Changes to overload wingbreak mechanic in Beta 2.7.7.15038

[t1mb0b]

don't fly like a nob and keep your wings until next time

[oldcrusty]

1 hour ago, t1mb0b said:

don't fly like a nob and keep your wings until next time

Heh, I still have my 'Wings'...  

[Sandman1330]

To each their own, I used to get fired up at people using the paddle in BFM, but now I've just decided to let them play the way they want. I'll make fun of them for it, especially if I am beating them without using it, but I don't get fired up anymore.

I don't understand why people flock to DCS for it's realism, then choose to fly in an unrealistic manner, but again - to each their own...

I would like to see failures like Heatblur has implemented - Gonky once said something about the gun possibly being something that might break first (that would be a significant factor in BFM ), or maybe failed control surfaces, etc. I can't claim to know where the weak points of the jet are, but I have no doubt that something would break with repeated pulls of 9G+... You might get away with one or two.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Sandman1330

[wilbur81]

For what it's worth, it appears that the Hornet is a 9G airplane for the Finnish and (I think) the Swiss. Basically, a different FCS software and no wing-fold mech allow the Hornet to sustain 9g. I've read that the 7.5 limiter is a product of US Hornet's having the Wing-fold requirement/limitation and to generally extend the service life, particularly in the salt water corrosion environment. Foreign air forces have made other tweaks, like the Aussie's taking off the launch bar from the nose gear... which turned out to cause some pretty wicked/scary wobbling at certain ground speeds. Point: It seems that the wing-fold would be the primary concern for a US hornet exceeding 7.5 G over and over... this does not account for over-G'ing hanging stores... which is also an issue for the Viper that is not currently modeled (i.e. - The Viper is not a 9-g airplane either when carrying certain stores without 'hung' ordinance problems).

Edited January 6, 2022 by wilbur81

[Sandman1330]

8 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

For what it's worth, it appears that the Hornet is a 9G airplane for the Finnish and (I think) the Swiss. Basically, a different FCS software and no wing-fold mech allow the Hornet to sustain 9g. I've read that the 7.5 limiter is a product of US Hornet's having the Wing-fold requirement/limitation and to generally extend the service life, particularly in the salt water corrosion environment. Foreign air forces have made other tweaks, like the Aussie's taking off the launch bar from the nose gear... which turned out to cause some pretty wicked/scary wobbling at certain ground speeds. Point: It seems that the wing-fold would be the primary concern for a US hornet exceeding 7.5 G over and over... this does not account for over-G'ing hanging stores... which is also an issue for the Viper that is not currently modeled (i.e. - The Viper is not a 9-g airplane either when carrying certain stores without 'hung' ordinance problems).

 

That’s not true according to Gonky. I apologize that I don’t have a better time stamp for where exactly he speaks about it, but IIRC it’s in the first third of the video. He says he used to think that the wing fold was the only difference too, but since he’s started working at Boeing, he has learned it is a completely different wing with structural reinforcement throughout the jet. I’ll look for the spot if I get a chance and update the post with a timestamp. (Edit: starts at 18:30)

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Sandman1330

[wilbur81]

27 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

That’s not true according to Gonky. I apologize that I don’t have a better time stamp for where exactly he speaks about it, but IIRC it’s in the first third of the video. He says he used to think that the wing fold was the only difference too, but since he’s started working at Boeing, he has learned it is a completely different wing with structural reinforcement throughout the jet. I’ll look for the spot if I get a chance and update the post with a timestamp. (Edit: starts at 18:30)

 

 

Nice! Just had a listen... very interesting. And that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the link. Also, I REALLY appreciated what Gonky had to say about honoring the guys in DCS who fly it 'honest', without the paddle switch at 20:55. I sometimes feel like I'm one of the few guys who refuses to pull it in the name of realism.... but I'm sure there's a large number like me who just never mention it. 

[Sandman1330]

11 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

Nice! Just had a listen... very interesting. And that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the link. Also, I REALLY appreciated what Gonky had to say about honoring the guys in DCS who fly it 'honest', without the paddle switch at 20:55. I sometimes feel like I'm one of the few guys who refuses to pull it in the name of realism.... but I'm sure there's a large number like me who just never mention it. 

