Changes to overload wingbreak mechanic in Beta 2.7.7.15038

[Preendog]

The F/A-18 has had a variety of wingbreak sensitivities during it's development.  In earlier versions, you could do 35+G without consequence by using the circuit breaker trick.  In later versions, the wings would break off above 20ish G, and it would usually be a neat 1/2 wing split on each side (so you could keep flying afterward and achieve higher than normally possible top speeds).  In this version or the previous one there was a significant reduction in survivable G that will be felt by those who enjoy the paddle switch. 

For those interested, the following test results to better know the new limits.

----

Conditions:  Dec 25, 29.95, 20°C, 20,000ft

Procedure:  Descend in a spiral and do porpoising pull-ups (push stick forward, then quickly pull back with paddle switch).  Adjust speed to achieve the highest peak G on the HUD display.  Continue pull-ups with increasing G until wings break.  Note peak G at wing break.
 

--

Conformal missiles only, 10% fuel:  13.1 G

Conformal missiles only, 100% fuel:  9.7 G

Conformal missiles, fuel tank, 4 x MK84s:  8.5 G

--

Notes

-Exceeding the FCS limit is easiest at <10k altitude between 400-500kts.  At high altitudes the wings mush, and at high speeds the pitch response gets too stiff.

-The limit certainly changes with airplane weight, including both internal fuel and ordnance.  

-If is extremely easy to wingbreak with heavier loads, and the breaks can happen at higher altitudes.

-It seems random which wing pieces are lost, and the plane is unlikely to be flyable afterward.  In about 20 tries, I was only able to keep flying and land once (left wingtip break, with two Mavs on the right wing for balance).

-It wasn't clear if stress is cumulative, or if there is a simple hard limit.  It is possible to wingbreak on the first pull if you get the conditions right, or survive repeated pulls just outside the right conditions, suggesting that it is a simple hard limit.

-Related note:  Wing damage, even scraping a wingtip on the ground, will dramatically lower the load limit for the damaged piece.  Wingbreak will be very likely even without using paddle switch.

 

Fly safe.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Preendog

[Grodin]

Love this new wing-rip move. It really confuses F16 and F15 and Sukhoi pilots online when they cant keep up, its awesome!

1: Cruising at 50 000 ft @ mach 1.5+ rocks

2: Pulling 10 G turns without breaking anything more is also cool, im impressed theres so much aero without wings

3: Great manouver to catch/escape migs for example, can get up to 1000 knots @ sl, too bad the hud is capped @ 900 kts so hard to tell your exact speed

 

 

[MARLAN_]

The instant wing breakage AKA: kill switch implemented at high G is completely unrealistic and feels to me like a "balance" change to prevent people from "gaming" the sim. Hopefully it's not! Maybe getting fixed soon... But that's what it feels like right now. This effect can also destroy your wings even without using paddle, flying through wake can cause a very short period of high G (~8G) which will break your wings instantly. This would never happen IRL.

Over-G stress can certainly cause a lot of damage, up to wing breakage, but not immediately like how it is right now, especially at around 9G.

Over-G stress should cause other consequences first... such as performance loss over time, fuel leaks/FCS failures/other system failures,etc. and THEN break off wings entirely (unless of course, you pull a LOT G like 12+ sustained for some time, which generally the FCS won't allow you to do anyways in most cases...)

Edited November 7, 2021 by MARLAN_

[Mayo]

3 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

The instant wing breakage AKA: kill switch implemented at high G is completely unrealistic and feels to me like a "balance" change to prevent people from "gaming" the sim. Hopefully it's not! Maybe getting fixed soon... But that's what it feels like right now. This effect can also destroy your wings even without using paddle, flying through wake can cause a very short period of high G (~8G) which will break your wings instantly. This would never happen IRL.

Over-G stress can certainly cause a lot of damage, up to wing breakage, but not immediately like how it is right now, especially at around 9G.

Over-G stress should cause other consequences first... such as performance loss over time, fuel leaks/FCS failures/other system failures,etc. and THEN break off wings entirely (unless of course, you pull a LOT G like 12+ sustained for some time, which generally the FCS won't allow you to do anyways in most cases...)

 

I agree.
Logged in to the forum to report a bug about the wing breaking at aprox 11G's (I tested it can do 10.2)
But it instantly snaps at the wing root. If if it would break, I think it should at the hinge. But as far as my knowledge goes it wont instantly snap. Like Markal said, the hinge  may break. maybe internat communication with the wingtip weapon fails. etc.
Now if it would get repeated punishment like that, it could indeed snap.

