Server Option to enforce G-limits

[Cab]

Maybe not a top speed limit but if you're constantly redlining, sliding on your wheels, and taking damage to your car, then you may win the first lap but you'll end up losing the race.

 

Every piece of machinery has limits and the operator has to weigh the Risk vs. Reward during each attempt at exceeding those limits.

 

A very good comparison to the topic at hand.

 

An aggressive pilot might score a kill by overstressing his jet, but is it worth the jet being down for inspection during the next two or three combat sorties? Or even, God forbid, damaged so badly that it is unrepairable? Does that really make sense to people?

 

These things were never intended to be disposable.

[Kula66]

A very good comparison to the topic at hand.

 

An aggressive pilot might score a kill by overstressing his jet, but is it worth the jet being down for inspection during the next two or three combat sorties? Or even, God forbid, damaged so badly that it is unrepairable? Does that really make sense to people?

 

These things were never intended to be disposable.

 

It depends. If that bandit is carrying an AAM and about to pop your AWACS or Air Force 1 or your wingman or ... yes, absolutely. Pilots did it in training!

[Cab]

It depends. If that bandit is carrying an AAM and about to pop your AWACS or Air Force 1 or your wingman or ... yes, absolutely. Pilots did it in training!

 

Well, I have never flown in combat but those certainly seem like valid reasons to me. Do you think it's common place to do so? Because we're going to run out of jets very quickly if it is.

 

And yet we don't run out of jets, do we? In fact, it's not uncommon for operational jets to be 20, 30, or more years old. Do you ever wonder why?

 

Maybe, and I'm just spit balling here, pilots train to operate their aircraft to their max performance while staying within the operational limits. Maybe they recognize that going out and routinely breaking jets reduces readiness rates and negatively impacts their country's defenses.

 

The argument here has never been that pilots never overstress their jets. Nor has it been that they never do it intentionally. The argument here is that those incidents are the exceptions and the carefree way that we all (me included) fly the DCS F-15 does not reflect reality. That's it.

 

People can dispute that all day but they are disagreeing with verified SME's that have flown in actual combat. There is a good discussion here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4513868#post4513868

[Kula66]

Yes I deliberately didn't post on that threat ... it was already a train wreck!

 

With the greatest respect to our SMEs, how many of them have been involved in a gunzo fight against a 4th gen a/c, where one person is going to die? Not many ... may be in that situation, they'd pull the wings off!

[Cab]

Yes I deliberately didn't post on that threat ... it was already a train wreck!

 

With the greatest respect to our SMEs, how many of them have been involved in a gunzo fight against a 4th gen a/c, where one person is going to die? Not many ... may be in that situation, they'd pull the wings off!

 

Maybe. But the obvious question is what are you basing that opinion on.

 

The fact that they are all so adamant and in agreement ought to give a person pause before dismissing them. Maybe some little detail is being missed. An "unknown unknown" so to speak.

 

Regardless, I believe there is satisfaction in flying the aircraft against one another within their operating limits. That's why I posted this.

 

But I have no illusions that it is actually going to happen.

[Kula66]

'They' are not 'all' in agreement, there have been a number of sited examples in books and videos, where experienced pilots admit to have done it. You seem very quick to dismiss them as not valid.

 

Perhaps you can add a trigger condition or LUA script option that explodes you if you exceed x G?? Not something I'll be using it, but hey, each to their own. Enjoy.

[Cab]

'They' are not 'all' in agreement, there have been a number of sited examples in books and videos, where experienced pilots admit to have done it.

 

Point taken. In this case I was just referencing the pilots on the forum.

 

You seem very quick to dismiss them as not valid.

 

Not at all. I wrote in an earlier post: "The argument here has never been that pilots never overstress their jets. Nor has it been that they never do it intentionally." You see I know it has happened and will always happen. That's why there are very clear procedures and inspections that have to be performed when it does.

 

Perhaps you can add a trigger condition or LUA script option that explodes you if you exceed x G??

 

I think that would be extreme. I suggested the hard limit only because I assumed that would be easier to code. However, a friend of mine pointed out that having the pilot blackout instead would not only prevent the over-g, but would also make the pilot vulnerable to attack for a few seconds. In other words, a tangible consequence. (Yes, I know pilots blackout now but it doesn't reliably happen at the g-limit)

 

I think that would be a more elegant solution.

 

Not something I'll be using it, but hey, each to their own. Enjoy.

 

Thanks.

