Server Option to enforce G-limits

[bies]

Just my two cents.

 

 

First F-15A variant from 1970s has 7.5G limit - any limiting factor was a pilot looking at his G meter though, nothing in flight control prevented pilot from exceeding it as he wish.

Pilots, during training, was exceeding this limit regularly to the point after ~10 years some planes were flying on a third set of wings. And this was just a training. F-15C from 1979 onward was 9G plane (without the tiny part of envelope in low supersonic region) and the limit was again just the pilot looking at the G meter.

 

 

MiG-29 was limited to 9G up to 0.85Ma and 7G above 0.85Ma. The MiG-29’s seven G limit is due to loads on the vertical stabilizers. The MiG-29 flight control system also has an AoA limiter that limits the allowable AoA to 26°. As the aircraft reaches the limit, pistons at the base of the stick push the stick forward and reduce the AoA about 5°. The pilot has to fight the flight controls to hold the jet at 26°. The limiter can be overridden, however, with about 17 kg more back pressure on the stick. While not entirely unsafe and at times tactically useful, care must be taken not to attempt to roll the aircraft with ailerons when above 26° AoA. In this case it is best to control roll with the rudders due to adverse yaw caused by the ailerons at high AoA.

 

F-16 was limited to 9G regardless of speed and being unstable design disablng FCS wasn't practically posible. The F-16 can actually exceed nine Gs without overstressing the airframe. Depending on configuration, momentary overshoots to as much as 10.3 Gs will not cause any concern with aircraft maintainers. The F-16 is electronically limited to 26° AoA. While the pilot cannot manually override this limit it is possible to overshoot under certain conditions and risk departure from controlled flight.

 

 

Su-27 can pull 9G only under Mach 0.85 and at a weight of 19,000kg or less - from the Russian Su-27SK flight manuals:

Maximum service G at design flight weight of 21,400 kg

G max = 8.0 at M < 0.85

G max = 6.5 at 0.85 < M > 1.25

G max = 7.0 at M > 1.25

For weights differing from the design flight weight, G is

established from the conditions :

Weight x G max = 171,000kg at M < 0.85, G limit = 9.0

Weight x G max = 139,000kg at 0.85 < M > 1.25, G limit= 7.0

Weight x G max = 150,000kg at M > 1.25, G limit = 7.5

Edited October 9, 2020 by bies

[Mars Exulte]

pilots absolutely enter the fighting mentally prepared to do whatever it takes to survive and win what are you talking about

 

That sounds exactly like the sort of thing a desk jockey would say lol

[Tippis]

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

But it wouldn't train anything — quite the opposite. It would just give people horrible training scars where they learn to pull as hard on the stick without a care in the world because the almighty server keeps them within arbitrary limits that the real aircraft doesn't have. They wouldn't learn how to balance on the edge of how much they should pull and how much they could pull to get the most out of the aircraft without overstressing anything (including the pilot) or bleeding too much speed or just being told by the aircraft that, no, this is a very bad idea.

 

It could only accurately be considered the most unhelpful kind of training wheels for people who are unable to moderate their stick pull, and who because of this feature would never have any reason to learn it anyway. Its only function would be to force people to play the exact way you want them to, but there's an infinitely easier way to do that: just agree to do so.

 

What do you expect people to learn when they aren't confronted with any kind of feedback or consequences from their stick input? I don't see how you manage to construe it as a training aid when it does the exact opposite of teaching people the thing you want them to learn.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Tippis

[Cab]

BIt would just give people horrible training scars where they learn to pull as hard on the stick without a care in the world...

 

You mean like what happens in the F-16, F-18, Mirage 2000, and all other modern FBW jets?

[Tippis]

You mean like what happens in the F-16, F-18, Mirage 2000, and all other modern FBW jets?

…in planes and under conditions where that should not happen. So again, what do you envision that people would learn other than inputs that don't make sense for flying the plane?

 

You're describing it as a training aid. A training aid for what? How will it let people train that, or indeed anything?

[Cab]

…in planes and under conditions where that should not happen. So again, what do you envision that people would learn other than inputs that don't make sense for flying the plane?

 

You're describing it as a training aid. A training aid for what? How will it let people train that, or indeed anything?

 

I can only quote myself from earlier: "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."

 

I don't know what else to add to that.

 

Suffice to say you and I are never going to agree on this so what is the point of continuing? If by some miracle ED were to institute such an option, just don't go to any servers using it.

[Tippis]

I can only quote myself from earlier: "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."

 

I don't know what else to add to that.

You need to add the thing that is still missing: you're not actually describing what the player learns. You seem to assume that by being forcibly limited in how you fly will somehow translate into knowing how to limit your flying when it's not enforced.

