Half a wing and other battle damage

[WelshZeCorgi]

So what can you get away with in terms of damage? I guess theoretically you could lose a taileron or a vertical stabilizer and still be okay, but could you still fly with half a wing? 

 

Also have you guys seen damage like mentioned above in DCS? I don't think I've seen battle damage other than the wings being completely clipped off.

Edited January 28, 2021 by WelshZeCorgi

[near_blind]

seems plausible

[WelshZeCorgi]

Wow, any info on how it got that? AAA, SAM, AA or mid air collision?

[near_blind]

IIRC it was a collision over the South China Sea. The F-14 recovered safely back to Singapore. 

[Dragon1-1]

Like the F-15, it gets a lot of fuselage lift. That, and it has a lot of excess lift from being designed to land on a carrier. 

[WelshZeCorgi]

I'm guessing we're not going to have this level of damage detail until they work in the new damage model and make the visual assets to replicate these kinds of damages. 

[Dragon1-1]

Damage model hopefully sometime this year, visuals are up to Heatblur... so actually pretty likely, given the attention to detail they shown so far. I wouldn't be surprised if the Cat had the best looking damage of all modern fighters, when the new model comes.

[ustio]

well right now almost none. since a single aim-9 most of the time knock off you hydraulics which left you uncontrollable

[fat creason]

Unless ED's new damage system provides easier or better ways of doing things and requires minimal work to implement, I don't plan on adding many more aerodynamic damage effects beyond removal of specific flight surfaces. Not sure what else is planned on the visual side of things.

Edited January 29, 2021 by fat creason

[Xeno426]

I'd just love for damage to knock out systems without always knocking out electronics. Give us a reason to use some of those backup systems!

[draconus]

17 hours ago, Xeno426 said:

I'd just love for damage to knock out systems without always knocking out electronics.

Certainly not always and many systems depend on electronics. I always feel like cheating when I can still fly after getting hit.

 

On 1/29/2021 at 7:11 PM, fat creason said:

...I don't plan on adding many more aerodynamic damage effects beyond removal of specific flight surfaces.

What about lost wing or vertical stabilizer?

[fat creason]

21 hours ago, draconus said:

Certainly not always and many systems depend on electronics. I always feel like cheating when I can still fly after getting hit.

 

What about lost wing or vertical stabilizer?

 

We already have the equivalent of that on the aerodynamics side. I was mostly referring to removal of other individual surfaces like the flaps/spoilers. Currently the visual representation of damage may not fully represent what's happening on the code/physics side.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

In terms of the damage model I do frequently get a bit of rage chat in PVP servers when you survive an AIM9 or better yet AIM120 shot with a lot of system damage...but basically still combat effective.

 

I have a tacview from the 4YA PVP server where I took an AIM120 to the face and drop off from the tacview readout, but in game i was still turn fighting with the F-16 that shot it, you can then see me push the JETT button and my bombs and tanks get dumped from what appears to be thin air. The F-16 driver then tries some 20mm shots at thin air before eating an AIM9...again fired from thin air  one of his chums got me while i was trying to navigate home low and slow with the wet compass.

 

All of that was a roundabout way of asking - exactly how does DCS / HB model the damage to the F-14? I'm not calling it out as unrealistic, but perhaps as an outlier - most of the ED modules just go bang when they get hit by something and there's not much limping home.

[captain_dalan]

14 hours ago, AH_Solid_Snake said:

 

All of that was a roundabout way of asking - exactly how does DCS / HB model the damage to the F-14? I'm not calling it out as unrealistic, but perhaps as an outlier - most of the ED modules just go bang when they get hit by something and there's not much limping home.

Except for the F-15...... that's one's even tankier!

[AH_Solid_Snake]

Well they are both big jets....could it be as simple as non-direct hits will only ever shred parts of the plane and something smaller like an F-16 is just way more likely to be inside the shrapnel zone entirely rather than partially?

 

We know from the technical literature that the teen series of jets were designed with much better redundancy built into the design in terms of battle damage than the century series, multiple hydraulic lines being routed through entirely different channels on opposite sides of the plane for example, so that seems like a fairly simple but obvious enough reason for the difference?

[Hextopia]

On 1/31/2021 at 10:51 AM, fat creason said:

 

We already have the equivalent of that on the aerodynamics side. I was mostly referring to removal of other individual surfaces like the flaps/spoilers. Currently the visual representation of damage may not fully represent what's happening on the code/physics side.

So does that mean that you can have aerodynamic changes without a visual change?

 

This might explain why I've had damaged planes that would barely fly (large loss of lift or more drag, couldn't really tell) that looked more or less fine (just the usual bullet holes texture on the nose/fuselage).

It felt weird landing a clean jet with only a few thousand pounds of gas at nearly full throttle, along with not using airbrakes/DLC because the plane wouldn't stay airborne.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Hextopia