It is a great video!

Over my Xmas break I spent a lot of time on the dogfight servers. We cancelled all our holiday travel plans last minute so I had nothing else to do lol. I’ve noticed fewer folks using the paddle than I think there used to be. I’d say most do use it only occasionally, and the odd one flies around with it held the entire time.

I don’t pull it either, and know a few guys who don’t. They’re out there

Edited January 7, 2022 by Sandman1330

[wilbur81]

10.5 G on an F/A-18A without the paddle switch.... whoops.... but at least the wings didn't come off.  1:21:58

 

 

[Sandman1330]

13 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

10.5 G on an F/A-18A without the paddle switch.... whoops.... but at least the wings didn't come off.  1:21:58

 

 

Luckily it was extremely short duration… 

[Z0mb13]

On 1/6/2022 at 7:30 PM, wilbur81 said:

For what it's worth, it appears that the Hornet is a 9G airplane for the Finnish and (I think) the Swiss. Basically, a different FCS software and no wing-fold mech allow the Hornet to sustain 9g. I've read that the 7.5 limiter is a product of US Hornet's having the Wing-fold requirement/limitation and to generally extend the service life, particularly in the salt water corrosion environment. Foreign air forces have made other tweaks, like the Aussie's taking off the launch bar from the nose gear... which turned out to cause some pretty wicked/scary wobbling at certain ground speeds. Point: It seems that the wing-fold would be the primary concern for a US hornet exceeding 7.5 G over and over... this does not account for over-G'ing hanging stores... which is also an issue for the Viper that is not currently modeled (i.e. - The Viper is not a 9-g airplane either when carrying certain stores without 'hung' ordinance problems).

 

As for the Swiss F/A-18, they can fold the wings, I remember that we used that a lot back in 2012, because of the maintenance of our main airfield's F/A-18 boxes, the jets were stored in the old F-5 boxes that were high enough but not wide enough. Thus we had to fold the wings in a certain place of the taxiway and unfold at the same place before going to the runway. They were AOs that were putting/removing the safety pins that secured the folding mechanism.

As for the other main differences the UFC (tactile screen) and DDI are the ones of the super-hornet.  So it's black/white in the menus, but all DDI could do colors, ie in HSI page. Another notable all day difference is that the civilian ILS is fitted.

As for the default loadout, it is quite ALWAYS a single AIM-9X left + a fuel tank on the centreline. Sometimes two fuels tanks.
All other configurations, with AIM120 or FLIR are VERY rare.

If you were wondering, the documentation say +9G/-3G, without AoA limit.

 

[M1Combat]

"Basically, a different FCS software and no wing-fold mech allow the Hornet to sustain 9g."

Sustain???  Did they put 11 more engines on it too? 

[Ahmed]

The wings are NOT going to snap off at 9G....

Plus also, the g-limiter should work MUCH better than it does in DCS. While over-ging is possible, it shouldn't be as easy as it is in DCS...

So many things to fine tune still...

[=475FG= Dawger]

12 hours ago, M1Combat said:

"Basically, a different FCS software and no wing-fold mech allow the Hornet to sustain 9g."

Sustain???  Did they put 11 more engines on it too? 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sustain

Try definition 2

Edited January 19, 2022 by =475FG= Dawger

[M1Combat]

I mean you did see the  yeah??  It was a bit tongue in cheek but yeah...  Definition 2 is I'm sure hat he meant :).

[FlankerKiller]

On 1/6/2022 at 12:59 PM, Sandman1330 said:

To each their own, I used to get fired up at people using the paddle in BFM, but now I've just decided to let them play the way they want. I'll make fun of them for it, especially if I am beating them without using it, but I don't get fired up anymore.

I don't understand why people flock to DCS for it's realism, then choose to fly in an unrealistic manner, but again - to each their own...

I would like to see failures like Heatblur has implemented - Gonky once said something about the gun possibly being something that might break first (that would be a significant factor in BFM ), or maybe failed control surfaces, etc. I can't claim to know where the weak points of the jet are, but I have no doubt that something would break with repeated pulls of 9G+... You might get away with one or two.

