Server Option to enforce G-limits

[Cab]

...casuals should suffer from a dumbed-down, unrealistic, arbitrarily restricted flight model...

 

"Suffer" when they freely choose to play on the server?

 

...for no coherent or well-defined reason other than that you feel their flying offends your sense of how airplanes should be flown…

 

I am referencing the NATOPS, the -1, and other operating manual that restricts g-limits. The fact that you call that arbitrary just proves to me that this will go on forever.

 

Truthfully I can't tell if you are really passionate about the topic or just looking for an argument. But frankly, I'm bored.

 

I think people can read this thread and come to their own conclusions, or even add to the discussion if they like.

 

Carry on.

[gavagai]

The premise that "feel" is a substitute for scanning the accelerometer for G control is inaccurate. The idea that G tolerances are only for time-life fatigue mitigation is inaccurate. Brand new aircraft have been rendered unflyable due to broken or deformed parts after a single non catastrophic over G. The damage model in the game is lacking. Please, for the love of God and all that is holy, will the DCS community come to terms with this reality regarding over G once and for all.

-Lex Talionis

[Tippis]

"Suffer" when they freely choose to play on the server?

Yes. Being fed a false image of how the planes behave makes that a pretty accurate assessment.

 

And if they freely choose to play on the server, guess what else they could freely choose to do: stick to the limits through a good old gentlemen's agreement. It amounts to the exact same thing. Problem solved without making the planes behave in unrealistic ways that impart bad habits.

 

I am referencing the NATOPS, the -1, and other operating manual that restricts g-limits. The fact that you call that arbitrary just proves to me that this will go on forever.

They're still arbitrary because they aren't actual restrictions in what the airplane can — and more importantly will — do. You are suggesting an arbitrary restriction on aircraft performance because of a paper number. Just because there is doctrine that argues in favour of that number doesn't make it any less arbitrary because it is still just that: a limit that doesn't exist in the airframe. It may exist in the logistical support system or the defence budget or some similar external desire to keep things cheap and simple, but guess what? Those are also arbitrary.

[OnlyforDCS]

What Cab doesn't seem to realize (if he gets his way) is that imposing these limits on the flight models is paramount to adding FLY BY WIRE computer instructions to planes, that do not have fly by wire computers or controls.

 

It's basically cheating.

 

So my question to CAB is this. Does cheating help players improve their skills? If this isn't his aim, then what is? Another cheat option, like invulnerability? or Infinite Fuel?

 

What would be the point of this wish-list item is basically what I'm asking?

[draconus]

Once upon a time Cab saw the FOH thread or even participate there and thought of how great idea it is to have RL G limits. It's OK, it's their tournament and their rules, real pilots have spoken, all cool. BUT these were not limits forced upon any airframe - only on pilots. Everyone could easily over-G their aircraft and get disqualified in the process - and many did.

[Cab]

What Cab doesn't seem to realize (if he gets his way) is that imposing these limits on the flight models is paramount to adding FLY BY WIRE computer instructions to planes, that do not have fly by wire computers or controls.

 

Not really. At most it would only simulate an automatic g-limiter. None of the other benefits of FBW would be present and the flight model remains unchanged.

 

It's basically cheating.

 

As a general rule cheating helps people compete or achieve a goal. I am not sure how limiting g-performance is cheating.

[Cab]

Once upon a time Cab saw the FOH thread or even participate there and thought of how great idea it is to have RL G limits. It's OK, it's their tournament and their rules, real pilots have spoken, all cool. BUT these were not limits forced upon any airframe - only on pilots. Everyone could easily over-G their aircraft and get disqualified in the process - and many did.

 

Not really how I would have worded it but this does sort of capture the spirit of the idea.

[Tippis]

Not really. At most it would only simulate an automatic g-limiter.

…which would still be a cheat for the exact same reasons.

 

I am not sure how limiting g-performance is cheating.

The same way infinite ammo is a cheat: it adds a capability the aircraft doesn't have. Also, how would you answer the questions posed?

 

Not really how I would have worded it but this does sort of capture the spirit of the idea.

So basically you agree that the idea serves no purpose and that what you want already exists in the game. Because that's the spirit of what draconus captures.

[OnlyforDCS]

Not really how I would have worded it but this does sort of capture the spirit of the idea.

 

How does it capture the spirit of the idea? I mean these same kinds of competitions would then make NO sense, since anyone could yank as hard as they want on their sticks and their planes would magically hold the NATOPS max G limit. Everyone would be flying perfectly on the limit of the available MAX allowed G, all the time. No disqualifications, everyone flying perfectly within NATOPs limits.

 

So please can you answer my question CAB? What exactly would be the point of this "cheat" or whatever you want to call it?

Edited October 15, 2020 by OnlyforDCS

[Cab]

…which would still be a cheat for the exact same reasons.

 

The same way infinite ammo is a cheat: it adds a capability the aircraft doesn't have. Also, how would you answer the questions posed?

 

 

So basically you agree that the idea serves no purpose and that what you want already exists in the game. Because that's the spirit of what draconus captures.

 

How does it capture the spirit of the idea? I mean these same kinds of competitions would then make NO sense, since anyone could yank as hard as they want on their sticks and their planes would magically hold the NATOPS max G limit. Everyone would be flying perfectly on the limit of the available MAX allowed G, all the time. No disqualifications, everyone flying perfectly within NATOPs limits.

 

So please can you answer my question CAB? What exactly would be the point of this "cheat" or whatever you want to call it?

 

You two are taking this way more seriously than I think is warranted.

 

Simply put it is just an idea I thought some players would want and others would not. The only real question is would the juice be worth the squeeze. Meaning would there be enough interest for such an option to invest the level of effort required to implement it. If so, it would simply be one of many choices available to players to customize their own playing experience.

 

You are free to disagree with that, but I feel no obligation to justify my “wish” to you. I have more important, and frankly, more interesting things to do.

 

But feel free to talk among yourselves, though.

[Tippis]

You are free to disagree with that, but I feel no obligation to justify my “wish” to you.

So in other words, you can't think of a single reason why it should exist. It is seemingly pointless, worthless, and serves no useful purpose. Why wish for something like that? :dunno:

 

I have more important, and frankly, more interesting things to do.

Clearly not.

[gavagai]

Once upon a time Cab saw the FOH thread or even participate there and thought of how great idea it is to have RL G limits. It's OK, it's their tournament and their rules, real pilots have spoken, all cool. BUT these were not limits forced upon any airframe - only on pilots. Everyone could easily over-G their aircraft and get disqualified in the process - and many did.

 

And in DCS the F-14 will suffer structural damage if you over-g the jet, but the F-15 won't. Seems to me it isn't just the pilot that should have a g-limit, but I don't mean the training-wheel limit proposed in the OP.:music_whistling:

[draconus]

And in DCS the F-14 will suffer structural damage if you over-g the jet, but the F-15 won't. Seems to me it isn't just the pilot that should have a g-limit, but I don't mean the training-wheel limit proposed in the OP.:music_whistling:

Yes, the F-15 lacks G-induced DM (and we want it implemented) but as discussed many times - it's not its winning move at all - meaning abusing over-G is not how you win the dogfight in the Eagle.

[gavagai]

It being discussed many times is evidence that it doesnt help win a guns fight? That is not logical. Or if you mean that others reached that conclusion many times before, then I would argue they are wrong. There is a giant manure pile of cognitive dissonance at work here.