The planes need more ooommmph.

[holmesksp]

while I liked the look of the new bird I have to say that the thing I was underwhelmed by was the speed and sense of speed. it was something that I had noticed in the AV-42c but I chalked that upto it being a multirole passenger aircraft not unlike a V-22 IRL. But in the F/A 26 I expect to be jetting around. Most jets of that type irl have a max speed of 1.2-2.5 mach(or ~900-2500mph). The highest I could manage in a test flight I did was ~380 m/s or roughly~840. Now granted those higher maches are only acheived at higher altitudes but still I would like to see the F/A go faster.
The other thing to go along with this is the lack of increased acceleration when afterburners are applied. I feel like when I go from 100%(normal throttle) to engaging afterburners I should notice that more than a gradual increase in speed(no more than going from 80-100%) and increased fuel burn. I obviously haven't flown in a fighter jet but I feel like there would be some judder and some sudden feeling of increased acceleration and being pressed into your seat. I overall don't feel like the sense of speed is that good atm as when flying at 380 m/s I didn't feel like I was going that fast(I fly x-plane and fsx) maybe marginally faster than a beechcraft at full clip which is ~200kts. I don't know how exactly to fix that besides increasing the speeds or acceleration some but nonetheless that is my opinion.
I want to feel like I am flying around the island with my hair on fire!
Also feel that the F/a could be a bit more manuevable...

[JEL]

I just did my first test-flight and I got her up to 800 knots at low altitude before I chickened out from fear the wings would burn off... She's VERY fast!

Not even the StarFighter goes 800 knots.

[holmesksp]

Not really that fast. F16s can do 900kts at sea level and closer to 1500-2000 at higher altitudes. Tested FA 26 at 16000 ft and it did the same 800 either way for me the sense of speed makes it feel not that much faster than the 42c. At the very least make it so there is a jump in thrust at the afterburner point. in real life when you engage AB you would go from putting out say 5000 pounds of thrust to 5500-6000 in that little change in throttle when going from 100% to 101%. With the current implementation when you engage AB and go from 100% to 101% you gain 1% more thrust.

[holmesksp]

Also the Starfighter could hit 1400kts...

[JEL]

I think you're mixing up indicated air-speed with ground-speed ;)

[holmesksp]

Probably now that you mention it(where can I see GS as I now assume the HUD shows IAS?) but still my arguement still stands that the acceleration bump from engaging the afterburners needs to be much larger.

[JEL]

Good question.
I think indicated airspeed (IAS) is the only option in the cockpit. So to find the ground-speed (GS) you probably need to fly time-trials at various altitudes.
Sounds like a fun experiment to do :)

[holmesksp]

but do we have any known distance landmarks?

[CMDRZOD]

Originally posted by holmesksp:

but do we have any known distance landmarks?

With the mission editor now in place finding distance should be possible.

[JEL]

I have not yet tried the mission-editor, but for a quick and dirty test you could perhaps use the distance-to-target on the pod-camera?

It won't be completely precise of course, since you will have altitude differences, but perhaps good enough to hint at what the possible max ground-speeds are?

At 800 knots ground-speed you should traverse about 13.3 nautical miles in 1 minute.

[Deadman]

Regarding flying time trials you could go about it by placing GPS waypoints and flying towards them