NEW: Hook Physics?

[draconus]

37 minutes ago, Tulkas said:

While I’m happy with a degree of randomness so things do not always break at the exactly same parameters, on speed hook breaking is not fun as long as we don’t have barrier

Are you sure it was clean and smooth trap? Maybe netcode glitch? I don't believe it was random when you were all within parameters.

[IronMike]

9 hours ago, Tulkas said:

Yesterday I broke my first hook. The thing is I was quite light, just two sidewinders left and emergency fuel, 2000lbs or so. CASEIII in a no horizont night. I though I touched down on speed. I checked tacview afterwards, 133kts and 10,1 alfa. The guy before me trapped way too fast, 145kts and 7 alfa, and with phoenix still on board, nothing happened to his hook. So there I was, no hook in the darkest night an no divert

While I’m happy with a degree of randomness so things do not always break at the exactly same parameters, on speed hook breaking is not fun as long as we don’t have barrier After I saw my buddy landing at 145kts and keeping his hook while I lost it I wished I had crashed on him after ejecting.

There is no randomness to it. It is all about AOA and speed. Can you show me the tacview please?

[Tulkas]

On 2/11/2022 at 8:31 PM, IronMike said:

There is no randomness to it. It is all about AOA and speed. Can you show me the tacview please?

It was a 3h mission, long a heavy ACMI. If this helps:

This was my trap, funny enough we did not hear the breaking noise on the deck but quite some time after the bolter. We did not know what the noise was until we found out we did not have a hook anymore.

For reference, this was my buddy's trap. He came in way too fast, but his hook did not have corrosion 

 

 

[IronMike]

31 minutes ago, Tulkas said:

It was a 3h mission, long a heavy ACMI. If this helps:

This was my trap, funny enough we did not hear the breaking noise on the deck but quite some time after the bolter. We did not know what the noise was until we found out we did not have a hook anymore.

For reference, this was my buddy's trap. He came in way too fast, but his hook did not have corrosion 

 

 

There is no corrosion modeled or any of that sorts. It is a purely physics based model that depends on speed, weight and AOA. If you heard the hook snap way after it did, it is possible this was caused through lag or rubber banding, which is unfortunate.

Edited February 16, 2022 by IronMike

[Victory205]

If I’m reading the VSI data correctly, both traps were faster than onspeed by a large margin,  one impacting around 850 fpm and the other at 1100? Is the VSI readout a repeater of the aircraft VSI including instrument lag?

Also seemed to have shoved the nose down right at touchdown, which will cause a skip. Pretty ugly pass overall, the hook is the least of your problems.

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Victory205

[IronMike]

11 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

If I’m reading the VSI data correctly, both traps were faster than onspeed by a large margin,  one impacting around 850 fpm and the other at 1100? Is the VSI readout a repeater of the aircraft VSI including instrument lag?

Hard to tell in tacview if it was correct at all or not. Tacview telemetry can be off quite significantly compared to in-game at times.

[Love_Beam]

I've tried to snap it off, but that thing is super tough.

[IronMike]

26 minutes ago, Love_Beam said:

I've tried to snap it off, but that thing is super tough.

At high speeds it is possible you are skipping, too. 185kts should be a safe bet to snap it off, if you catch a wire.

[Tulkas]

3 hours ago, Victory205 said:

If I’m reading the VSI data correctly, both traps were faster than onspeed by a large margin,  one impacting around 850 fpm and the other at 1100? Is the VSI readout a repeater of the aircraft VSI including instrument lag?

Also seemed to have shoved the nose down right at touchdown, which will cause a skip. Pretty ugly pass overall, the hook is the least of your problems.

 

 

Thanks sir, your criticism is always welcome.

I find difficult though to assert in the tacview when did I touched the deck due to lack of proper carrier graphic, I though the contact hapened at 720-750VSI and solid 7 degrees nose up, but I admit I was comming down fast on the glide slope and in addition dived a bit to correct the ball  it was a CASEIII after a 3h mission, very short on fuel, some slack?

Edited February 16, 2022 by Tulkas

[Victory205]

No slack on carrier landings- Physics don’t care.

It’s difficult to tell from the telemetry readout, I don’t see absolute closure rate or if VSI is reflective of actual or the laggy instrument, but generally speaking, the overall landing dynamics on all of the aircraft are too forgiving. A big portion of the weakness in the system comes from the arresting gear itself, and I am not familiar with how super carrier models that. 

