Rissala

Any news on engine damage modelling?

some low low level stuff is there such as generator failures, and the occasional avionics battle damage failure also, fuel tank damage is modelled to some extent but a LOT is completely missing such as engine damage

was about to say this as well people can climb everest without oxygen (28 000ft) if they are well trained and prepared for the average person, this will be on the edge of their ability to stay awake

Yeah the cabin is pressurized?? And if you dump the cabin air you pass out. Same reason why you don't pass out on an airliner. The oxygen is there for the pilot to help with high g strain, high altitude and in the case of pressure loss in the cabin.

Short answer: It is always been off since it is bugged... There have been many attempts to report this but the threads are either in "investigating" or "correct-as-is". Quickly summed, the aircraft's own angular movement is not taken in to account + some other issues that can be found in the bug report topic. Issues are also present with designation and scan rate. The resulting experience is that you can have designations 100 feet off target depeding on your luck with the designation bugs. And no, this isn't some "modelled inaccuracy" (I wish it was honestly), just faulty code.

Thank you Appreciate it

The evidence is right here @BIGNEWY?? We just proved it in this thread. But crucially: And as stated in the evidence, the issue is there "Before 8.3PROM". So if our Hornet is really supposed to represent a C variant in 2005, the issue of over-g in transsonic flight envelope was fixed 20 years before the DCS variant... But as seen in the videos and tracks above, there is still gross +2.5g over-g easily achieved at M .80. (Additionally the manual states a "G overshoot of 1g or 2G", so a 2.5G overshoot is at very the top end). Therefore, "correct-as-is" is not the correct verdict for this report. Let me know if you need more explanation.

@BIGNEWY please have a look?

oops forgot the track here: stinger smokeless.trk

Read through the comments above. The SLAM, was quite accurate (20ft CEP) in its final years due to some upgrades. Right now in DCS the SLAM uses a very simple flight model (probably taken from the SLAM-ER) which represents the SLAM-ER. There isn't any CEP modelled yet. Think through it this way. The JDAM has CEP modelled, the SLAM does not.

I am not sure why, but the Stinger motor is now smokeless in the most recent patch and hence very hard to spot. There is a very tiny smoke trail which dissipates extremely quickly. If this Stinger unit is supposed to represent the same stinger as in previous patches, this is not correct. Stinger motor is prioritised for max impulse, not for smokeless behaviour. DCS Stinger

Excellent research!!!! I hope we'd get an early 90's SLAM so that in practice there would be some difference between the -ER and the original variant. (more CEP so DL pod is required)

@BIGNEWY merge with this thread? Right now we have 2 threads directly contradicting each other on the same subject.

Nice find. Only issue I find with this source is that the test was done nearly 10 years after the weapon was implemented, 1 year before decomissioning. I assume it has something to do with improved GPS constellations and better recievers since they talk about a "newly implemented GPS-only guidance tactic". That 10 ft (3 meter) CEP was most likely not achievable in 1990. Again, some interpretation is required by ED to choose between 10ft CEP (1999) and a larger one (closer to IOC state), unless proven otherwise. I assume it would be the best for the entire (Hornet) community if we could get an original representation of this weapon in its 1990's configuration. As I said somewhere above, currently this weapon might as well be a JSOW with a jet engine which is not very realistic if we want a scenario representing late 80's or early 90's. This is the primary reason why this weapon is currently kind of a weird one since it actually never needs that last feet guidance nor the DL pod. It would also help to diffrentiate this weapon from the SLAM-ER, its successor. There is lots of potential in this weapon to be a fun and engaging one (imagine buddy guidance etc.), but for now it is just a JSOW. P.S. Currently the SLAM has around 0.0 feet of CEP which we can all agree, is not correct.

and the last problem is that ED has not put these in the game yet

So if I understood this correct, this is already in the game and working with just .lua tweaks? How is this not in OB??

it is still bugged it explodes as the search begins

Track attached harpoon.trk

So it is a non-factor in our Hornet. Excellent research.

I am aware of transonic effects on the moment coefficient of an aircraft/foil. However, I do not see how the situation described in the podcast represents this situation. He said he was "riding the limiter" through the transsonic region when that happened. I was maneuvering at M .8 with a sudden pull back. Also, the situation described in the podcast cannot be replicated in DCS. (g limiter works ok in this regard) Also, don't you think that this is a bit of an anecdote, especially when it is mentioned that "maybe it was one of those early ones" and "I don't know if you can still do that".

Do you think that a 2.5g overload is possible with just pulling the stick fast? Seems like a lot to me. IMO, 1g overload would seem more realistic and acceptable if you do pull too fast on the stick. 2.5g can already compromise the airframe. And that said, even with slower imputs, the limit can still be very easily exceeded by 0.5 or more.

I am not a real life combat pilot, nor do I have access to any hard evidence. (see "hard" evidence down below) That being said, the second video (posted here) pretty much underlines the issue in the best way. The stick movement here is fast, but smooth and uniform. That should not in my opinion lead to 10g pulled. It seems way too easy to over-g the airframe. In addition, the oscillations when the maneuver is taking place seem unnatural. In other words, it feels springy. If we consider real-life combat training for example, it should be very alarming if many flights could exceed the g-limits on the airframe that easily. The reason why I brought this up is because I get frequent significant over-gs on a lot of flights in DCS despite practically never pulling the g-limit-override "paddle". This is something that the finely tuned FCS should be able to deal with. The other video (not in this reply) was me deliberately doing oscillations and trying to break the airframe with unexpected success. There the "springy" behaviour is more clear. A real life F/A-18 pilot told me (long ago) that "snapping the wings is impossible" as all maeuvers are automatically controlled by the flight computer. g-limiter.mp4

Yes. That is why I said "gross over-g", not "slight over-g". A casual 10g over-g when just pulling hard should not be possible. Not even talking about the 13 max g with oscillations.

Here is the other video: g-limiter.mp4

The FCS fails to limit Gs to safe levels when there are sudden movements. The over-g possible can be as high as 25% over max. (max G ~10g) With oscillations, it can be even higher. (~13g) The effect is pronounced with low A/C weight and oscillations. This should not be possible as the FCS should protect the airframe's 7.5G limit. It is possible to completely break the wing off without ever pulling on the G-override. (In the track and the 2 videos, the g-override "paddle" was never pulled once.) g-limiter (2).mp4 g limiter.trk