Model wing flutter and Over-G effects on pylons

[TobiasA]

It would be nice to have wing flutter and the effects of over-G-ing stores modeled.
There is a pretty detailed report on wing flutter on the F-16 (search for ADA420830 and f16hblcosdm2006), so it should be possible to model the effects, even if not in full detail.
This would lead to people keeping the M0.95 restrictions on many AG stores instead of exploiting them on public servers. It would not affect the Mach 1.4 limit with external tanks since those loadouts are typically not sensitive to flutter.

Over-G could be modelled by giving each pylon a maximum holding force in kN. If the stores weight multiplied with the G force pulled exceed the maximum holding force to a certain degree, hung stores or even losing the ordnance or pylon occurs.

It would be nice to have those modelled- however, there is little sense in it modelling it if other modules do not do so.

[WobblyFlops]

15 minutes ago, TobiasA said:

It would be nice to have those modelled- however, there is little sense in it modelling it if other modules do not do so.

Why not? If the choice is to have it on one module or none at all, having it at least on one is vastly preferable. Obviously it would be ideal if every module had the same level of fidelity and standards but historically that has never been the case in DCS, not even from the same developers. The Viper looks very promising with the Maverick and Harm implementation so far, hopefully they will add these limitations as well.

[Exorcet]

It would be best if all modules had their limits consistently modeled, but even if other aircraft do not, the F-16 should have it limits in place.

[Cepheus76]

I'am all for the modelling of limitations, for all modules. However, this is only one part of the equation, the manuals should then have a "Limitations" section, so that we can plan our flights accordingly. And while we're at it, a "Performance" section would be more than welcome, too. I just hate to take-off and having no clue what the expected fuel consumption is. 

 

Please note that I am not asking for a copy-paste from the actual flight manuals. Chiefly, because they are probably classified anyway. But even if they weren't, they wouldn't be 100% applicable, since we're operating with a flight model here, so I guess (basing that guess on the discussions here regarding pylon drag, for example) that there will be some inconsistencies. 

 

Oh, and to finish my documentation wishlist here, I would also appreciate a list of approved load-outs for a the aircraft a module is representing.

[WobblyFlops]

57 minutes ago, Cepheus76 said:

manuals should then have a "Limitations" section

Completely agree. The documentation should obviously reflect the capabilities of the in game aircraft, which will always have some level of variance, even if it's done by Heatblur themselves. The real figures are certainly not classified, but based on my testing don't really apply all that well for DCS aircraft. Obviously this endeavour only makes sense once the engine modelling and the flight modelling is complete, which is going to take years. If we're talking about core features, it should tie in with a mission planner that has TOLD planning capabilities and it would have the ability to give you realistic numbers for the in game performance depending on the runway and weather conditions and your payload. 

[TobiasA]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb WobblyFlops:

Why not? If the choice is to have it on one module or none at all, having it at least on one is vastly preferable. Obviously it would be ideal if every module had the same level of fidelity and standards but historically that has never been the case in DCS, not even from the same developers. The Viper looks very promising with the Maverick and Harm implementation so far, hopefully they will add these limitations as well.

You are probably right about that. 

After all it is part of a simulation and if one has the goal of being the most realistic simulator ever, these things are indeed important. 

[JetCat]

On 7/3/2021 at 1:13 PM, WobblyFlops said:

Obviously it would be ideal if every module had the same level of fidelity and standards but historically that has never been the case in DCS, not even from the same developers.

 

The F-16 and F-18 have the same visual quality and realism, no bird is worse or less detailed than the other

But the F-18 had more development progression and more patches, and offers the possibility to change various custom cockpit repaints. The F-16 on the other hand has some shiny new graphics effects and is more sophisticated in other details, and has superb wing flex.

 

[WobblyFlops]

12 hours ago, JetCat said:

The F-16 and F-18 have the same visual quality and realism, no bird is worse or less detailed than the other

 

Well, the Viper is the only aircraft in DCS that has the Maverick boresighting modelled, it's also among the few jets that don't have adjustable laser codes for LGBs from the cockpit (in reality the ground crew sets that before takeoff for conventional, older variants that we use). For the Hornet, there's a lot of evidence that certain areas are not as detailed as they are in the Viper, such as Maverick integration, HARM limitations (this one is not as clear cut, heavily debated subject and I don't have the documentation to pick a side) and so on.

 

On the other hand, the Hornet has every button clickable in the cockpit, (so with a tapes on call, you can actually simulate turning them on, even though they don't work) and you can set your desired transponder codes through the UFC, even though in game, the vast majority of the related functionality is not simulated. Also, with the Viper there's still hope that a lot of features will eventually get implemented (and there's a lot more info out there as well), but for the Hornet we have a good idea about a ton of stuff that won't make the cut.