 

You know that paddle is there for a reason right. Also remember there is not one serving U.S.A piolet that has see actual air to air combat. The last real fights were in eastern Europe in the 90s. You don't pull the paddle in training, because you don't want to prematurely wear the jet out. But in combat, if it's pull the paddle or die, your gonna pull that paddle. If it's cause maintenance of bad night, but kill that bandit. You will pull that paddle. There are lots of things not done in training that would be done in combat.

[Sandman1330]

On 1/22/2022 at 9:09 AM, FlankerKiller said:

You know that paddle is there for a reason right. Also remember there is not one serving U.S.A piolet that has see actual air to air combat. The last real fights were in eastern Europe in the 90s. You don't pull the paddle in training, because you don't want to prematurely wear the jet out. But in combat, if it's pull the paddle or die, your gonna pull that paddle. If it's cause maintenance of bad night, but kill that bandit. You will pull that paddle. There are lots of things not done in training that would be done in combat.

I never said you wouldn't pull it in a "pull the paddle or die" situation. I said you won't go into a fight planning to pull it, and hold it down for the entirety of the fight. People in DCS literally hold it down and use it on every turn in a dogfight. Do it once to save your ass, well the jet's down for inspection for awhile but will probably be fine. Hold it down an entire dogfight, you're damaging something.

It's there for a reason, sure - emergency use only. Pull it once to save your life. Don't fight with it held down, it's not a 9G airplane despite what everyone wants to believe. Ask any real Hornet driver.

Anyway, it's there and people will use it, so whatever. That they will do it is not realistic. Breaking the wings off isn't realistic either. But SOMETHING will break with repeated use - avionics, flight control surfaces, the gun. Things should start breaking if you abuse it, because they would in real life. The Tomcat has hit this balance very nicely - you over G or overspeed the flaps, things will break that will make your life more difficult, but your wings won't rip off unless you REALLY pull on it.

[FlankerKiller]

8 hours ago, Sandman1330 said:

I never said you wouldn't pull it in a "pull the paddle or die" situation. I said you won't go into a fight planning to pull it, and hold it down for the entirety of the fight. People in DCS literally hold it down and use it on every turn in a dogfight. Do it once to save your ass, well the jet's down for inspection for awhile but will probably be fine. Hold it down an entire dogfight, you're damaging something.

It's there for a reason, sure - emergency use only. Pull it once to save your life. Don't fight with it held down, it's not a 9G airplane despite what everyone wants to believe. Ask any real Hornet driver.

Anyway, it's there and people will use it, so whatever. That they will do it is not realistic. Breaking the wings off isn't realistic either. But SOMETHING will break with repeated use - avionics, flight control surfaces, the gun. Things should start breaking if you abuse it, because they would in real life. The Tomcat has hit this balance very nicely - you over G or overspeed the flaps, things will break that will make your life more difficult, but your wings won't rip off unless you REALLY pull on it.

I've done twenty years as aircraft maintenance in the Air Force. Six as an APG, and the rest as an electrician. I've actually done over G inspections, and found damage. It isn't like you think. One outside of training the air crew will do what they have to to win. Two the Jets are over built. You can jam the flaps on the cat because you can lower them at speeds that would jam them. Most over speed damage I've seen is small cracks, and delamination. I'm not a Hornet guy, but I suspect that FWB won't let you truly over speed the flaps on the Hornet. Also the paddle doesn't turn the FWB off it just moves the limits. For one fight you would probably have cracks, but those carrier jets are tough. If it was done over and over and over for several fights then you might have a problem. As for the avionics, well you don't want realism there. That <profanity> brakes regardless of how you fly. But fighter avionics are tough. They have to be. I doubt that pulling that paddle and wining the fight would break much in the short term. Long term for sure. But who gives a <profanity> if you lose the airframe next phase. If you break the enemy air force it's worth the trade. And no don't ask a hornet driver. They haven't done what we simulate in most of there carriers. And they don't burn up the airframe in training. For lots of reasons. GLOC being a big one.  And honestly in DCS that will get you before you can really break the jet. It will also limit the "cheating". Doesn't matter if the jet hods 10G if you black out. Would it be cool if damage built up cmulitively? Sure, hell it might. But unrealisticlly making the jet more fragile then it is isn't really a good way. In Desert Storm F-15s recorded up to 13G. It's part of air combat. So is GLOC, and honestly that's a bigger part IRL. 

