Jump to content

F-14B acceleration correct?


Donut

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

Makes me chuckle to recall that we had a Level D 757 simulator, certified by the FAA, that would track straight down the runway while you yawed it ±20º from centerline. Took about a decade and a half to address it in a multimillion dollar upgrade, which included a new visual, and it still wasn’t quite right. Good enough for flight training.

 

Must say, I’ve never heard anyone so interested in taxi before.

 

Sometimes it's easy to forget that there's a difference between a $60 game and a $15,000,000 trainer, and that even the $15,000,000 trainer has flaws.

  • Like 1

Systems Engineer & FM Modeler

Heatblur Simulations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hummingbird said:

 

Because it records the actual movement of the aircraft in the simulation.

 

Really? Actual movement of what? Do you understand the calculations required to simulate KIAS? Have you verified it is accurate or is this essentially a guess?

 

I have been testing on a standard day over the past week, in a mission with zero weather and no winds. About 30% of the time, I had wind velocities up to 122 knots. Where did that come from?

 

The point is to put the egos aside and get the model correct.  

  • Like 1

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maxthrust said:

 

Well there is no need to look up any charts in the case of -14 as you admitted HB still did not implement the fixes introduced by ED long time ago. In other words, no work is done on this issue or planned for foreseeable future as it is not a priority for HB. All -14 owners to overlook this and fly happy & merry until further notice 🙂 

 

This answered my question. I might bug you again in 6 months, but I will leave you happy and proud with what you have to offer for the time being.

 

He’s got a point. We’re a bunch of dupes to partake of this sim because of taxi rolling performance. Maybe iRacing would sell DCS their tire model? Of course they’ve been mewling about that for a dozen years over there too!

 

Does the directional stability issues on the F5, F18, P51, P47, FW190, Bf109 bother you at all? The F16 flies like an A320, but at least it rolls at idle thrust. At least I think it does. I just do whatever it takes to get to the runway, which isn’t something I do very often anyway. I don’t want any more taxi time.

  • Like 6

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, the complaints while valid seem incredibly odd. Admire the devs putting up with inane criticism.

  • Like 2

Ryzen 5800x@5Ghz | 96gb DDR4 3200Mhz | Asus Rx6800xt TUF OC | 500Gb OS SSD + 1TB Gaming SSD | Asus VG27AQ | Trackhat clip | VPC WarBRD base | Thrustmaster stick and throttle (Deltasim minijoystick mod).

 

F14 | F16 | AJS37 | F5 | Av8b | FC3 | Mig21 | FW190D9 | Huey

 

Been playing DCS from Flanker 2.0 to present 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Maxthrust said:

did not implement the fixes introduced by ED long time ago.

 

What would those be exactly, since you seem to have specific knowledge of this? The ground handling is a math model that's unique to every aircraft and must be done via an interface provided by ED, meaning super custom ground handling is not exactly possible. We have to work within the bounds ED has provided when it comes to ground interactions (as well as hook physics btw, which meant that hook skipping and missed traps weren't even possible for 3rd parties until this week, but somehow it's HB's fault that it's not already on the F-14). It would extremely naïve to think that all we do is just copy and paste a fix from ED and that's it. ED does not send out a weekly missive to the 3rd parties telling them what got changed in the past week or how DCS changes will impact us.

 

29 minutes ago, Maxthrust said:

no work is done on this issue or planned for foreseeable future as it is not a priority for HB.


I have no idea how you can arrive at this conclusion if you read my posts above. We can't fix everyone's pet issues all at the same time. If everything has high priority, then nothing does. If you can't have priorities nothing will get done in a timely manner. This is literally project management 101. Maybe you've never worked on a complex project before. It's just unfortunate for you that the priorities of a vast majority of DCS users and developers don't exactly match yours.  Ground handling is probably the very next thing I'll look at after the in-air FM changes, so saying it's not something we care about is simply BS.


Edited by fat creason
  • Like 11

Systems Engineer & FM Modeler

Heatblur Simulations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fat creason said:

ED does not send out a weekly missive to the 3rd parties telling them what got changed in the past week

To be fair, I suspect this would be really good for the sim. At least 3rd parties could anticipate weird bugs (like the lighting drama back during 2.5.6) more effectively.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, fat creason said:

 

What would those be exactly? The ground handling is a math model that's unique to every aircraft. It would extremely naïve to think that all we do is just copy and paste a fix from ED and that's it. ED does not send out a weekly missive to the 3rd parties telling them what got changed in the past week or how DCS changes will impact us.

 


I have no idea how you can arrive at this conclusion if you read my posts above. We can't fix everyone's pet issues all at the same time. If everything has high priority, then nothing does. If you can't have priorities nothing will get done in a timely manner. This is literally project management 101. Maybe you've never worked on a complex project before. It's just unfortunate for you that the priorities of a vast majority of DCS users and developers don't exactly match yours.  Ground handling is probably the very next thing I'll look at after the in-air FM changes, so saying it's not something we care about is simply BS.


