Carlos
-
Posts
66 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Carlos
-
-
The first fight was one circle vertical. The second fight was out of plane two circle that eventually transitioned to one circle and then a BFM error by Trigger that gave SungHo a big opportunity. Sungho's own words (as quoted above) were that he knew a two circle fight wouldn't work against the Flanker.
This is the perfect example of Dunning Kruger. There's nothing left to say.
Congrats to Sungho and thanks to everyone for participating.
And the fact that Sungho was emailing guys so he could fight the AI should tell you all you need to know about gamers. They actually do think they're better than real fighter pilots. Lol.
-
Just a question to understand how the rule was applied: i've seen several Over Gs just like this one:
Hornet limit is 7.5+0.5= 8G and W Ace pulled till 8.3G. Was this tollerated?
The rule is *G Limits for all aircraft are being imposed this year to remove or greatly reduce the opportunity people have to exploit. If a pilot is found to have gone over the G limit for their aircraft a round loss will be issued for that round for that pilot. G Limits for specific aircraft are as follows. If you do not see the aircraft you are flying assume that there is no G Limit.
They said don't pay attention to the info bar at the bottom. The real g limit readings were in tacview.
-
I did enjoy listening to all the real fighter pilots yell, PULL..PULL..PULL!! And I was like, well hold on , he'll over G. Too funny.
-
Congratulations to ACE (Sung Ho). Great job by Trigger. Amazing fights and a lot of fun to watch. We're still tallying it up, but I think we raised over $10,000 for a very worthy cause. That pays for two educational scholarships for children of fallen service members.
And a Hornet won, btw. ������
Well done.
-
So, is it fair that some DCS modules have critical over-g limits and others don't? I think not. Like I said, it need not be structural failure, but the simulation will be more accurate when there are consequences for over-g'ing the jet repeatedly.
I agree. Maybe Eagle Dynamics will get it where the jet will break. Bit damn how much realism do you want? The real fighter pilots take years to develop their skills. Us gamers are just jumping in to have fun.
-
What a rambling response.
Flight simulation is a genre of video game. Some of the aircraft in DCS suffer structural failure with over-g and some don't. If the damage modeling were more accurate Mover could strike a few of those rules from his list.
No idea why you're advising us that it's Mover's tournament and to follow his rules. Hopefully you understand why the rules are necessary for meaningful competition; they are not arbitrary, they are not mere opinion.
Because it's a game and it is his tournament. BTW a 14 will not break it's wings off like in the game. The pilot would pass out before that happens. Not my words. But the words of a retired maintenance officer here in Va Beach VA where I live. He kinda laughed when I said the wings snap off in the game.
-
Thank you. I hope ED is listening.
Also, please know that some of us "gamers" have shouted into the wilderness about over-g before. We are not a monolithic group.
Guys are taking this a lil too serious. It's a video game. I mean if it were a realistic game when guys landed and how they get on the brakes and just hold the brakes down. The jet would be in maintenance getting new brakes. Again it's a game. And it's Movers' tournament. Follow his rules or don't play.
-
OK, now *that* was a good comeback! LOL. :D:D
But 2 point deduction for the misquote. "The Pentagon sees to it that I know more than you."
I winged it. Lol
-
I do not know about the 14 and I'm only talking about in the DCS game. But in the 15 the audible sounds for over g are when you're in fact already over g'ing. There are no audible sounds to alert you before you over g as far as I know. And you obviously are not feeling the physiological effects to know when to stop pulling on the stick.
-
I think saying something like "This guy over G'd the jet to get a kill, but it wasn't a good idea, even though it worked." would go a long way. Because the disconnect seems to be not the existence of the action, but the existence of the action... and its validity as a common tactic.
If we're just discussing things that have happened, I, and you, could argue that kamikaze should be a valid method. Right? We can prove its existence. (Which you've done.) We can prove its semi effectiveness. (Which you've done.) But its hard to argue its validity as a common tactic.
Excellent point. I got target fixated on, 'no pilot would do that'.
-
These are again, one offs, not repeat use, and one example of Schrödinger's cat--if he didn't check the G meter, then he didn't over G...
But the logical argument is that if it was not trained, it was not meant to be employed. Snodgrass going up against another fighter is war games, and he gamed the game.
What seems to be forgotten is that these jets are weapons, meant to be used in combat, to gain or maintain aerial superiority, to support or allow boots on the ground to gain and maintain strategic objectives.
If everyone pulls G and breaks their jet, because they want a kill, we're going to lose air superiority pretty quick, and the ground guys are going to get hammered.
There is a common adage, you fight how you train. They aren't trained because that isn't how it is meant to be fought.
There was confusion (who would of thought through text). And I did not realize this (over g'ing in the game) was a sore issue. It's a arcade game after all. know you don't over g a jet. I know there are lower g limits with load outs, like fuel tanks fuel quantity, bombs etc. But I knew of an example where a guy over g'd to get onto a migs 6. But the guy answered me with no pilot would do that. It's was kinda like, hey that guy got into a car wreck. And someone answers, nobody gets into car wrecks. And the correct response should of been, nobody gets into car wrecks on purpose. Hopefully this clears it up. And I don't get an encyclopedia of response on how I'm wrong.