[Dragon1-1]

I think it's done right in the Tomcat. It has no FBW, so you can peg the G meter, it's not even that hard once you start going fast. The wings will come off if you do something too egregious, however that's not the first thing to quit, and you'll usually black out before you do. However, there are plenty of other things on the jet that can break, and they do. For example, the INS gyros tend to give out when you over-G the Tomcat, and that makes flying interesting, to say the least. The gun can jam (although that usually won't be the problem with the Vulcan), control surface actuators can bend out of shape, plugs can fall out... It would be great if something like that was implemented.

[Rifter]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The wings will come off if you do something too egregious

No.
Rather your control surfaces will come off whilst your “egregious” trial to get rid of your wings.
Damage always occurs along a chain - weakest parts come first.
The structure around the area which attaches the wing to the fuselage is usually the strongest due being the area with the highest loads induced.

Worst case over-g scenarios in reality are severe reductions of the airframe life time (less flight hours possible until end of service) or g-limitations for rest of lifetime or donation to the airplane mechanics school or just scraping the whole damn thing.

[Dragon1-1]

2 minutes ago, Rifter said:

Damage always occurs along a chain - weakest parts come first.
The structure around the area which attaches the wing to the fuselage is usually the strongest due being the area with the highest loads induced.

Yes, but, force distribution comes into play, too. They don't break right at the glove, they break a little further out, in the Tomcat it's around the pivot (OK, they break there because that's how the 3D model is constructed). Control surfaces on the wing might come off first, but the elevators are subjected to much lower forces than the main wing, so this won't stop you from pulling. Indeed, in a conventional configuration, elevators work by reducing their AoA, and as such, aren't subjected to particularly large forces even while you're pulling +15G. 

There had been crashes caused by aircraft exceeding their G limits and experiencing structural failure. Maybe not modern fighters, but generally speaking, it's definitely not just airframe lifetime reduction. Also, keep in mind not all aircraft are factory-fresh, and both Tomcats and Hornets have been around for a while, pulling Gs, trapping and being around salt water a lot. That airframe you're flying is not new, in fact, it's probably been through a few bumps. Now, part of the reason why naval aircraft have higher margins is exactly this, they're meant to take this kind of abuse, but even then, the metal has its limits. I'm not saying the current implementation on the Hornet is right, particularly because the G limit is still there, but I'm saying that it's far from unrealistic to have a B model Tomcat have a whole lot of problems, including wings coming off, when you try to yank it around like it was an F-16.

[FlankerKiller]

57 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Yes, but, force distribution comes into play, too. They don't break right at the glove, they break a little further out, in the Tomcat it's around the pivot (OK, they break there because that's how the 3D model is constructed). Control surfaces on the wing might come off first, but the elevators are subjected to much lower forces than the main wing, so this won't stop you from pulling. Indeed, in a conventional configuration, elevators work by reducing their AoA, and as such, aren't subjected to particularly large forces even while you're pulling +15G. 

There had been crashes caused by aircraft exceeding their G limits and experiencing structural failure. Maybe not modern fighters, but generally speaking, it's definitely not just airframe lifetime reduction. Also, keep in mind not all aircraft are factory-fresh, and both Tomcats and Hornets have been around for a while, pulling Gs, trapping and being around salt water a lot. That airframe you're flying is not new, in fact, it's probably been through a few bumps. Now, part of the reason why naval aircraft have higher margins is exactly this, they're meant to take this kind of abuse, but even then, the metal has its limits. I'm not saying the current implementation on the Hornet is right, particularly because the G limit is still there, but I'm saying that it's far from unrealistic to have a B model Tomcat have a whole lot of problems, including wings coming off, when you try to yank it around like it was an F-16.

They are not new no. But they also aren't quite "old" in the way you are thinking. Every few years they go to a depot facility for major inspection. They get basically disassembled and the structure checked for cracks and fatigue. This isn't just a visual check ether. Onec they come out they are basically refurbished. It's also at this point that alot of airframes get scraped, and they're parts put back into the system. 