 

 

A lot of engineering and project management talk here. Alienating customers galore.

 

Let's talk again when you actually do something about it, until then I leave you with your FS-98 flight model 🙂


Edited by Maxthrust
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Sometimes it's easy to forget that there's a difference between a $60 game and a $15,000,000 trainer, and that even the $15,000,000 trainer has flaws.
But as you well know developing those systems have their own set of challenges. You can get away with stuff just by saying "don't do this or that or the application will crash", but you also have to fulfill sometimes ridiculous requirements that someone dreamed up with their behinds.

Anyway, I would like to see new ground physics, but I certainly agree with your priorities. In the meantime I'll just land on the boat, lol.

I'm sorry I got carried away from the subject of acceleration. I'm really looking forward to the FM corrections.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Maxthrust said:

Alienating customers galore.

I'm not sure the plural is warranted here

4 minutes ago, Maxthrust said:

until then I leave you with your FS-98 flight model

I'm also not sure of who is doing the alienating at this point

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

 

He’s got a point. We’re a bunch of dupes to partake of this sim because of taxi rolling performance. Maybe iRacing would sell DCS their tire model? Of course they’ve been mewling about that for a dozen years over there too!

 

Does the directional stability issues on the F5, F18, P51, P47, FW190, Bf109 bother you at all? The F16 flies like an A320, but at least it rolls at idle thrust. At least I think it does. I just do whatever it takes to get to the runway, which isn’t something I do very often anyway. I don’t want any more taxi time.

 

Afaik DCS is the only consumer sim that allows modelling supersonic flight. Directional stability is a limiting factor in F-16 and modelled nicely. Static and dynamic rolling friction is a much simpler issue to tackle imo. 

3 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

I'm not sure the plural is warranted here

I'm also not sure of who is doing the alienating at this point

 

Just wait until you get told to have pet issues or nitpicking their shiny -14. Don't ever try to raise the bar, you might get pushback from fanboys 🙂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Maxthrust said:

Afaik DCS is the only consumer sim that allows modelling supersonic flight.

 

If you turn down the OAT in MSFS 2020 you can take a CJ4 supersonic (LOL), but I guess we're the ones with the "FS-98 flight model" 🙂

 

Also if you think good/realistic ground interactions in flight simulations are not complex, you're insanely naïve. They're often more complex than the FM in many regards.


Edited by fat creason
  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1

Systems Engineer & FM Modeler

Heatblur Simulations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Maxthrust said:

A lot of engineering and project management talk here.

 

When the discussion directly involves engineering and project management, it seems appropriate, does it not? If you feel "alienated" even before talking numbers and having technical discussions, how can we have any meaningful conversion about problems with a mathematical model of an airplane?


Edited by fat creason
  • Like 7

Systems Engineer & FM Modeler

Heatblur Simulations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s the low speed directional stability that is poorly modeled in most modules. There is a lot missing that only HB has addressed, but some level of familiarity with aircraft handling is required to appreciate. It’s understandable that people focus on minutia like taxi or lighting, they don’t have the background to understand the magic. What isn’t acceptable is the attitude from too many people. Some folks just enjoy conflict and misery.

 

How do you know if the F16 is accurately modeled? The factual answer is you don’t, and are engaging in a Mk One Mod Zero trolling expedition. Don’t waste my time further.

  • Like 13

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Maxthrust said:

 

A lot of engineering and project management talk here. Alienating customers galore.

 

Let's talk again when you actually do something about it, until then I leave you with your FS-98 flight model 🙂

 

 

You're not helping anyone with responses like that Maxthrust...

 

8 hours ago, Victory205 said:

 

Really? Actual movement of what? Do you understand the calculations required to simulate KIAS? Have you verified it is accurate or is this essentially a guess?

 

I have been testing on a standard day over the past week, in a mission with zero weather and no winds. About 30% of the time, I had wind velocities up to 122 knots. Where did that come from?

 

The point is to put the egos aside and get the model correct.  

 

Not sure why I would have any ego in this? All I want is for the performance to be modelled correctly.

 

I use the Ctrl + Y infobar because I was asked to use this in the past by the ED developers when testing aircraft to get an accurate reading. So do I trust it's accurate? Yes I do.


Edited by Hummingbird
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
A lot of engineering and project management talk here. Alienating customers galore.
 
Let's talk again when you actually do something about it, until then I leave you with your FS-98 flight model

Okay, this is just bullcrap and obvious trolling. The *flight model* is one of the best in DCS. It’s *because* HB’s quality standard is so high on the flight model that the taxi model has taken lower priority. Instead of doing what they’re doing to capture the feel and still hit all the numbers with continuous effort on refinements, they could have easily said “good enough, now just turn down the wheel friction or something”.

