparrow.

Phoenix_SoH_1.trk 794.12 kB · 1 download Phoenix_Syria_1.trk 1.52 MB · 1 download



If the tracks a borked, you can send me the mission instead, and I will refly it.


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

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/

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, IronMike said:

If the tracks a borked, you can send me the mission instead, and I will refly it.

They are the included Instant Action missions for the F-14B, the SoH and Syria versions 😉 Sending you those would be silly 😛

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600MHz CL16 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 960Pro NVMe 1TB | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | TM Warthog (with custom spring, 10 cm extension, custom TDC, replacement pinky switch) on Wheelstand Pro | TPR rudder pedals

My in-game DCS settings (PD 1.0 SteamSS 76%):

EduSYaK.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

They are the included Instant Action missions for the F-14B, the SoH and Syria versions 😉 Sending you those would be silly 😛

 

 

Gosh I wonder who made them... 😆 Indeed haha. Thanks again, bud!

  • Haha 1

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/

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, IronMike said:



This looks like a stores drag issue. We test performance clean, because we have no influence on stores drag in DCS. We will investigate, thanks!

 

Yes, with the FM we can only worry about things we have control over, and that's clean performance and ext fuel tank or pod drag. We're going to look at the stores drag we can control, but any missile or bomb drag we have no control over so for any missile or bomb-heavy loadouts, all bets are off, unfortunately. I only test with clean loadouts or the lowest stores drag loadouts that we have data for, other loadouts are just not worth the time they would take to test. Drag and thrust tuning is still WIP now that our SME has had more time in the F-14A which he's more familiar with as opposed to the B which he never flew. We are working on airframe drag changes for both A and B, but tuning is very time consuming as airframe drag changes require a re-tune of both engine's thrust models in order to restore level flight acceleration tests (and therefore specific excess power, etc). Then once you've done that, you have to go back and check airframe drag again, then re-tune engine, etc, etc... That's what takes so long. FWIW, the F-14B level flight acceleration tests are spot-on more or less across the board with a 4SW/4SP loadout, no tanks.

 

The slow transonic acceleration people are noting here is most likely from stores, the F-14A needs to be unloaded slightly to about 0.5G to help push through the transonic region, especially if you have stores. A clean F-14A will hit a wall around 0.92 at MIL power, even in a slight dive. Once you get through about 1.2, acceleration will increase and you can go back to level flight. This drag is still be adjusted as noted above, but we can really only tune against clean airframe performance since it's what we have control over.


Edited by fat creason

Systems Engineer & FM Modeler

Heatblur Simulations

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, IronMike said:

This looks like a stores drag issue. We test performance clean, because we have no influence on stores drag in DCS. We will investigate, thanks! (We do test stores as well, for different needs, turn performance, etc, too... but generally performance gets tweaked against a clean ac ofc)

 

For completeness, here is the comparison of level acceleration at 30'000 ft between clean F-14A and F-14B:

 

Mach 0.9: 0:00 - 0:00

Mach 1.0: 0:26 - 0:15

Mach 1.1: 1:00 - 0:29

Mach 1.2: 1:26 - 0:42

Mach 1.3: 1:46 - 0:55

Mach 1.4: 2:02 - 1:07

Mach 1.5: 2:15 - 1:19

Mach 1.6 2:29 - 1:32

Mach 1.7: 2:44 - 1:49

Mach 1.8: 3:04 - 2:13

Mach 1.9: 3:31 - 3:41          (B topspeed)

Mach 2.0: 4:34 - X             (A topspeed)

 

The A still looks very sluggish in the trans-sonic area. Is the difference to the B really supposed to be this large? Shouldn't thrust of the TF30 catch up at this point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MBot said:

 

For completeness, here is the comparison of level acceleration at 30'000 ft between clean F-14A and F-14B:

 

Mach 0.9: 0:00 - 0:00

Mach 1.0: 0:26 - 0:15

Mach 1.1: 1:00 - 0:29

Mach 1.2: 1:26 - 0:42

Mach 1.3: 1:46 - 0:55

Mach 1.4: 2:02 - 1:07

Mach 1.5: 2:15 - 1:19

Mach 1.6 2:29 - 1:32

Mach 1.7: 2:44 - 1:49

Mach 1.8: 3:04 - 2:13

Mach 1.9: 3:31 - 3:41          (B topspeed)

Mach 2.0: 4:34 - X             (A topspeed)

 

The A still looks very sluggish in the trans-sonic area. Is the difference to the B really supposed to be this large? Shouldn't thrust of the TF30 catch up at this point?



For me this doenst look out of the norm, but this is a question best for @fat creason to answer.

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/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to say I too am getting a very low hit % in TWS with the Phoenixes, both A & C.

 

Been using Kabas Cage the Bear campaign and the Southern Watch missions (ergo, single player) that shipped with the F-14, and thus far have only a 25% hit rate against fighters launched ~co-alt and 0.8-1.0 mach and ranges 20-25nm. This compares to ~75% prior to the new API.

 

Watching some of the missiles in they do not appear to be making much/enough mid course corrections when under datalink command - thus when they do go pitbull the target is often wide of their radar cone or so far to the limits the missile is obliged to pull massive g and bleed it's remaining airspeed to pull it's nose on to interception course and is subsequently defeated kinematic-ally.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fat creason said:

We are working on airframe drag changes for both A and B, but tuning is very time consuming as airframe drag changes require a re-tune of both engine's thrust models in order to restore level flight acceleration tests (and therefore specific excess power, etc).

Yeah, different nozzle and fairing of stabilizer actuator, different drag.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2020 at 10:23 PM, IronMike said:

weird Swordsman. might have something glitched up during the update...
 

 

The thing is, it isn't necessary a direction. To put that in words would increase the patchlog length tenfold at times, it is a bunch of values in tables, functions etc that get adjusted, which doesn't always result in a visible directional change for one, for the other is often adjusted to make something feel more correctly, due to SME input, etc... And feel equally is hard to be described unless you use paragraphs full of words. Lastly, some things we do not want to disclose.

If the change describes a clear directional change of a felt value, then it is usually mentioned, like here:

"Slightly reduced transonic airframe drag"

Hope that makes sense. 🙂

 

Frustrating as buggery but thanks for the reply lol

7700k @5ghz, 32gb 3200mhz ram, 2080ti, nvme drives, valve index vr

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • IronMike unpinned and locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...