 Now to the Cat. Who said the Tomcat is unrealisticlly modeled? It has massive tail surfaces with massive authority. It has no FWB protection. It has no way to limit the amount of G the piolet can pull. Plus it's older technology. I doubt the "gyros" on the Cat and the Bug are anything close to the same. In that I suspect the Cat has true Gyros. So if you roll the <profanity> out of the Cat they get out of alignment. There are other modules that do this. The F-86 has really good over G and avionics degradation moddled.

 The Hornet is newer, particularly our Hornet. If it's anything like the newer jets I worked on its gyros aren't really gyros. So they're less susceptible to G forces or rolling. It has full FWB. So really you will only ever get it to do what the computer let's you do. That's a big deal too. You are not flying a Hornet. There is no direct control form your stick to the control surfaces. Your input gose into a computer, then the computer moves the control surfaces through the hydrologic system. I doubt you can really break the jet under normal circumstances. If the structure was already weakend then maybe. The greatest killer in over G is GLOC period.

The complaint that the Hornet is somehow cheating by using the paddle is likely not from how unrealistic it is to use the paddle. But form how badly the F-16 is under performing in BFM. Because if it was coming around as it should the Hornet wouldn't have a chance in a rate fight paddle or no paddle. 

[Dragon1-1]

The guy above me was implying that pulling the wings off the Tomcat is not a thing, and you can do it in DCS if you really try (or if you pull to the stops while doing 600kts on deck, thinking it has FBW). Tomcat goes really fast when reasonably clean and speeds up like crazy if you light the cans, so that's something you do have to watch out for, but OTOH, it's not something you'll actually hit in combat - there's plenty of warning you're pulling too hard. And normally you'll have to self-limit to avoid GLOC, anyway, usually long before you even break the gyros. 

The Hornet should definitely not break up when using the paddle, but at the same time, it should be more susceptible to GLOC than the Viper, which I don't think is modeled. The F-16's rate advantage comes not only from the airframe itself, but also from its seat being reclined about 30 degrees, giving the pilot far superior G tolerance, since the force pulling the blood out of his head is about 0.86 times (cosine of 30 degrees, in other words) that of a Hornet pilot's, who is sitting upright. Unless it's a very buxom woman sitting in the Viper, the added weight on the chest isn't gonna be doing a whole lot.  In terms of vertical Gs, that's a huge difference, when the Hornet driver is pulling 7G and blacking out, the Viper pilot feels like he's pulling 6.

Actually, I ran those numbers and come to a surprising conclusion: the Hornet pulls 7.5G without the paddle, the Viper pulls 9G, period. Now, 9*0.86 is... 7.74. I wonder if the G-limit might not be for the airplane, but for the pilot. And it makes a lot of sense, it's easy to make a stronger wing compared to making a stronger human. It's probably a combination of those factors, Viper was initially 9.7G or so, they later downrated it to 9G. So now that I think of it, maybe improved, aircraft-specific GLOC modeling is the answer. Use the paddle all you like, but don't be surprised when things start turning black.  

[Sandman1330]

18 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

I've done twenty years as aircraft maintenance in the Air Force.

And I have 20 years in the military, 10 (and counting) as a pilot.

I can tell you we will exceed limits in a life or death situation. We will never plan to go out and do it repeatedly just to gain a tactical advantage. There’s also the aspect of training. I’m not doing something for the first time in combat that I’ve never trained for in real life. They (I don’t fly Hornets but have many friends who do) don’t know how the jet will react so they aren’t just going to do it willy nilly for the first time in a life or death situation, unless completely desperate. And when it’s on the line, they may not even think to do it. That’s why we train, to create muscle memory. If the muscle memory to pull it isn’t there, they’re unlikely to even think of doing it when they’re amped up and running on pure adrenalin.

But we aren’t arguing whether people should over g, we are arguing what are the consequences. And you agree that repeated use of it would damage the airframe. The way many DCS players use it would definitely constitute repeated use. One or two? Let them get away with it. 4,5,6,10 times in the span of one fight? Something breaks. Because that’s realistic.