Sure hope this is not a 'Balancing' consideration.

[MARLAN_]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZY7DoJ3OkcSKlb3EYV4XZA8b7TLGta-e/view?usp=sharing

Video of wings breaking off in 10 seconds of flight.

I am, of course, *trying* to break off the wings here, but that should not be possible in 10 seconds of flight, it should require sustained stress and prolonged high G, unless you somehow spike a crazy high G like 15-20+ they might snap off instantly.

[Dragon1-1]

Remember that in all likelihood, it can only break one way, because the 3D model is made like that. It's probably a little overdone right now, but pulling high G with highly loaded wings will break the real aircraft. Hornets are not built to hold together in a "worst case scenario" like that, that's what the ejection seat is for.

[MARLAN_]

In the video the jet is clean wings, this is the Caucasus instant action free flight.

The jet would never snap its wings off immediately like that spiking 10G for half a second.

[MARLAN_]

Classic CFIT recovery, 9.3 G pulled for less than 1 second, clean wings, no previous stress (Caucasus Instant Action Free Flight), left wing detonates.

Tacview-20211108-233400-DCS.zip.acmi WingsSnap2.trk

[Hazardpro]

The truth is that IRL there isn't going to be a consistent loading that when you go beyond the wings always snap off, there's always uncertainty which is why aircraft are designed with safety factors (and a lot of testing) to establish the safety below a certain specified limit. Can DCS perfectly simulate this? No, so in that sense it's not very realistic, just like our engines perform exactly the same every single flight in DCS when in real life they are always degrading.

On the other hand, it's also very unrealistic when DCS players engage the g-limit override in combat, as numerous SMEs have already explained that that isn't the intended use and they don't train to use it that way. And doing so certainly has the potential to damage the jet and make it combat ineffective even if it doesn't result in the wings ripping off. So in that sense having a mechanism that effectively dissuades players in DCS from using the switch actually results in more realistic outcomes.

So there is no easy answer of just saying "it's a sim, we want realism" but rather a trade-off between 2 different realisms. 

[MARLAN_]

I've talked to a retired F18 pilot in great depth on the paddle, since it seems to be such a huge topic in the DCS community when it really should not be.

It comes down to essentially, the official, proper use, is to prevent a CFIT scenario, and everything else is "it depends". If you can explain why you did it, you'll be fine. Pilots do not train to using it in combat, because you do not train to damage your airframe. They train to win without needing to break the jet. That said, there are absolutely combat scenarios where you'd need to pull the paddle, and you're most likely going to have command agree with you. For example, to prevent an in-close missile from hitting you where all other measures failed, or perhaps you merge with an advanced enemy like a Felon, maybe a Flanker sneaks up behind you. All of these cases are extremely rare/unheard-of in real world (currently), but in DCS they are common occurrences, and certainly plausible real world as well if things got bad.

Regardless, the discussion is not about when/why to use the paddle, it's a feature that exists, and the F/A-18C engineers who designed the aircraft, and tested it, absolutely did not design in a self-destruct switch on first use. As per my track/Tacview, you can't even use it in a CFIT scenario or your wings come off.

Edited November 9, 2021 by MARLAN_

[Mayo]

On 11/9/2021 at 8:17 AM, Hazardpro said:

The truth is that IRL there isn't going to be a consistent loading that when you go beyond the wings always snap off, there's always uncertainty which is why aircraft are designed with safety factors (and a lot of testing) to establish the safety below a certain specified limit. Can DCS perfectly simulate this? No, so in that sense it's not very realistic, just like our engines perform exactly the same every single flight in DCS when in real life they are always degrading.

On the other hand, it's also very unrealistic when DCS players engage the g-limit override in combat, as numerous SMEs have already explained that that isn't the intended use and they don't train to use it that way. And doing so certainly has the potential to damage the jet and make it combat ineffective even if it doesn't result in the wings ripping off. So in that sense having a mechanism that effectively dissuades players in DCS from using the switch actually results in more realistic outcomes.

So there is no easy answer of just saying "it's a sim, we want realism" but rather a trade-off between 2 different realisms. 

The truth is, it wont instantly break with just 1G over. Well, maybe 0,0001 percent of the time. And probably only when the airframe already has a lot of hours.
If the structural failure could be THAT dramatic that easily the max G of the aircraft would never be 7.5.

Now the simulation should consider we are not flying 'fresh out of the factory' jets. But wings snapping like that, 100% of the time is simply not realistic.

