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

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, Cab said:

The track was recorded with no curves.

Like I wrote above, I really don’t care if the wings break at 10g’s. But right now it only takes a very small amount of stick movement to get it that high. What should be expected is the ability to aggressively maneuver the jet without inadvertently spiking to such high g’s.

 

 

Do you have evidence of this? Our FMs are based on actual sources and documents. The stick movements should be close to what you would expect in the actual aircraft. The Spitfire in DCS is the best example of this where you need to be careful with how you pull on the stick because, in the real thing, minimal movement is required. Personally, I fly with no curves as well but I do not generally have an issue with pushing beyond its limits. 

[Cab]

6 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Do you have evidence of this? Our FMs are based on actual sources and documents. The stick movements should be close to what you would expect in the actual aircraft. The Spitfire in DCS is the best example of this where you need to be careful with how you pull on the stick because, in the real thing, minimal movement is required. Personally, I fly with no curves as well but I do not generally have an issue with pushing beyond its limits. 

Evidence of what? That F-5’s wings don’t snap off in real life under aggressive maneuvering? No, I don’t. But there are plenty of former F-5 pilots to ask.

Doesn’t it raise any flags that a jet used exclusively for air combat training with the USAF Aggressors, Navy/Marine Adversaries, and Topgun would be so fragile in DCS? They certainly weren’t safely pulling 10g’s. But they were able to aggressively maneuver while staying within the limits.

 

[=475FG= Dawger]

The issue is that other modules are not modeled this way.

The Mirage F1, with nearly identical verbiage in its manual regarding structural limitations, does not crack the wings off.

I actually wasted my time making 17 short tracks of how you can spike the wings off in the F-5.

I see there is no need to post them.

My F-5 remains parked as no one seems interested in investigating why the F-5 was singled out for this treatment 2 years ago.

 

Edited January 2, 2024 by =475FG= Dawger

[=475FG= Dawger]

31 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Do you have evidence of this? Our FMs are based on actual sources and documents. The stick movements should be close to what you would expect in the actual aircraft. The Spitfire in DCS is the best example of this where you need to be careful with how you pull on the stick because, in the real thing, minimal movement is required. Personally, I fly with no curves as well but I do not generally have an issue with pushing beyond its limits. 

Fly the F-5, go fast, pull the stick rapidly back. The wings will pop off before the nose moves 10 degrees. This means the pilot can nearly instantly generate 11+ G and catastrophically fail the aircraft before the nose moves very much. It doesn't pass any sort of basic reality check. 

[PawlaczGMD]

2 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

The issue is that other modules are not modeled this way.

The Mirage F1, with nearly identical verbiage in its manual regarding structural limitations, does not crack the wings off.

I actually wasted my time making 17 short tracks of how you can spike the wings off in the F-5.

I see there is no need to post them.

My F-5 remains parked as no one seems interested in investigating why the F-5 was singled out for this treatment 2 years ago.

 

 

This seems to be the underlying issue. Yes, you can argue that the failure is reasonable given the documented G limits. But literally no other jet experiences this type of failure this easily, while having similar documented G limits. So the question is, why does it only happen to the F-5?

Clearly, either something is unique to its design, or it is modelled differently. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

10 minutes ago, Cab said:

Evidence of what? That F-5’s wings don’t snap off in real life under aggressive maneuvering? No, I don’t. But there are plenty of former F-5 pilots to ask.

Doesn’t it raise any flags that a jet used exclusively for air combat training with the USAF Aggressors, Navy/Marine Adversaries, and Topgun would be so fragile in DCS? They certainly weren’t safely pulling 10g’s. But they were able to aggressively maneuver while staying within the limits.

 

Somewhere deep in this thread there is written evidence that the structural test program expected 40+ (IIRC) 9+ G events per 1000 hours and tested accordingly WITH NO ISSUES. That seems to be ignored.

Edited January 2, 2024 by =475FG= Dawger

[NineLine]

24 minutes ago, Cab said:

Evidence of what? That F-5’s wings don’t snap off in real life under aggressive maneuvering? No, I don’t. But there are plenty of former F-5 pilots to ask.

Doesn’t it raise any flags that a jet used exclusively for air combat training with the USAF Aggressors, Navy/Marine Adversaries, and Topgun would be so fragile in DCS? They certainly weren’t safely pulling 10g’s. But they were able to aggressively maneuver while staying within the limits.

 

What does this have to do with over-G-ing the aircraft? I am sure if I asked an F-5 pilot myself they would tell me they don't fly the aircraft like this.

Our controls on our desktops are not exactly the same as what is in the cockpit. Some might work better than others but we are asking for 1 stick to replicate all types of aircraft and FMs, at some point, you will need to adjust how you fly in order to fly properly. I showed examples of being able to fly up to 11 G without snapping the wings. You guys are also doing rolls under high G which lowers the max allowable G. 

