correct as-is Concerns about G-Onset and Damage to wings

[average_pilot]

This thread is trapped in one of those infinite loops due to misunderstanding.

The point isn't about how much G's the F-5 can reach, but about how fast it reaches those really high G's with small inputs.

I too adapt to how the simulated F-5 behaves, but then again, that isn't the point. That's what you do anyway because of the nature of simulations.

What people here is trying to ask is: Is it accurate physics how the F-5 in DCS reaches those high Gs in a mere fraction of a second, or even a fraction of a tenth of a second?

If after some testing and data crunching the team finds it is correct then fine, it's a simulation after all. You have to live with the constrains of the fact that is not a physical thing that you are interacting with but rather software.

But if they find there is something that needs some improvement, then wonderful, we get a simulation that is one step more accurate that before.

[Cab]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Please don't act like a newbee first introduced into the sim. All aircraft behave like this in study level sims. DCS allows you to connect any controls (with any force) and it's on the user to use or create the controls they like - the same thing as keyboard and mouse vs whole pit replica. If it's physically possible to move the stick forcibly in the RL aircraft it should be possible in the simulation with the same rate.

You bet they were trained and knew every bit of warning and what was forbidden - you don't jump into F-5 just after ground school. You have to be proficient in low powered prop first, then high powered prop, then trainer subsonic jet before being allowed into full military jet. Even when they happen to be less disciplined they surely didn't want to die - you may don't feel it in the game though so you do things no one would try IRL.

Yes, I don't have a horse in this race but I wouldn't want unrealistic features to spill all over DCS to other modules - what you guys are asking here would be better served in the wishlist as an optional simulation of G induced rate limiter if you can't keep your hand from yanking the stick. When I trialed F-5E it didn't seem to need any special care. I can lose the wings just as easily in the Tomcat doing stupid things.

Taking this post in the context of the entire thread, I am truly speechless.

[Sarowa]

1 hour ago, average_pilot said:

This thread is trapped in one of those infinite loops due to misunderstanding.

The point isn't about how much G's the F-5 can reach, but about how fast it reaches those really high G's with small inputs.

I too adapt to how the simulated F-5 behaves, but then again, that isn't the point. That's what you do anyway because of the nature of simulations.

What people here is trying to ask is: Is it accurate physics how the F-5 in DCS reaches those high Gs in a mere fraction of a second, or even a fraction of a tenth of a second?

If after some testing and data crunching the team finds it is correct then fine, it's a simulation after all. You have to live with the constrains of the fact that is not a physical thing that you are interacting with but rather software.

But if they find there is something that needs some improvement, then wonderful, we get a simulation that is one step more accurate that before.

I'll once again argue, the lack of feedback indicating catastrophic structural failure is approaching is also a major issue.

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 hour ago, average_pilot said:

This thread is trapped in one of those infinite loops due to misunderstanding.

The point isn't about how much G's the F-5 can reach, but about how fast it reaches those really high G's with small inputs.

I too adapt to how the simulated F-5 behaves, but then again, that isn't the point. That's what you do anyway because of the nature of simulations.

What people here is trying to ask is: Is it accurate physics how the F-5 in DCS reaches those high Gs in a mere fraction of a second, or even a fraction of a tenth of a second?

If after some testing and data crunching the team finds it is correct then fine, it's a simulation after all. You have to live with the constrains of the fact that is not a physical thing that you are interacting with but rather software.

But if they find there is something that needs some improvement, then wonderful, we get a simulation that is one step more accurate that before.

From first person reports, the pitch control stick forces in the F-5 and T-38 are pretty high. Since it is an artificial feel system, it was purposely designed that way to prevent inadvertent rapid G onset. Somewhere, there is engineering data on that artificial feel system. I wish I knew where.

 

[NineLine]

6 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

@NineLine

You are not getting the point, at all.

Ignore the wing breaking.

It should not be possible to produce 12 G that quickly and without nose movement. So there are two issues.

1. Its too easy to generate 12 G.

2. That G comes before the aircraft is actually demonstrating the radial acceleration required.

There is something wrong in the F-5 control system and/or G calculation.
 

G is a function of radius and speed. G force cannot exist without radius. The nose must move before the G can exist.

Also, the artificial feel system in the F-5 hydraulic controls would make it very difficult to even get to 12 G, much less get there that quickly.

You are asking F-5 pilots to fly an aircraft from which the artificial feel system has been removed. It exists in the aircraft to prevent exactly what I demonstrated. 

Without force feedback, we have no artificial feel, so it must be built in the software by slowing the rate at which the HSTAB can move at speed. 

 

 

Yet you are ignoring my statement directly from the real manual saying this could happen. Then you fly the F-5 in a way you shouldn't, way outside listed parameters. 

You also ignore the fact that we already mentioned real stick forces vs lack of stick forces in the game is an issue. Again this isn't only a thing in the F-5, but happens to be more prominent. 

I showed you how to prevent this in a number of videos now. I really do not know what else to say. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

30 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Yet you are ignoring my statement directly from the real manual saying this could happen. Then you fly the F-5 in a way you shouldn't, way outside listed parameters. 

You also ignore the fact that we already mentioned real stick forces vs lack of stick forces in the game is an issue. Again this isn't only a thing in the F-5, but happens to be more prominent. 

I showed you how to prevent this in a number of videos now. I really do not know what else to say. 

You could say

" We will take a close look at the F-5 flight control system to be certain we have properly simulated the pilot stick forces designed into the artificial feel system which prevents rapid horizontal stabilizer deflection at high speeds"

You could also say 

" Once we have done the above, we will also take a look at how the F-5 is able to generate 12 G's with very little nose movement as this does seem to defy real world physics"

I might even believe you.

[goofball]

If i understand this issue correctly would an option to tie the x y axis not to the movement of the stick but to the force applied by the pilot be helpful?

[NineLine]

39 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I might even believe you.

On that note, as I have stated several times everything lines up with what we expected to happen on the F-5. I have had the FM dev review this in the past, and have once again asked him to review again when he is back from holidays. We believe the current modelling is correct based on available references and the limitations of common controllers, For now, I am marking this correct as is. If the dev comes back and says something is wrong I will post it here, otherwise, it is correct as is. 

Please review the videos I have posted here, taking time to understand the controls of the F-5, monitoring your gauges and flying within limits will improve your enjoyment of the F-5. Thanks.