 

That won't happen. The lesson they'll learn is the exact opposite to the one you say you want to impart: they will build habits of just pulling as hard as they can because you've chosen to remove all consequences. Guess what will happen when that is no longer the case? They'll overstress their aircraft because they were forbidden to learn not to. You know, the exact thing you wanted to teach them not to. You can't teach someone to not exceed a limit by ensuring that there is no limit that can be exceeded — at that point, you've removed the entire lesson. If you can't fail you have no way of knowing when you succeed.

 

If you want to teach people what you say, there's a simple method for doing so: just agree to stay within certain limits. Actually teach the other person how to fly within the limits.

 

Again, if you want to go for the more aggressive form of education, set up triggers to where they explode if they exceed the limits you want them to stay within — that way, since there are actual consequences to exceeding them, the player will learn, as opposed to learning nothing from the fact that nothing happens. Alternatively, if you feel that aircraft (and pilots) are too unrealistically resilient to overstress, ask for improved realism because that's an argument that would not only achieve what you're after but also appeal to both the devs and other players.

[GGTharos]

I can only quote myself from earlier: "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."

 

I don't know what else to add to that.

 

Suffice to say you and I are never going to agree on this so what is the point of continuing? If by some miracle ED were to institute such an option, just don't go to any servers using it.

 

I would add is this:

 

If 7.5g F-18s are capable of beating 9g F-15/16s, then they should certainly be able to beat any F-15 pulling 12g for 3-4 seconds, because in the grand scheme of things, if those momentary excursions are the cause of defeat maybe your BFM isn't really up to par and you want to add a limiter to make yourself feel better about your bad BFM.

 

There's one aircraft that has a problem and that's the F-15C and its specific problem is lack of a g-based DM which ED has said they will add, no artificial g constraints needed.

Edited October 10, 2020 by GGTharos

[gavagai]

I would add is this:

 

If 7.5g F-18s are capable of beating 9g F-15/16s, then they should certainly be able to beat any F-15 pulling 12g for 3-4 seconds, because in the grand scheme of things, if those momentary excursions are the cause of defeat maybe your BFM isn't really up to par and you want to add a limiter to make yourself feel better about your bad BFM.

 

You just couldn't help yourself, had to attack the messenger for pointing out how arcade the F-15 is when it comes to g-limits.

[GGTharos]

You just couldn't help yourself, had to attack the messenger for pointing out how arcade the F-15 is when it comes to g-limits.

 

If the argument is that people are being deprived of BFM knowledge because they can spike the g so high (but let's face facts, it's actually a complaint by the opponent who is facing that airframe, including facing an F-18 with the paddle pulled), the the counter-argument is that this momentary gain becoming such a huge advantage is poor BFM on the opponent's part, in particular when the argument begins with '7.5g hornets can beat 9g eagles and vipers'.

 

You couldn't help yourself though, you wanted to call something arcade. Don't worry, the DM is on the way. It won't change much in the BFM arena.

[Cab]

I would add is this:

 

If 7.5g F-18s are capable of beating 9g F-15/16s, then they should certainly be able to beat any F-15 pulling 12g for 3-4 seconds, because in the grand scheme of things, if those momentary excursions are the cause of defeat maybe your BFM isn't really up to par and you want to add a limiter to make yourself feel better about your bad BFM.

 

There's one aircraft that has a problem and that's the F-15C and its specific problem is lack of a g-based DM which ED has said they will add, no artificial g constraints needed.

 

You assume a lot.

 

We can just agree to disagree.

[Tippis]

You assume a lot.

 

We can just agree to disagree.

It's hard not to assume things when you have yet to formulate any actual benefit to what you're proposing other than letting people get away with not knowing, and never bother learning, how to fly their airframe. Ultimately, he is actually using the same assumption you are, only to reach the exact opposite conclusion.

 

The only disagreement here is that you seemingly suggest that not having any opportunity to learn something means you end up learning that very thing. Ironically enough, you also don't seem to agree with this disagreement. :megalol:

[Cab]

It's hard not to assume things when you have yet to formulate any actual benefit to what you're proposing other than letting people get away with not knowing, and never bother learning, how to fly their airframe. Ultimately, he is actually using the same assumption you are, only to reach the exact opposite conclusion.

 

The only disagreement here is that you seemingly suggest that not having any opportunity to learn something means you end up learning that very thing. Ironically enough, you also don't seem to agree with this disagreement. :megalol:

 

By all means assume away. I am at ease with the fact that you don't find my explanation satisfactory because I am not out to convince anyone of anything.

 

Personally I don't think any explanation from either side will sway the other party so I don't see the need to try.

 

No harm, no foul.

[Tippis]

I am at ease with the fact that you don't find my explanation satisfactory because I am not out to convince anyone of anything.

