12 minutes ago, mSparks said:

I could be wrong, pretty sure thats what M 2.0 means centre left the hud

You want to claim that is wrong, feel free to take your formula to Austin and prove it, I have no interest in reducing it thnx.

that shockwave must be deafening 😂

1 minute ago, snglecoil said:

Am I reading this correctly? The burden is on reality to disprove the simulation?!? Surely I’m misunderstanding this. 

Nope 😄

6 minutes ago, Doering said:

higher speeds are achieved with higher altitudes mainly due to the thinner atmosphere

IAS falls with altitude for the same groundspeed, top speed is in indicated air speed, So if your top speed is 1400kts IAS that is a lot lot faster over the ground at 40,000 feet (mach 2.44)  than 100 feet (mach 2.12). AIUI, dont care, to busy playing the best game in town.

Edited December 13, 20223 yr by mSparks

5 minutes ago, UKflyer said:

that shockwave must be deafening 😂

After playing with those speeds, I watched some videos of planes going supersonic, I was very disappointed that the sonic boom sounds more like a wet bottom burp.

But also, I have surely run up quite the expensive tab of new roof tops (and replacement jets) the last few days.

Edited December 13, 20223 yr by mSparks

13 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

Am I reading this correctly? The burden is on reality to disprove the simulation?!? Surely I’m misunderstanding this. 

If someone wants to claim the numbers are wrong, they need to demonstrate the numbers are wrong - "I don't like the answer" indeed wont cut it. 

If this was an aircraft I was concerned about accurately simulating, I would dig in and discuss, but tbh, I'm to busy enjoying it right now to do that, and also, it doesn't look meaningfully wrong to me at first glance, if its top speed is around 1400kts IAS, it should indeed be capable of Mach 2+ at sea level as far as I can tell.

Just saying.

Satellite true airspeed for the F-14B in DCS World at sea level is 866/M1.31

 

Edited December 13, 20223 yr by Doering

33 minutes ago, mSparks said:

IAS falls with altitude for the same groundspeed, top speed is in indicated air speed, So if your top speed is 1400kts IAS that is a lot lot faster over the ground at 40,000 feet (mach 2.44)  than 100 feet (mach 2.12). AIUI, dont care, to busy playing the best game in town.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing..."

4 minutes ago, Doering said:

in DSC

I presume you mean DCS.

And that isn't reliable a source. the F35 in

does more than mach 2, when we know for a fact in real life the current versions can't even go supersonic without ripping their tail fins off.

Edited December 13, 20223 yr by mSparks

@mSparks Yes, corrected in an edit! Gotta run now. Got to be some RL facts about top speed at sea level. Will search later unless someone beats me to it! 

9 hours ago, mSparks said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat

World Speed Record at Sea Level is (still) held by a modified F-104 Starfighter(!): 988 mph / M 1.29

According to NATOPS & several other sources, F-14B/D (X-Plane version) tops out at about M 1.15 - 1.2, plus or minus, at sea level.

@Doering

Edited December 13, 20223 yr by UrgentSiesta
tag

3 hours ago, mSparks said:

And [DCS] isn't reliable a source. the F35 does more than mach 2, when we know for a fact in real life the current versions can't even go supersonic without ripping their tail fins off.

Untrue.

The F-35 is a free, user-made mod that makes use of the F-15C Eagle module. So of course it flies as fast as an F-15...

In contrast, the Full Fidelity modules in DCS, like Tomcat, Falcon/Viper, Hornet, et al, are generally very close to IRL performance (e.g., the Tomcat info previously shared showing M1.3 @ sea level in-sim vs 1.2-ish IRL).

Even the "low systems fidelity" modules like the Eagle, Flanker(s), Fulcrums, et al, have high fidelity Professional Flight Models (ED's term).

The DCS vPilots are quite a picky crowd... 

@Doering

A flight simulator is so much more than only flight dynamics and scenery ... 😜

@UrgentSiesta Okay thanks for that! I thought DCS was a good source for fairly accurate speeds and now I know or shall I say, now WE all know!

6 hours ago, mSparks said:

1. its top speed is significantly more than mach 2.

2. yes I "simulated" more than mach 2 at very low altitude in the new Tomcat, if you want to stop that take your formula to Austin and make your case, me happy.

Since we have data for XP, DCS and IRL, I figured I'd do a quick speed run in the MSFS DC Designs Tomcat and Asobo's Super Hornet for comparison.

As @blingthinger gleefully reminds us, Asobo's Super Hornet isn't high fidelity, and most folks know the DC Designs Tomcat isn't, either.

Nevertheless, that's what we've got to work with, so...  

Results of max speed run @ sea level, live weather:

• DC Designs Tomcat: M 1.4 
• Asobo Super Hornet (ironically, also DC Designs): M 0.95
  • IRL figures are a bit higher, basically +/- M 1.00

Isn't it ironic that the "Xbox game" with the "ridiculous flight model" manages to be so much closer to reality than the scientific / engineering tool with the "court proof" flight model. 😂

Must be that MS bought off some government official for access to their seekrit "supersonics" data...

 

OK, folks, this thread has long since left the reservation w/r/t the OP/topic.  Time to move along.