[Tippis]

What you're asking for already exists.

Set the “invulnerability” and “g simulation” settings appropriately, and there you go — realism and enforced g-limits in four simple clicks.

[Coxy_99]

Its a game........ Who cares if the F-15 pulls 30Gs in dcs whatever, Back in 2012 so whats the difference now? Only thing that can really happen is G limit on the module to de grade it overtime by pulling 30G and damaging the airframe.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Coxy_99

[Cab]

What you're asking for already exists.

Set the “invulnerability” and “g simulation” settings appropriately, and there you go — realism and enforced g-limits in four simple clicks.

 

I don't think so. What I am talking about is someway of preventing pilots from exceeding the published g-limits of their planes. Currently F-14's and F-15's repeatedly pull well past their limits of 7.5 and 9 g's, respectively. Under that type of ROE, F-18's would also be prevented from using their g-over ride paddle.

 

Trust me when I say I know that no one else really cares about this, but I happen to think there would be value in fighting the aircraft this way. If it where a server option people could choose whether or not to participate.

 

What I don't know is if there is even any interest from server admins to have such an option. But, hey, that's why it's called a wish list.

[Tippis]

I don't think so. What I am talking about is someway of preventing pilots from exceeding the published g-limits of their planes.

Yes. And you do that by setting the appropriate mission flags. If pilots exceed the published g-limits of their planes, the planes break, loose energy, and the pilots g-loc. A strong desire to be able to keep flying will prevent the pilots from exceeding the limits in the most realistic way imaginable.

 

If that's not good enough, you can just add triggers that explode the plane if they exceed whatever restriction you want to impose on them — that should do the trick well enough…

[Cab]

Its a game........ Who cares if the F-15 pulls 30Gs in dcs whatever, Back in 2012 so whats the difference now? Only thing that can really happen is G limit on the module to de grade it overtime by pulling 30G and damaging the airframe.

 

Call me crazy, I guess.

 

Yes, it is just a game. But people also like to call DCS a study level sim. And that's true with regard to the full-fidelity modules, but it isn't true with regard to how pilots are trained to use them in real life. Meaning within their published performance envelope. This option would just allow server admins to enforce that.

 

No biggie if it doesn't happen.

[Cab]

Yes. And you do that by setting the appropriate mission flags. If pilots exceed the published g-limits of their planes, the planes break, loose energy, and the pilots g-loc. A strong desire to be able to keep flying will prevent the pilots from exceeding the limits in the most realistic way imaginable.

 

If that's not good enough, you can just add triggers that explode the plane if they exceed whatever restriction you want to impose on them — that should do the trick well enough…

 

Really? All that is set at the server level? I didn't know that.

 

Can you set the blackout g-loc limit on the server? I always assumed that was something that was controlled by the program itself?

[Tippis]

Yes, it is just a game. But people also like to call DCS a study level sim. And that's true with regard to the full-fidelity modules, but it isn't true with regard to how pilots are trained to use them in real life. Meaning within their published performance envelope..

The fact that you can exceed published limits and not be arbitrarily constrained by a paper number is part of what makes it a study sim. If the game does it for you, you're not really learning how to fly properly.

 

 

Can you set the blackout g-loc limit on the server? I always assumed that was something that was controlled by the program itself?

 

You don't set the g-loc limit — you set how harshly it is enforced. The reason pilots don't exceed the limits isn't because “the book says so” but rather because of the bad consequences of doing so. Those consequences (and thus the motivation for staying within the limits) already exist.

[Cab]

The fact that you can exceed published limits and not be arbitrarily constrained by a paper number is part of what makes it a study sim. If the game does it for you, you're not really learning how to fly properly.

 

I respectfully disagree, but that's a whole other 100+ page thread.

 

T You don't set the g-loc limit — you set how harshly it is enforced. The reason pilots don't exceed the limits isn't because “the book says so” but rather because of the bad consequences of doing so. Those consequences (and thus the motivation for staying within the limits) already exist.

 

Actually, I'd offer that the significant consequences are not fully represented in DCS but I am not really looking to get into a discussion on that. That has been painfully tried in other threads with no resolution.

 

Let's just say educated opinions differ.

 

Thanks for the info.

[Tippis]

Actually, I'd offer that the significant consequences are not fully represented in DCS but I am not really looking to get into a discussion on that.

