Lex Talionis

If that is the case, and it is do-able in the game, im sure it is as anything else in life, Ya figure it out and practice it. No we dont carry live ordinance in the training command. We get that stuff at the FRS. I am not sure the point you are trying to make ? Are you making a case for paying to learn a game ? Hey knock youself out, it is just not needed.

What exactly? I must be missing it. This all can be summarize with: what does one want to learn exactly, can one learn what they want to learn from source X Y or Z, will one learn it from source x y or z faster than one can discover simply through doing safely on their own, and finally does one believe it is all worth their time/money for the monetized instruction recieved. Evaluating how to begin "learning", from the perspective of someone who has limited knowledge about the *thing* thay want to learn, that someone simply doesn't know what they don't know or even need to know, leaving them open to being taken advantage of. DCS is a game, you don't need to pay money for an "instructor" to learn how to play, let alone risk being taken advantage of. I would not adhere to the argument from authority that becaus anyone has title X in front of their name that they know what they are talking about. Nor do I believe that "payment" = "quality" or that "ability to do" = "ability to teach". The only sure bet in digging through all this is to not waste your money when the information is free to the most practical extent. Save your money, watch some vids , ask some questions, make some friends. You'r learning a game, not preparing for an anual instrument/EP check ride. "Just chill Winston "

Thanks. This thing is getting harder to track down.

This has become quite the hard development to follow. Would like to be included with the july 1st purchase. How do i get on the boat ?

Is there a way to purchase these yet ? Websight doesn't seam to translate...

Glad it helps

Happy to help anytime. .... i would think we are as qualified as anyone, and we don't charge.

This will help you learn exactly the approach turn ... which dictates the quality of your pass. Hope it helps :)

I have a vedio specifically on trim, AOA and how to fly glide slope with your left hand. Come find us on S&A discord... many of us instruct exactly this and have probably flowen with your frind at the FRS.

Nothing i said was singling you out. Was just a generic synopses of the entire conversation. I need to check my sarcastic humar at the door.

..... the irony is, people are dead set on the system working "correctly ", without the correct consequence for using said "correct" system. If only life worked like this. Something about "cake" and "eating it too". I think wikipedia is gaining the upper hand on reality. The thread has taken an interesting philosophical turn trying to rationalize this. Good luck all. (Non directed satire, no one get offended please )

If aircraft are over G-ed, they should incure damaged. Pretty simple. Everything else is theory crafting. Using the paddle switch and over G-ing the hornet in the game however, should be no issue because the game allows it with near impunity. It's a game, why not ? The irony is the incredible adherence for realism in one aspect and not others. Some may view this as hypocritical, or cherry picking what to demand from the programmers based on a personal agenda masquerading as championing "realism ".

Please come find us in discord. We talk about these concepts daily, fly them in the game, and overall try and implement as best we can. No one get frustrated please...

When i first discovered this i just about spit my drink out laughing ..... needless to say our server doesn't allow this.

In MEC only, it is almost un flyable at slow speeds. That is the great design trade off, right ? The more "positively stable" the easier to control the less maneuverable, the more "negatively stable" the more maneuverable the harder to control.