[FoxxyTrotty]

On 11/8/2021 at 3:21 PM, MARLAN_ said:

In the video the jet is clean wings, this is the Caucasus instant action free flight.

The jet would never snap its wings off immediately like that spiking 10G for half a second.

I had something similar happen a couple times during slick wing hi speed transit, coming off the burners and descending (mil power due to speed) I found it extremely easy to break the wings with zero warning. So much the first time it happened I was convinced this was some kinda glitch, but the second time, I wasn't even pulling hard, it was (I'm guessing here) the rapidly increasing IAS as I'm falling down through thicker air.

I agree the whole issue needs reworking, and the best approach might well be some kinda roll of the dice. If you over G by 1-2G, basically you're extremely unlucky to have anything go wrong. At 2-4G you wanna be Poppin panels, and anything over thereabouts have a list of things chosen at random that MAY happen.

[Cab]

This thread has been a very interesting read for me. I spend a fair amount of time in the dogfight servers exclusively flying the F-18 and I don't remember my wings breaking for anything other than battle damage. I do try to minimize using the paddle as much as possible, but still find myself pulling it occasionally.

NOTICE: I The experiences provided in this post are my own and are not intended to contradict or dispute the experiences of other DCS players. 

[BIGNEWY]

I have tested a tweak and it will be in the next patch. 

Thanks

[Preendog]

2.7.9.16140 mentions a change to F-18 load limit (Adjusted overload limit to 10G [max weight?]), and 2.7.9.17830 came recently.  Tested with same procedure as first post, each 3 times, noted peak G on HUD.

Empty (no conformal missiles), 10% fuel  13.8,  14.4,  14.2
Empty (no conformal missiles), 100% fuel:  11.2,  10.4,  10.6
Conformal missiles, 4 x MK84, fuel tank:  9.5,  8.6, 8.4

Values are the same.  Change must not have made it in these patches.

e.  It is much easier to wingbreak than I thought.  I didn't realize I had my pitch axis restricted to 75%.  With just 3/4 of pitch input you can instantly break wing without paddle switch in many cases.

e2.  The wing damage portion of the change is even more deadly, because any amount of wing damage (minor scrape on runway, MG hit) reduces that wing's load limit to a very low G that is less than a regular turn or pullup.  If you take any hit without noticing (often the hits are silent), or don't know that a hit was to a wing, you die on the very next pull of any kind you make. 

Edited December 25, 2021 by Preendog

[JetCat]

That sounds interesting! Maybe I should install the beta version again to get all these awesome new graphics and flight system features

[Preendog]

F/A-18 got nerfed hard but at least AMRAAM is op now.

[Versor]

14,2 G great

https://www.quora.com/Can-the-F-A-18-Hornets-pull-upto-9G-or-limited-to-7-7-5G-I-am-asking-this-because-the-F-35B-C-which-suppose-to-replace-it-is-restricted-to-7G-for-the-B-model-and-7-5G-for-the-C-model

[oldcrusty]

2 hours ago, Preendog said:

2.7.9.16140 mentions a change to F-18 load limit (Adjusted overload limit to 10G [max weight?]), and 2.7.9.17830 came recently.  Tested with same procedure as first post, each 3 times, noted peak G on HUD.

Empty (no conformal missiles), 10% fuel  13.8,  14.4,  14.2
Empty (no conformal missiles), 100% fuel:  11.2,  10.4,  10.6
Conformal missiles, 4 x MK84, fuel tank:  9.5,  8.6, 8.4

Values are the same.  Change must not have made it in these patches.

e.  It is much easier to wingbreak than I thought.  I didn't realize I had my pitch axis restricted to 75%.  With just 3/4 of pitch input you can instantly break wing without paddle switch in many cases.

e2.  The wing damage portion of the change is even more deadly, because any amount of wing damage (minor scrape on runway, MG hit) reduces that wing's load limit to a very low G that is less than a regular turn or pullup.  If you take any hit without noticing (often the hits are silent), or don't know that a hit was to a wing, you die on the very next pull of any kind you make. 

 

I've just finished an A/G hop and just before I exited I remembered this thread. I gave it a quick test. All of my A/G ord. was gone, fired off Amraams and heaters. There was only Litening on center and empty pylons. Dumped fuel to around 2k, total was somewhere around 29k lbs. Altitude 5k, a/s 500 kts.

I pulled the paddle and full stick and all I got was 10.7g and the wings happily ripping through the air.  My Warthog's pitch curve is non-linear but max is not restricted. I'm on latest OB (.17838)

Perhaps it makes a difference if the jet is configured very light in ME? I'll try it next time.

