Thank you very much for the test:
Since the chart didn’t quite cover 500kph and also interpolation isn’t perfect I took the time from 530 kph to 750 kph… theoretical time is 18.5 seconds, test time ~13.5 seconds… need to look it further when it’s less late but looks like we have a case…
Flagged for spam
I don’t see where you are getting the time to accelerate from the chart, is it more or less just the excess power /s added until it reaches the desired speed for datapoint?
Specific excess power is a fancy term (and way) to simply measure how much energy is gained in every infinitively small interval of time, in mathematical terms Specific excess power is the derivative of energy over time . The reasons it’s measured in m/s (or ft/s for freedom units) are:
It’s called Specific because the energy gain is divided by gravitational constant and aircraft mass (kinda like Ny is just normal force divided by mass and grav. constant).
All energy is assumed to be potential (energy is still energy and a part of the one indicated in the sep chart (as in our case since altitude is constant) could be kinetic, but the total amount doesn’t change whatever the composition of kinetic and potential is).
Gravitational potential energy formula: m\,g\,h .
This means that: SEP = \frac{\dfrac{d}{dt}m\,g\,h}{m\,g} = \dot h.
Now in our case all potential energy becomes kinetic, so I equal the two and take the derivative over time of both and equal them:
m\,g\,h = \dfrac{1}{2}\,m\,V^2
\dfrac{d}{dt}m\,g\,h = m\,g\,\dot h = m\,g\,SEP(V) and \dfrac{d}{dt} \dfrac{1}{2}\,m\,V^2 = m\,V\,\dot V
m\,g\,SEP(V) = m\,V\,\dot V
Then i change notation for the derivative of speed (acceleration) from (\dot V ) to \dfrac{dV}{dt} and then solve the diff. equation.
\dfrac{dV}{dt} = \dfrac{g}{V}\, SEP(V)
\displaystyle\int_{v_0}^{v_f} \dfrac{V}{SEP(V)}\;\mathrm{d}v = \displaystyle\int_{t_0}^{t_f} g\,\mathrm{d}t .
\dfrac{ \displaystyle\int_{v_0}^{v_f} \dfrac{V}{SEP(V)}\;\mathrm{d}v }{g} = t_f -t_0
I’ve interopolated SEP(v) from the chart and then let the computer solve the integral for me. (I’ve divided by 3.6 a couple of times because chart x axis is in kph and not in m/s). Then i divided by g to find time interval.
Edit:
The “g” under the integral here is the function g(x) above which is V/SEP(v) (x is speed and f(x) is SEP interpolation) and not “g” gravitational constant.
What are the implications of this in regards to the FM or making a report?
Significantly improved low speed sustained turn rate and energy retention
I would like a tech mods reaction to this, are we wasting our time still or will the devs be willing to adjust the FM based on this new information. If not, how many discrepancies must be found until they determine it is worthwhile? 5? 10? 20?
It would trade acceleration/energy gain in slight turns (and some low speed climb ability) for more energy retention when pulling hard
It is sad, Gaijin and bvvd being originally based out of Russia, I would imagine that they would want to take action as soon as possible to evaluate reports on inaccuracies on the Flanker.
We do not know where the current flight model devs are from, but they seem to be abhorrent as of late. Ever since the introduction of more modern fighters where their flight model is stretched to the limits - they have been quite awful.
It seems that the values for vehicles like MiG-29 and Su-27 are definitely on the lower end of matching their EM diagrams, while for vehicles like F-16, they are quite optimistic.
That’s why i don’t even get excited anymore when they announce a new plane, even if it’s an iconic one (like the su34 which is rumoured to be added on the next update), because it means more trash being accumulated, thus lowering the chances of fixing vehicles added on past updates.
They openly admitted the primary reason they don’t want to fix the F-5 series is because they are already “old FM’s”
how would that change things given the su34 also is a flanker? not to mention it follows the common theme of taking a decent successful air-frame add a ton of avionics strengthening the air-frame
and voila your turned your fighting into a cas bus
mig27 and mig29smt comes to mind
also the su34 comes with the luxury of 2 comrades sitting side by side
the su34 weights 37% more than the su27 if the Wikipedia numbers are accurate and brings more fuel
the gross weight of the su34 exceeds the maximum take of weight from the su27
Missing the point of his statement entirely only to ruin yours by making it clear that it will be an entirely different FM.
Things that surprise nobody for 500 please.
different yes but worse
its pretty much the mig29 vs mig29smt situation all over again the su34 might have a more instantaneous turn rate given the canards but the main problem people seam to have with the su27 which is energy preservation in turns, will get worse
Which again, means that they will likely continue to avoid fixing the FM’s.
conclusion they have to fix the flight models for su27 style aircraft or the su34 will be a total struggle bus like the su24m(which is also severely under-powered because it has the worst afterburner in the game despite having su17/su22m4 engines )
both afterburners provide has much extra trust has a single me262 engine enjoy
And so it will be a struggle bus
Statcard thrust is useless. Look at dynamics thrust engines get better at speed.
The su34’s performance doesn’t depend on the su-27 one because both will have completely different FMs, the differences between the su34 and the original flanker are much more relevant than the 9.13 and the SMT, which is basically the og fulcrum with more weight with little to 0 modifications on the airframe.