[Tulkas]

I totally agree, I hope someone listens to you up the chain. It is frustrating to see how it is possible to trap with no harm while not giving a damn about AoA or alignment. HB does a praiseworthy effort with the hook physics, skipping and breaking to reward or punish good or bad passes but it looks that they are very limited to what they can do as long as ED has full control of trapping dynamics. There are plans for LSO and Airboss posts, ready rooms... within the SC but I don't recall any emphasis on improving trapping physics. Anyway, with the SC apparently abandoned for the time being we have what we have for the long run. We will keep on trying to improve flying ball, AoA and line up even knowing that it does not matter so much for the end result, and we will keep on welcoming HB efforts to improve the carrier experience.     

Edited February 17, 2022 by Tulkas

[Victory205]

You are correct in that none of this should be a problem. It’s a bit ironic when someone flys a crappy pass, then complains that the aircraft or arresting gear system didn’t break.

There is a marketing angle for all of the carrier compatible modules. If the various devs make it too hard, they’ll get endless social media whinging and lost sales. That’s why the SC should be the limiting factor in terms of simulating two-blocking the arresting gear and broken cables, or simply having the LSO wave off aircraft that are fast.

It’s a moot point if you fly onspeed below carrier landing weight with proper wind speed/closure.

[Dragon1-1]

IMO, this should be an option, something like a carrier difficulty multiplier. Some of us want to experience the full difficulty of a carrier trap, but for people who don't have enough time to regularly practice traps, it's not feasible. That said, in the Tomcat I usually have the opposite problem - landing slow and catching the one wire (Jester: At least we didn't crash into the back of the boat...).  

As for the LSO, it already waves you off without much rhyme or reason, especially in the Tomcat.  I suppose he's somewhat more competent at landing Hornets. I don't know how it works IRL, but he'd also sometimes wave me off so close that even if I immediately firewall the throttle, I end up trapping anyway. 

[Uxi]

Ideally,  full sim would be realistic while FC3/MAC would be in easy mode,  but best via media should be an ME or server setting.

[Nealius]

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I don't know how it works IRL, but he'd also sometimes wave me off so close that even if I immediately firewall the throttle, I end up trapping anyway. 

The LSO calls have some lag in them recently. I've been waved off 0.25 seconds before my mains touch the deck in the Hornet as well. Supercarrier comms are pretty much useless outside of initial contact at the moment. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Nealius

[draconus]

15 hours ago, Victory205 said:

There is a marketing angle for all of the carrier compatible modules. If the various devs make it too hard, they’ll get endless social media whinging and lost sales.

You mean all the hassle for modeling realistic physics, working lower paid job, after hours, in a very niche realistic mil sim market just to make it easy and keep newbs happy? I don't think so.

[Victory205]

Not quite sure that I understand what you are trying to convey in that message, but there is a tradeoff on carrier landings at the moment, heavily dependent on the ship side of the equation to make it less frustrating.

The vast majority of passes that I see via video examples would result in technique waveoffs for exceeding  the criteria for a safe pass- Lineup, speed, GS deviations, groove length, etc. You'd be sent home and counseled for performance and retrained before you got the chance to break a hook.

Besides the structural considerations, the F14 right now should hook skip more for fast approaches, or even relaxing the attitude at touchdown. I haven't fooled with the hornet lately to sample its tolerances.

All understandable, no one is vetted in DCS before being allowed to attempt to land on the boat, so it has to be reasonably dumbed down. It's pretty remarkable that sim pilots do as well as they do, but the ship is still very forgiving of landing with sloppy parameters.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Victory205

[draconus]

I know it's very forgiving right now but I don't believe it's done on purpose - just simulation lacking in some parts. I am one of those who wish it would be more real - harder.

[Slant]

On 2/11/2022 at 8:31 PM, IronMike said:

There is no randomness to it. It is all about AOA and speed. Can you show me the tacview please?

Can confirm. Only time I broke the hook was when I went up 4-2-2 and gas up to the brim and immediately returned for a landing. Was pleasantly surprised by a gentle reminder of the aircraft that I'm about 15k lbs too heavy with a subtle *plink* when the hook broke off.

Now all we need is barricades to finish that experience... oh and well, basically everything else on the SC. But at least we have a daytime platcam and 4 wires. Worth the 40 bucks.