Aircraft accelleration in CMO is over the top

[Blast33]

I am currious about your thoughts on this topic:

I know the F-104 is a rocket, but in CMO it goes ballistic So do other aircraft!
Based on data of @BaA43A3aHY on X or @baa43a3ahy.bsky.social on Blusky I tested some aircraft acceleration in CMO and compared it to the charts and they where of the charts .

See this tabel for some comparison:

Clipboard_09-13-2026_01.jpg (23.89 KiB) Viewed 828 times

The F-104A is at first, in accelleration 800% quicker than the data and it sorts out to 400% quicker.
I took only one measurement with the F-4B but this was 950 % quicker thand the data. And you can see the data for the MiG-23.

First I took this up with PygmalionOfCyprus/cmo-db-requests. He said: This actually isn't something we can really fix in the DB, I think. We don't have an acceleration value that we put in. We can modify some engine stats to adjust thrust, but I think acceleration rates are determined in-sim by some combination of values. Maybe worth posting over on the forums as a discussion?

You can check some accelleration data on https://x.com/BaA43A3aHY/status/2095869209527943579 (sometimes new ones are in replies from old posts...) or on Blusky: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:ojubhe ... z3ntiii7ws


Below extra some data from newer aircraft. In CMO the F-16 accellerates from 0.9M - M1,2 in 6 sec, but in the charts it takes 30 seconds. a 500% increase!
So here we are.What do you think. Is it worthwile for a mod?

Accellration newer types.jpg (339.82 KiB) Viewed 828 times

[Blast33]

See also this one:

HOyiKVeWUAA_MLj.jpg (481.82 KiB) Viewed 823 times

[Dimitris]

Interesting. I wish you had posted this on Tech Support

(Moved to Tech Support)

[Blast33]

My father said, good things always come late
I appreciate you want to take a look at it

[SunlitZelkova]

Aircraft flight performance modeling could use a general overhaul at some point, especially if the devs ever plan to do a WWII update (or spinoff) of CMO. There is currently no piston engine model (all prop aircraft have turboprops) and a lot of early (-1965) Cold War prop aircraft seem to have wonky engines (for example, the Be-6 has the turboprop engines of its successor, the Be-12, even though it had radial piston engines).

This is perhaps related to your observations about acceleration, but the way engines seem to be modeled generally also prevents accurate representation of flight performance. Take the MiG-17 (not the F variant). It uses the same engine as the MiG-15bis, but it has meaningfully different flight performance (including making it faster) because of new wings, a lengthened fuselage and other changes. But if it is given the VK-1, that is automatically gonna limit it to the same top speed as the MiG-15bis, because the engine dictates top speed. It could be given the VK-1F (indeed that is what it has in the DB right now), but that makes it too fast and have too much acceleration, because it has an afterburner that it shouldn't have.

I don't think there is a pressing need for an update, because in my experience aircraft of the gun/early missile era don't usually get up to their top speed during engagements anyways (and with missiles, I'd argue that exactly accurate flight performance doesn't matter when they are mostly just dodging missiles that will be fired in ways that make X increase in performance meaningless in the final calculation of whether it survives or not), but it is definitely something that could be put on a long-term list for consideration.