…aside from the as-yet-unproven need for your wishlist item.

[Cab]

…aside from the as-yet-unproven need for your wishlist item.

 

Something like that can't be proven, only explained and discussed. I have tried to explain but have obviously failed.

 

Though I am curious what you think of labels, as well as the IFLOLS overlay for the supercarrier.

[Tippis]

Something like that can't be proven, only explained and discussed.

You haven't done that either. You've made some odd assertion that having reduced control over your inputs will somehow teach people to better control their inputs. You have yet to explain how that would work; how not being able to fail teaches people to ride the edge between success and failure.

 

Though I am curious what you think of labels, as well as the IFLOLS overlay for the supercarrier.

They aren't forcibly removing your ability to do something incorrectly.

[Cab]

You haven't done that either.

 

Cut me some slack, buddy, I already admitted I failed.

 

You've made some odd assertion that having reduced control over your inputs will somehow teach people to better control their inputs.

 

I don't believe I said this, but if that's what came across than I wasn't clear. Can you show me where you read that?

 

They aren't forcibly removing your ability to do something incorrectly.

 

True. But l look at them as compromises for technical limitations in the game that make it easier for casual users. And there are technical limitations to most people being able to control their g loads as demonstrated during the recent FOH tournament. Some very, very good players were disqualified because they exceeded g-limits, so what chance does the casual user have? A server option to enforce g-limits would remove that one variable while allowing them to learn, practice, and enjoy BFM as it is flown in the real world. What do you care if someone wants to use such a crutch.

 

Of course the elephant in the room is that many people think exceeding g-limits as a normal BFM tactic is realistic.

[Tippis]

I don't believe I said this, but if that's what came across than I wasn't clear. Can you show me where you read that?

In post #48 where you repeated refer to this as a “training aid”, and post #56 where you you explain that this “training” is about learning to stay within the paper limits (as opposed to the actual limits) of the aircraft.

 

But l look at them as compromises for technical limitations in the game that make it easier for casual users.

They're not compromises. They're non-compulsory visual aids that don't limit your ability to use a plane correctly.

 

so what chance does the casual user have?

The same as everyone else, and like everyone else, they need to learn how to fly the aircraft — something they can't do if the aircraft does not respond properly to player inputs. That would be like trying to teach people to drive through a roundabout by removing the steering wheel.

 

Of course the elephant in the room is that many people think exceeding g-limits as a normal BFM tactic is realistic.

There's nothing to suggest anything of the kind. Edited October 11, 2020 by Tippis

[seriadh]

@Tippis, The entire FOH tournament thread turned into a bunch of people trying to explain to Mover that it's acceptable to over g a jet to get a win in BFM. Cab has already explained that this would allow people who have jobs, and families, and other hobbies could fly like the pros, and not worry about overloading a plane. We know you don't want it. Why the hell do you care that others of us would very much enjoy this feature that Cab has proposed?

[Tippis]

Cab has already explained that this would allow people who have jobs, and families, and other hobbies could fly like the pros, and not worry about overloading a plane. We know you don't want it. Why the hell do you care that others of us would very much enjoy this feature that Cab has proposed?

Because 1, it's trivial to learn to stay within the limits — just look at the HUD and/or gauges — and this idea would make that learning process much much harder; 2, it would not make people “fly like pros” because they problem they're having having is that they don't know how to manoeuvre properly within the limits — forcing them to be within the limits won't suddenly impart that knowledge so they'd still not fly properly and would (again) have a much harder time learning how to do so; and 3, above all, it's already in the game if you want it to be.

 

It's not that I “don't want it” — it's that the supposed arguments in its favour don't work or indeed actually work towards the exact opposite outcome. It's a contradictory and self-defeating anti-solution to a non-problem.

[Cab]

In post #48 where you repeated refer to this as a “training aid”, and post #56 where you you explain that this “training” is about learning to stay within the paper limits (as opposed to the actual limits) of the aircraft.

 

Okay, I guess that was too vague. I meant "training aid" in the sense of forcing people to do without bad or undesirable habits in favor of new ones.

 

They're not compromises. They're non-compulsory visual aids that don't limit your ability to use a plane correctly.

 

Interesting that in a sim trying to be as realistic a possible you don't see those as compromises.

 

The same as everyone else, and like everyone else, they need to learn how to fly the aircraft

 

I am not sure "everyone else" is learning to fly their aircraft as I describe, but that is a subjective opinion and unimportant. However the aforementioned FOH tournament supports me on that.

 

What is important is why you feel justified in dictating to casuals user how they use and enjoy their own game. I actually don't think you meant it this way but that sounds very tyrannical and/or elitist to my ear.

 

That would be like trying to teach people to drive through a roundabout by removing the steering wheel.