-
An exception. A very rare one. That guy went rogue. It worked out for him, but that’s far from a guarantee.
Over Ging happens. Accidentally. And after landing the pilots are embarrassed that they now added more work to maintenance’s already exhaustively long days, and lost sorties for the follow-on flight schedule.
Deliberately over Ging does not happen. I got it, you saw a dude on the Discovery channel. Not the norm. Not even remotely in the same universe as the norm. Deliberately over Ging for a shot is NOT a thing.
Got it. Thanks
-
If this is the case, and i will take your word for it .....
.... its not the norm and you have found the exception. To assume it is the go-to , or is some simple plaza "1 extra g to get the kill. " and that "That pilot is going to pull that bitch and shoot." like it was an everyday conclusion, you are simply incorrect.
I wonder what the real context of the F15, 12 over G split S for a shot, actually was. I wonder if there was some other context being over looked that pushed him to do it, like the jet was bingo about to flame out and it was a decision of breaking the jet and eject with a kill, or flame out and eject without a kill. Maybe there is more to that video than simply " f15 12 G split S for a shot ergo pilots regularly pull a meaningless 1 over G because you bet "That pilot is going to pull that bitch and shoot."
This is my point with cherry picking information, heavily speculating , then presenting it without context as if it is definitive.
Im sure you will respond however , that "it simply proves that its not "never" .... for which i would simply reply, in the same spirit of not liking us using "never", dont present every YouTube video as it is some how "always" or " likely ". Context and nuance is everything, simply because you have a video of something you are arguing about most certainly does not mean it is also in the context of your argument.
Oh I agree that it's not the norm.
-
One example does not a trend make. Nor does it indicate sound tactics.
I will bow to your expertise on that. As in I know you do not train that way.
-
Your thesis statement was that a “real pilot” would over G to get a gunshot.
That is false. No one said jets aren’t over G’d. It happens.
And you're correct fighter pilots have over g'd there jet. To get a kill in combat.
-
Your thesis statement was that a “real pilot” would over G to get a gunshot.
That is false. No one said jets aren’t over G’d. It happens.
To take a shot. Missile/ guns whichever. And Captain Craig Mole Underhill did exactly that pulling 12 g's in a split s manuerver. And killed the mig 29.
-
... the nuance of the frequency of an over G is being conflated with intentional over G. You have moved the goal posts.
I think it is safe to say mover is not in agreement with you here ...
By his response here ....
I was being nice trying to end this. You guys went from no fighter WOULD ever do that. To no one said they haven't over g'd a jet. And I'm like, ummm that was my comment from the get go. That it has happened. And quite a few times.
-
You are leaving out some very important nuances. It was not frequency of the over Gs that was in question, you argued that if a pilot was presented with the decision of over Ging the aircraft for a shot, to do so was acceptable.
And don't put the little nuance of 'acceptable' in there. No one used that word. I provided an instance of a guy in combat doing exactly that. Over g'ing the jet to get on the guys 6. Now what?
-
Intentionally over-G'ing the aircraft is not a valid tactic.
No one said over-gs don't happen.
F/A-18s and F-16s can and have been over-G'd also, btw.
And no one on here said it happens every single time. The jet would be grounded more than in the air. The miscommunication was that it has happened vs happens all the time.
-
Intentionally over-G'ing the aircraft is not a valid tactic.
No one said over-gs don't happen.
F/A-18s and F-16s can and have been over-G'd also, btw.
So then we agree. Have a good day Mover
-
Who said no fighter pilot has over-G'd a jet?
You are anchoring on one example as if it proves anything. And you're arguing with three people who have flown fighters for a living.
I think it was when you guys said, never would happen. Or a fighter pilot would not do that. I get it you guys fly the jet according to the natops manual. 99.99 percent of the time you don't over g the jet. Have a good day fighter pilots.
-
Also you are on internet, do you forgot it?
That said, tell me something about this:
Do you think perhaps to be more "real" or more skilled or simply to know more about F14 then Captain Snodgrass?
Thanks Maxsin, mike drop and I'm out.
-
No, but what i believe you are doing is cherry picking unique instances and passing them as the normative. Taking quite complex concepts and over simplifying them. And i also believe the lack of greator context is clouding your restraint in confidence of your opinion.
These logical fallacies seem to be the norm on most forums and wikis.
And Captain Craig 'Mole' Underhill is the 15 pilot that pulled the 12 g's in the split s manuever. And says it on an episode of Dogfights. His quote "I pulled 12 g's and with my adrenaline bother me and the jet handled it with ease". So take it up with him as the liar.
-
No, but what i believe you are doing is cherry picking unique instances and passing them as the normative. Taking quite complex concepts and over simplifying them. And i also believe the lack of greator context is clouding your restraint in confidence of your opinion.
Well hell then the term over g'ing shouldn't even exist then. Problem solved lol.
Fight for Honor - A Folds of Honor Charity Event
in Tournaments & Events
Posted · Edited by Carlos
No that is someone else. Sung Ho's call sign is =W= ACE and he is in the JDF server. Actually quite the cocky ass call sign. Beat him a few times he's beat me a few times. But he definitely does not come in the guns only area in a furball. His bs pull up and spiral move does not work so good there. I call it the astronaut move.