You should. That's the only way you'd get what you want and not make the game worse by adding unrealistic arbitrary restrictions that the planes don't actually have. Again, it can't really be a study sim if the games don't behave like they should and instead magically adhere to limits that don't exist.

[Cab]

You should. That's the only way you'd get what you want and not make the game worse by adding unrealistic arbitrary restrictions that the planes don't actually have. Again, it can't really be a study sim if the games don't behave like they should and instead magically adhere to limits that don't exist.

 

Thanks but in many important ways they don't behave as they should, so there has to be compromises to achieve a balance between simulation and reality. This is merely an attempt to do that.

 

If sticks had proper feedback, g's could be felt, and visibility of distant objects was better we might be 90% there. Then all we would need is simulation of the potential damage caused by the over g event for each individual aircraft type so players couldn't exploit a gaming advantage and the we're across the finish line. Well, almost. That still wouldn't cover Hornet pilots pulling the paddle. Damn.

 

But don't worry, I have you down as a solid, "No".

[Tippis]

Thanks but in many important ways they don't behave as they should, so there has to be compromises to achieve a balance between simulation and reality. This is merely an attempt to do that.

Eh no. Adding on non-existing limit does the exact opposite: it moves the simulation farther away from reality. There's just no two ways about that. There is no “balance” to strike between those two because the whole purpose of simulation is to grow ever closer to reality. If you “strike a balance”, you have given up and failed.

 

You're asking for wholly artificial, unrealistic limits to something that the game already attempts to limit realistically through simulation. The options for the reduced realism you want already exist — just use them. And if you want more realism, you probably shouldn't ask for less.

[Cab]

Eh no. Adding on non-existing limit does the exact opposite: it moves the simulation farther away from reality. There's just no two ways about that. There is no “balance” to strike between those two because the whole purpose of simulation is to grow ever closer to reality. If you “strike a balance”, you have given up and failed.

 

You're asking for wholly artificial, unrealistic limits to something that the game already attempts to limit realistically through simulation. The options for the reduced realism you want already exist — just use them. And if you want more realism, you probably shouldn't ask for less.

 

Impasse!

 

I would happily discuss this over a beer (or many) but I personally find the forum format unsatisfying.

 

A very sincere thank you for the discussion.

[seriadh]

I like the idea.

Perhaps a better way to do it for those wanting "realism" would be that DCS would track their g-excursions, and their planes would degrade over time. Eventually their planes would break, and they would have to buy a new one. If their over-g behavior doesn't change, they could be kicked out of their simulated military and not be allowed to fly in the future.

All that being said, a server level g limit would be easier and allow those who want to fly according to NATOPS do so, and those who want to play as Dale "Snort" Snodgrass could play on the servers not enforcing these limits.

Do it Eagle Dynamics!

[robgraham]

There is pro's and con's to both sides of this and arguments that can be made on both sides and seemingly confusion on what/why/how lmits are set and people going 'no its not' to information that is correct. The Limits set in the flight manuals are typically anywhere from 1.25 - 2x's lower the the maximum amount of G forces the Aircraft itself can pull case in point the Viper can and has been recorded even by it's General Dynamics creators as being able to go above 9g's but 9g's sustained was set for a few reasons the same reasons that go through for each and every aircraft namedly:

 

1. It's extremly hard on the biological component of the system ie the pilot, a lot of the G limits especailly in modern aircraft are actually based on this, the G load changes greatly depending on the size of the aircraft due to the moment of movement around the center of gravity, (this also has an impact on 2 below), some AC have hard limiters in them specifically for this reason the Viper is a great example of this, the Jet can and will go above 9g's.

2. Life expectancy of the Aircraft based on the Materials used, the size of the Aircraft etc. Every time in real life you pull G's your putting stress on the materials of the Aircraft and because no production manufacturing is ever 100% perfect and materials all have stress limits etc this puts a lot of stress and strain on said components greatly increasing the fatigue loads and limits of the AC itself, until such a time that the material fails. This is compounded by the size of an Aircraft vs it's Center of Gravity in moments of movement something a lot of people don't actually realise at all is happening.. Your Aircraft is not seeing a 9g turn at 9g's across the entire airframe, various parts of it actually experence different amounts of G's dependent on the size and angular velocity of the entire aircraft, the G meter simply records it normally at the point that they expect it to be the highest but you also have to remember that with G wing loadings also become extremely high which is why 'ripping the wings off' is normally the biggest issue with pulling excessive high G values.