 

No surprise that I disagree. I'd say it might be more like teaching a casual everyday driver to drive a racecar by installing a throttle limiter. But if it makes you feel better, how about instead having pilots blackout right at the published g-limit? I think that was mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Cab]

@Tippis, The entire FOH tournament thread turned into a bunch of people trying to explain to Mover that it's acceptable to over g a jet to get a win in BFM. Cab has already explained that this would allow people who have jobs, and families, and other hobbies could fly like the pros, and not worry about overloading a plane. We know you don't want it. Why the hell do you care that others of us would very much enjoy this feature that Cab has proposed?

 

Another advantage of having a server option like this would be hosting tournaments like that. The only thing remaining would be flight model refinement where necessary and Heatblur improving the damage model of landing flaps used during BFM.

[gavagai]

@Tippis, The entire FOH tournament thread turned into a bunch of people trying to explain to Mover that it's acceptable to over g a jet to get a win in BFM. Cab has already explained that this would allow people who have jobs, and families, and other hobbies could fly like the pros, and not worry about overloading a plane. We know you don't want it. Why the hell do you care that others of us would very much enjoy this feature that Cab has proposed?

 

I have a job and a family. What you're asking for is what casual games are for, i.e. Flaming Cliffs.

[Cab]

I have a job and a family. What you're asking for is what casual games are for, i.e. Flaming Cliffs.

 

And yet we prefer the high fidelity planes. And as customers we are asking for a feature that would literally affect no one.

[Tippis]

Okay, I guess that was too vague. I meant "training aid" in the sense of forcing people to do without bad or undesirable habits in favor of new ones.

But that's just it: it would create bad and undesirable habits. That is the exact opposite of a training aid in every sense. It's anti-learning the very behaviour that you're trying to address, and it does nothing to aid in building the skill that those players are actually missing.

 

It only ever serves the exact opposite purpose, in favour of the opposite outcome, to what you say you want to see.

 

Interesting that in a sim trying to be as realistic a possible you don't see those as compromises.

Not so much interesting as glaringly obvious. Nothing is lost in exchange for something else. There is no compromise. Nothing is forcibly added or removed and there is no tit-for-tat. You could conceivable see them as compensatory or handicap features, but that is something very different than a compromise.

 

I am not sure "everyone else" is learning to fly their aircraft as I describe, but that is a subjective opinion and unimportant.

Ok, so why did you bring it up, and what does that even have to do with what I said?

 

However the aforementioned FOH tournament supports me on that.

On what? That the casuals wouldn't stand any more of a chance if input was arbitrarily and unrealistically restricted since the thing that is keeping them back isn't the performance of the aircraft but their ability to fly properly, and removing their ability to learn that proper flying isn't exactly going to improve things in their favour. Again, if you remove the ability to fail you will never be able to figure out when and how you've succeeded.

 

What is important is why you feel justified in dictating to casuals user how they use and enjoy their own game.

I'm not. Remember, you're the one saying that casuals should suffer from a dumbed-down, unrealistic, arbitrarily restricted flight model for no coherent or well-defined reason other than that you feel their flying offends your sense of how airplanes should be flown… And you're right, this does indeed sound very elitist on your part. Let people fly and play the way they want, and if you want to impose restrictions, just come to a gentleman's agreement to stick to whatever limitations you want to impose on yourselves. It's as simple as that. Or, as mentioned multiple times, just blow them up if they misbehave — that provides very clear feedback that actually helps with the learning. Overly brutally so, perhaps, but still.

 

There is no need to break any flight models to make that happen and it's just a counterproductive waste of effort to deliberately reduce the realism of the simulation simply to try to impart a lesson that is wholly disconnected from that behaviour and instead relies on a completely unrelated skill set.

 

If you want to see more distinct feedback and consequences on “incorrect” behaviour because you can't get people to agree with the arbitrarily restricted terms of the engagement, ask for that in the form of increased realism; improved damage modelling; better g-modelling. Don't ask for the consequences of incorrect behaviour to be removed. If you want people to learn a manoeuvring skill, teach them. Don't remove the ability to teach and learn by making sure that incorrect manoeuvring can't happen.

 

I'd say it might be more like teaching a casual everyday driver to drive a racecar by installing a throttle limiter.

No. You're talking about restricting the “grip” in the aerial manoeuvre, not about reducing the speed at which it is performed. This is about removing the ability to manoeuvre on or beyond the limits of control, and then challenging the person to engage in manoeuvre tests in the hope that the lack of control means they learn control. Somehow. It's pure self-defeating self-contradiction.

 

And as customers we are asking for a feature that would literally affect no one.

In that case, it is a waste of everyone's time and should not be implemented.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Tippis