 

[oldcrusty]

No luck using the paddle. Most I could get was 12g but... if there is a will, there's a way. 14.9 g:

 

[Versor]

Some information about g-limits from real pilots. It's good to know (especially in 19:00 minute of video). Maybe in DCS some over-g can damage something (FLCS?, some parts of wing?) 

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by Versor

[MARLAN_]

 

4 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

The problem with DCS is that airframes aren't persistent. You start out with a factory fresh jet every time and can repair it to factory new in 3 minutes. A lot of overstress damage is comultative and only shows itself after a certain amount of flight hours. DCS and its "modules" are too simplified to simulate that. Unless you model each aircraft subsystem in a physical and non-binary state this won't be possible to implement. And I also think it goes beyond the scope of what DCS is trying to be and actually is, a combat flight sim / game, focused on flying and combat mechanics. Catastrophic failure, like wings breaking etc. is at least one way to enforce some operational limitations and even those vary from 3rd part to 3rd party and in-house modules. There is no norm or formulated standard for it. I also don't understand the obsession with pulling 9+ G's in planes that aren't even designed for it without any consequence. Are people trying to gain some made up advantage by doing this? If you really need to pull 12G's in a Hornet to win in a BFM turnament or whatever you really should reconsider the way you are flying and fighting. There is also no way to really model any regime outside the charted flight envelope to begin with. People really seem to be very selective or rather clueless about what they consider realistic or not or even what they want to be modelled in a realistic manner. 

People want realism in their simulation.

Wings breaking off by using the paddle switch is not realistic. It's that simple. How people use the paddle has no bearing on the discussion which is that the wings breaking off is unrealistic and silly.

This is a grossly unrealistic feature in the simulation.

Until proper damage modeling (permanent wing bend, performance loss, FCS failures, fuel line leaks, etc) is modeled, total catastrophic failure of the wings should not happen. Maybe if someone is trying really hard to break the wings (10G+ pulls repetitively 20+ times) they might snap off.

All you are arguing for Gypsy is for a less realistic sim, maybe you are biased by your feelings on how people use the paddle, but that should have no bearing on creating a realistic simulation.

[Cathnan]

What I'm wondering, is it really unrealistic to snap them wings off when you pull the paddle with the stick in neutral and then fully pull it back immediately? That's what it seems like Gripes has done in the video he posted. My thinking is, that most likely creates peak G of way beyond 14. I used the paddle with full stick aft recently too. My wings stayed where they were supposed to be. But I didn't go from 0 to 100 in an instant on the stick.

[MARLAN_]

4 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

How is pulling 12-14G's in a Hornet realistic in any shape or form? Said wing breaking was already adjusted and now occurs way past 9G - more when clean. Having no consequence at all is the way less "realistic" part. The Tomcat at least loses INS integrity and some SAS if you over G it, as well as having slat/flap damage. Just as an example. On the other hand the Viper and Viggen can go much faster than their published Vne with zero consequence or damage. Again, you are just being picky about one particular thing, wings breaking - you decided for yourself that this isn't realistic, and it isn't but it's more realistic than having no consequence or damage whatsoever. 

There should be consequences for overstressing the aircraft.

The consequence should not be your wings exploding.

I already mentioned examples of good consequences. Wing explosions is not a good placeholder until proper damage modeling is implemented. Until that time that proper damage modeling is implemented it would be *more* realistic to take no damage at all than to have your wings detonate.

[oldcrusty]

1 hour ago, Cathnan said:

What I'm wondering, is it really unrealistic to snap them wings off when you pull the paddle with the stick in neutral and then fully pull it back immediately? That's what it seems like Gripes has done in the video he posted. My thinking is, that most likely creates peak G of way beyond 14. I used the paddle with full stick aft recently too. My wings stayed where they were supposed to be. But I didn't go from 0 to 100 in an instant on the stick.

The vid I posted was a follow up to the tests I've done with the 'paddle'. I was curious about Preendog's test results when using the paddle only. As I mentioned in my previous post I wasn't able to go past 11.6 or 12G (only once) which is not enough to cause wing snap.

The only way I could cause a structural failure was by overriding the FCS gain. That's how I pulled instantaneous 14.9 which did the 'job'.

I wouldn't even bring up dogfight into this discussion. This was a structural strength test.  In a BFM, I have enough hard time trying to manage energy with normal AOA schedule, forget the paddle.