(I will try and put this to bed) The hang up with all of this is the perception that over G-ing the aircraft is not that big a deal ... "whats wrong with a little extra G if it allows XYZ, bad things won't happen to me as a result (probably)" ... trying to down play its damaging effects through mental gymnastics.....I am a Functional Check Pilot and licensed aircraft mechanic, never have i ever heard an engineer tell me "itsss fiinnnnnnneee, launch it" from an over G. The reality is quite the opposite. I would never put my butt in an over G-ed aircraft that didn't have the mecs crawl around inspecting it like it was carrying the plague first. The simple answer is it is one of the big taboos in aviation. Once the aircraft is over G-ed it is an "unknown". It is probably bent/altered/(insert your semantics to describe "change" here) in a way that you have no idea how it will effect the predictably of the aircrafts performance. You are literaly a test pilot on a numerically new "aircraft". You have no idea if it will stall at the same alpha, you have no idea if the oil system is scavaging properly and the jet can remain inverted flight for the 15 secconds it is supposed to be able to before it ruins an eng bearing, you have no idea if the fuel will transfer properly and keep the aircraft with in CG, you have literally no idea if (insert the most creative failure you can think of here). You dont know, and neither do the engineers untill the plane is on deck, tourn a part and inspected. And that is what they do for over speeds and over Gs, they literally tear things apart and inspect them because you simply can not trust the plane to perform as it is intended to. We have already talked about the myriad of ways over G-ing the aircraft can be greatly compounded in the BFM environment as well. If you over G the aircraft during an engagement , you are risking changing your corner speed, your climb performance, roll rates, low speed stability, the list goes on. You can easly give your adversary the performance advantage once you over G your aircraft. This is why we don't train to over G an aircraft, becase all the performance numbers we spend hundreds of hours memorizing so we can use them in the jet, become moot after an over G becausewe just dont know their accuracy anymore. This is why failure modes are so important in this game. If a gamer decides to gamble thinking "ya, i can pull a little more to get the shot" suddenly the oil scavenge pump isn't working correctly and the next time he rolls inverted the engine seezes. Or the next time you transition to a 1 circle and use the flaps in the 14 it wraps off and turtles on its back stalled because one of the slats didn't drop. Or you run out of fuel driving back home becase the fuel won't transfer properly. You simply have no idea how the plane will fly now. So yes, make the paddle switch work correctly, just know that "correctly " also means the correct consequences for using it as well. Benefits only is not "correct ". This was something else that made the 18 great to BFM, you didn't have to worry as much about over G as in other aircraft. In any other aircraft without a G limiter you literally have to scan the accelerometer as you fight to make sure you don't over G, PITA. I know this comunity is big into realism, simply understand you are ushering in a very "arcade" pholosophy by not giving the consequence of over G the proper attention. BFM and Gs go hand and hand, in that context you can't have a good flight model with out a good G damage model. And if one aircraft does not "damage " properly relitive to another, it would be an unfair (and unrealistic) advantage/disadvantage. I will leave it at that. Hope the conversation was worth it for some. (EDIT that was written in in somewhat sarcastic humor, please no one take offense, nothing was meant personal). )

.... on set rate is an important consideration as well What GB said .

Good to hear AS limits are modeled. I would imagine the wings wouldn't be able to sweep either once the flaps were bent/frozen. But i was talking more about the flaps G limit. G limits in general. Anyway.... happy gaming.

Swipe at the horse one last time ... Asymmetrical Gs greatly exceeding indicated Gs, safety margins exceeded at the extremities with rolling pulls at max G (if you roll while pilling 7.5Gs, you can easly exceed double didgets at the wings in the hornet) , components with varying G limits being exceeded to where they will no longer track properly (flaps on the 14 drops G loads to 4 symmetrical) etc, are all probable. There is no such thing as a number that as long as the G meter does not exceed you are safe and can fly the aircraft however you wish. Remove safety "features" only exacerbate this. No matter how ya slice it this is a recreation so there will always be inaccuracies that can be exploited. Modeling asymmetrical Gs, although a big deal, is probably quit hard to recreate. I am probably being to critical. Apologies. Thanks for proof reading GB. My phone typing skills are not up to par

Exactly. To try and be more precise in my explanation, what i am trying to illustrate is the spectrum of failures from minor to catastrophic.... the 14 for example, prior to total wing departure there should be. flaps freezing, maybe freezing asometric so it induces a roll the pilot now needs to fight, then the wings no longer sweep, ....then it becomes so fatigued it tears off. The "little things" should fail well before a wing departs(which i believe is a bit unrealistic. May warp the heck out of it causing some veryunique control issues) ...and this isn't just opinion, this is typically how failure modes works. ...i digress.

Asometric Gs also plays into spacificaly how we fly the jet. The pilot manages what the FCS does not. We avoid loaded rolls when ever possible. It is always "roll to place lift vector, then pull, roll then pull ..." so on

Understanding failure modes is an issue, metal fatigue of large pieces is only one aspect. All my concerns are only structural. Flap slats tracks warping such that they will not articulate can and has happened often in a single over G (non hornet), LEF torque tube limiter failure (this plagued legacy's for a long time) Weapons jamming, etc... If the paddle were to work correctly in the hornet, it needs to be in context because "correctly " also means you would just about never use it for fear of the possible results . Literally never unless you were about to hit the ground and needed to arrest your rate of descent so you have better chance to survive the ejection. Paddle switch makes things very arcadey. (Personal opinion) But its nuance. This can be quit the rabbit hole .. (shrug)

.... certainly To more emphasize the concern ... Asometric Gs should also become a big player in BFM . You may see Gx on the gauges, but the second you start rolling the jet under load, the up-going wing is experiencing considerably more Gs than where the G sensors is in the aircraft.

... they need to model damage a bit more accurately and all these things that are done in the game and not real life will become a non issue When pilots use flaps in the f14 and over G them they should become frozen, maybe asometricly, and the aircraft inadvertently roll or the wing incure damage if it tries to sweep .... The f18 should incure various structural problems when over Ged .... etc .. ..this nuance is what makes the sim more a game at times .

.. it is a thing.