And not all over G are the same. Your inspections you’ve done are probably lower numbers for very short durations. If a pilot exceeds a limit, depending on the limit and how long and by how much, the trip may be over. He flies home to be inspected. An intentional over G is likely going to be a much higher G value, for a much longer duration. Some DCS hornets pull 10-11G for several seconds when the paddle is pulled. Tell me you wouldn’t find significant damage with an exceedence over 40% of the limit for several seconds?

Sorry for all the edits - every time I hit submit, I had another thought. The digital equivalent of storming back into the room over and over saying “And another thing!!”

Edited January 25, 2022 by Sandman1330

[Rifter]

I  spent some time of my working life on the analysis of aircraft fatigue and the prediction of the service life of military jets by determining so called load collectives based on flight recorder data. The main reason why g-loads on military jets are observed so accurately is to ensure the life span of the birds as specified by the manufacture.

Critical structural damage on a healthy military jet up to the point of falling apart due to a single over-g event is not a thing. Don’t know of any evidence for that. Not in training and not in war time fighting-for-your-life events. For instance the F-15C of the Air National Guard which broke into pieces in 2007 was over 25 years old and had a severe fatigue problem because of wrong dimensioned structural parts within the fuselage.

Saw a lot of over-g damage on for example F-4s (some of them had 12g incidents according to the flight recorder data) - saw broken avionics, broken panels, jammed control surfaces, popped rivets, bent bulkheads and even a jet engine ripped out of one of it’s mountings. But all of that was repairable. Core problem and pain in all cases was reduction of valuable airframe life time.

Gradual damage in DCS during a dogfight due to over-g instead of ripped of wings? Why not, would love to see that. Although I don’t see a big difference between an engaged DCS acrobat pilot pulling 15 g and losing his guns or vital avionics or losing one of his wings. Both puts him out of business.

Ripped off wings in DCS is a pure placeholder effect to mask the fact that the devs don’t have detailed information about the realistic damage a specific plane takes during massive over-g.

Discussions like these are placeholders too. People pretend to be interested in nonlinear structural mechanics (realistic damage modelling) and cerebral hypoxia (pilot G-LOC) but in the end it’s just about exploiting the last tiny bits of the aircrafts abilities to the absolute maximum.

[FlankerKiller]

7 hours ago, Rifter said:

I  spent some time of my working life on the analysis of aircraft fatigue and the prediction of the service life of military jets by determining so called load collectives based on flight recorder data. The main reason why g-loads on military jets are observed so accurately is to ensure the life span of the birds as specified by the manufacture.

Critical structural damage on a healthy military jet up to the point of falling apart due to a single over-g event is not a thing. Don’t know of any evidence for that. Not in training and not in war time fighting-for-your-life events. For instance the F-15C of the Air National Guard which broke into pieces in 2007 was over 25 years old and had a severe fatigue problem because of wrong dimensioned structural parts within the fuselage.

Saw a lot of over-g damage on for example F-4s (some of them had 12g incidents according to the flight recorder data) - saw broken avionics, broken panels, jammed control surfaces, popped rivets, bent bulkheads and even a jet engine ripped out of one of it’s mountings. But all of that was repairable. Core problem and pain in all cases was reduction of valuable airframe life time.

Gradual damage in DCS during a dogfight due to over-g instead of ripped of wings? Why not, would love to see that. Although I don’t see a big difference between an engaged DCS acrobat pilot pulling 15 g and losing his guns or vital avionics or losing one of his wings. Both puts him out of business.

Ripped off wings in DCS is a pure placeholder effect to mask the fact that the devs don’t have detailed information about the realistic damage a specific plane takes during massive over-g.

Discussions like these are placeholders too. People pretend to be interested in nonlinear structural mechanics (realistic damage modelling) and cerebral hypoxia (pilot G-LOC) but in the end it’s just about exploiting the last tiny bits of the aircrafts abilities to the absolute maximum.

That all matches my experience with hunting for said damage. I'm definitely interested in GLOC mechanics in DCS. Different jets, different suits, and especially pilot fitness level are all factors in GLOC. It's a real world limiting factor, and a pilot killer. As for cumulative airframe damage over time. That would be really cool in the dynamic campaign that is scheduled to arrive right after commercial nuclear fusion and room temperature, at home quantum computers, that can run it become available. Until then it's not really a thing.