To compare the F-14 to the community A4 is a joke. As nice as the effort is, the A4’s flight model immediately feels simplistic and arcadey compared to the F-14. If that is your golden standard and you’re happier with it just because it rolls around the tarmac a bit better, I don’t think it’s HB who has has a funny definition of quality and their bar set a bit too low.
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Maxthrust said:

 

 

Let's talk again when you actually do something about it, until then I leave you with your FS-98 flight model 🙂

 

From what I red from you it really shows how much you know about FM's and developing. It'd be better if you don't come back as you'll just end up wasting everyones time.

 

---

 

I surely think the sticky wheels will be adressed at some point but it's not really that much of a bother that it takes away the rest of what the F14 has to offer (besides I take off from the boat whenever possible) that it takes a high priority imo, there's other stuff I much rather see adressed first that I believe will come in due time and when it's ready to be added.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deep breath, everyone. Creason and Victory are here to give honest takes on a very very complex area of development. There's no mincing of words, so enter the fray at your own risk 🙂

As creason mentioned; ground friction is on the list. Hoping we can get to it soonest but suspension modeling is very difficult and it gets even more complex when carriers are involved. This is not a harp on DCS, ED nor is it an excuse; simply a statement of fact as pertains to engineering difficulty. It hasn't been a high priority as there have been other uglies and some core functionality missing still (like the hook!)


Edited by Cobra847
  • Like 6

Nicholas Dackard

 

Founder & Lead Artist

Heatblur Simulations

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cobra847 said:

Deep breath, everyone. Creason and Victory are here to give honest takes on a very very complex area of development. There's no mincing of words, so enter the fray at your own risk 🙂

As creason mentioned; ground friction is on the list. Hoping we can get to it soonest but suspension modeling is very difficult and it gets even more complex when carriers are involved. This is not a harp on DCS, ED nor is it an excuse; simply a statement of fact as pertains to engineering difficulty. It hasn't been a high priority as there have been other uglies and some core functionality missing still (like the hook!)

 

 

What about the FM with one wing blown off? Is that not the most exciting one? 😉

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...taxi speed is on the list of gripes now? Is this really something people care about?

 

Yeah, I get that we all want our Tomcat to be as dead on as possible, but this seems a little on the unimportant side. I'm happy as long as the plane starts moving after bump the throttles forward. I couldn't care less if it's too fast or too slow. I point it down the runway and go have fun.

Can't pretend fly as well as you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nexus-6 said:

So...taxi speed is on the list of gripes now? Is this really something people care about?

 

Yeah, I get that we all want our Tomcat to be as dead on as possible, but this seems a little on the unimportant side. I'm happy as long as the plane starts moving after bump the throttles forward. I couldn't care less if it's too fast or too slow. I point it down the runway and go have fun.

 

It for sure isn't a top priority and should come after all the important issues but it's till an issue. And it's not just taxi speeds, not at all even. It's power required to start moving and keep moving as well as the tire drag causing an absurdly short landing distance with no use of brakes as well as extending the required takeoff distance by quite a bit. It's also the fact that this was reported in the first week after release (more than two years ago at this point) and is yet to be addressed among other much more important issues. It's just thet people don't want to wait 5 years for a module to be fully polished or the issues/bugs they reported to be addressed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn’t extend the takeoff distance. Wonder why? It’s almost like, I dunno, someone did something to make the peanut butter and jelly come out even?

 

What is the landing distance for say, a 45,000 F14A using normal braking, zero wind, standard day? How about max braking?

 

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

Doesn’t extend the takeoff distance. Wonder why? It’s almost like, I dunno, someone did something to make the peanut butter and jelly come out even?

 

What is the landing distance for say, a 45,000 F14A using normal braking, zero wind, standard day? How about max braking?

 

 

Don't have the 14A specific charts for max and norm braking but for the B/D (assuming RATS has the same ground idle thrust as the TF30) it's  around 2300' with max braking (full flaps and dlc) and just shy of 3000' for normal braking and no headwind. The real issue is in DCS you get even shorter distances with no wheel brakes at all (just stick to dick for aero braking). I'll record a couple sample videos with spoiler brake on/off and antiskid on/off etc. later at Nellis for a comparison. 


Edited by Skysurfer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skysurfer said:

 (assuming RATS has the same ground idle thrust as the TF30)  

RATS only activates with hook down and WonW and reduces Mil thrust of the F110 to that of the TF-30.

 

Idle power should be no factor for both engines assuming the nozzles are open (which the F110 delays 5s after touchdown unlike the TF-30)


Edited by sLYFa
  • Like 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’ll need to provide OAT, Pressure Altitude, Gross weight, CG, flap position, mil or max (I recommend FF and Mil for granularity) and rotation speed for takeoff distance.

 

Landing distance assumes speed brakes and spoilers extended, DLC in use, 15 unit approach AOA, anti-skid on, but do not include aerodynamic braking using the stabilators. Add 40% for no speed brakes no spoilers.

  • Like 1

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...