 

What that adds up to though is over time fatigue cracks forming typically in the main spar and keel of the airframe but also in many other systems, which in real life causes 2 major issues.

 

1. Maintence time goes up significantly as aircraft require more checks per hour flown to make certain nothing has broken.

2. Eventually the Fatigue amounts vs the safety margin set by the aircraft manufacturer reachs a point where the 2 meet, accidents start to happen and an aircraft is retired, great example if you want some real world ones: The F111's, their wing spars, keel and root boxes had over their Australian life time taken that much punishment that even after replacement of many of the actual wings it was deemed safer and less costly to retire the fleets then to try and repair them.

 

So how does this essay impact the G limits? Manufacturers set a Bold Face Limit based on how long they expect the aircraft to be in service and how good/bad they expect their materials to hold up against the punishment, beyond those limits they don't 'promise' anything.. There have been cases where Hornets have pulled well of there 7.5G limit and then had to be written off, and any one thinking that the G pulls don't have an impact on aircraft afterwards has never ever been up in an Airforce trainer! there is a reason they don't ever seem to 'fly straight' because unless their fresh out of the factory chances are that some students bent them up really good.

 

In game it would be nice to see not a 'hard' limit modelled but actual simulation of G force issues on the aircraft, Heatblur actually did a really nice job of this in the F14 and it would be nice to see it continued in other aircraft where:

 

1. Minor short over-g's have no effect as again there is margin in the #'s specifically for this reason.

2. Longer low over-g's can leave systems like Gyro's etc messed up and not functioning correctly, stores might start to hang as they've been over-g'd on their rails (another reason for G limits), MFD's might fail, you might get a FCS fault as somethings come loose etc..

3. Continous excess high G's start running the risk of Wing root failure and or keel failure (The root is likely to fail first btw as it's got the highest load on it at any given time)

 

In the end though DCS is... as much as people don't like this word a 'game' even if it's a simulation.. it's still an 'entertainment' product, there are and will always be fudging of some things simply because you can't always do what is needed on the scales needed and have an entire region simulated etc.

 

ANOTHER option though which can be done is that Mission/Server owners simply run a script that checks every CLIENTS G loads every second or so and if it exceeds a value they either destroy the unit or kick the player to spectator etc.. it can be done, of course it'd be adding more checks on scripts that at times are already extremely complex.

 

 

In the end though if it's a SERVER option like wake turbulance etc I don't get what the 'argument' is other then the 'how' of it being implimented which is what I think the back and forth is over here, as some people seem to want just a hard arbitory if you go over this your dead (which sorry isn't how Material sciences work..... well unless your pulling like 14+ G's etc constant) and others are saying 'Yes, but make it REALISTIC'.

[draconus]

IRL you can forbid the pilot to do it. You can punish them after they do it. But you cannot force them not to do it if the aircraft and its flight controls are capable of over-G-ing. Not even Fleet Admiral or General of the Air Force can.

Want realism? Go into private MP with like-minded people and simulate military duty all day long. DCS does not need to add anything in this regard besides improving DM and pilot G-effects.

[Cab]

IRL you can forbid the pilot to do it. You can punish them after they do it. But you cannot force them not to do it if the aircraft and its flight controls are capable of over-G-ing. Not even Fleet Admiral or General of the Air Force can.

Want realism? Go into private MP with like-minded people and simulate military duty all day long.

 

I think of it more as a training aid than anything else.

 

7.5g F-18's are capable of beating 9g F-15's and F-16's in real life without overstressing their aircraft. Some DCS players may want to learn how to do that but for most people it is incredibly difficult to remain within those limits due to the nature of the simulation. Also, to practice those tactics and techniques you need to ensure all participating players are doing likewise.

 

This would just provide a training environment for that kind of practice.

 

DCS does not need to add anything in this regard besides improving DM and pilot G-effects.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear that server participation would remain optional.

[draconus]

Maybe I wasn't clear that server participation would remain optional.

It's still not clear how that limit would be forced? By punishment when over-G or by inability to over-G?

[Cab]

It's still not clear how that limit would be forced? By punishment when over-G or by inability to over-G?

 

Why do you even care? Do you want to retain the ability to over-g with impunity? Because if so then this would simply not be for you. No harm there, I think.

 

But to answer your question, for the training purposes I laid out above I think a max g limit would be simplest. Remember modern FBW jets already have limiters built in so this would only affect the older aircraft as well as the F-18 paddle override.

 

Again I stress, this would most accurately be considered a training aid.