So I ask again, do you have evidence that the real thing can sustain repeated high Gs, or that at higher speeds the stick on the F-5 is not more sensitive? 

15 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Somewhere deep in this thread there is written evidence that the structural test program expected 40+ (IIRC) 9+ G events per 1000 hours and tested accordingly WITH NO ISSUES. That seems to be ignored.

 

So you want to be able to fly the aircraft beyond its limits with no issues, is that what you are asking? 

17 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Fly the F-5, go fast, pull the stick rapidly back. The wings will pop off before the nose moves 10 degrees. This means the pilot can nearly instantly generate 11+ G and catastrophically fail the aircraft before the nose moves very much. It doesn't pass any sort of basic reality check. 

Maybe you shouldn't be pulling so hard on the stick? Is it possible the stick on your desktop doesn't match the one in the real F-5 allowing you unrealistic movements? This is why we give the ability to adjust curves etc. 

At higher speeds where it is easy to over-G the aircraft, you'd have to exert a LOT of force on the stick to get it to move aggressively. With a game joystick, there is no such force and it's far too easy to over control the aircraft. As such, at high airspeeds, you should be using much smaller control inputs.

[Cab]

We are just going around in circles here.

Bottomline is ED sees nothing wrong with the current performance.

[NineLine]

35 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

The issue is that other modules are not modeled this way.

The Mirage F1, with nearly identical verbiage in its manual regarding structural limitations, does not crack the wings off.

I actually wasted my time making 17 short tracks of how you can spike the wings off in the F-5.

I see there is no need to post them.

My F-5 remains parked as no one seems interested in investigating why the F-5 was singled out for this treatment 2 years ago.

 

 

I just flew the F1 with the same specs as the track I was supplied for the F-5, put it into a dive and pulled hard on the stick and it snapped the wings. 

[NineLine]

13 minutes ago, Cab said:

We are just going around in circles here.

Bottomline is ED sees nothing wrong with the current performance.

The people I have to submit bugs to are educated in this stuff. They are not just game coders they in some cases have gone to school for all things related to aerodynamics, etc. So when you guys bring me a problem I have to do my due diligence to make sure there is really a problem. I brought this to them once before and some slight tuning was made but for the most part, the aircraft is being flown outside its limits.

So I have spent most of my day revisiting this for you guys with the knowledge that things can and do change, and I thought maybe something went south. I mean even within your track I showed you a video, made from your track except for the fuel load pulling higher Gs than you did and no wing breakage.

It is a fact of life that for some of these modules, you need to have softer hands, we give you as many tools as we can to tune this for your controls and play style but in the end, some of it comes down to knowing the limits of the plane and flying within them. It's not the answer you want maybe, but I have to be honest with what I am seeing.

[Cab]

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

The people I have to submit bugs to are educated in this stuff. They are not just game coders they in some cases have gone to school for all things related to aerodynamics, etc. So when you guys bring me a problem I have to do my due diligence to make sure there is really a problem. I brought this to them once before and some slight tuning was made but for the most part, the aircraft is being flown outside its limits.

So I have spent most of my day revisiting this for you guys with the knowledge that things can and do change, and I thought maybe something went south. I mean even within your track I showed you a video, made from your track except for the fuel load pulling higher Gs than you did and no wing breakage.

It is a fact of life that for some of these modules, you need to have softer hands, we give you as many tools as we can to tune this for your controls and play style but in the end, some of it comes down to knowing the limits of the plane and flying within them. It's not the answer you want maybe, but I have to be honest with what I am seeing.

We will have to agree to disagree, but thanks for taking the time. 

[GGTharos]

20 minutes ago, NineLine said:

The people I have to submit bugs to are educated in this stuff. They are not just game coders they in some cases have gone to school for all things related to aerodynamics, etc. So when you guys bring me a problem I have to do my due diligence to make sure there is really a problem. I brought this to them once before and some slight tuning was made but for the most part, the aircraft is being flown outside its limits.

I would suggest that there may be something subtle at play here that we ca't really measure (but developers can) ... one semi-educated example could be g-onset.  In the vast majority of cases, a more heavily laden aircraft should not be able to reach peak g as easily as a lighter version of itself, and it might not reach certain g loads at all.     Because this requires careful examination of the available hydraulic power vs. resistance to the motion created by the airstream, it's a harder problem to analyze so I guess what I am trying to say is, maybe the problem isn't that the aircraft is breaking at those numbers, but that those numbers are reached too easily.

Curves may be a potential work-around but they're not a great work-around compared to the physics simulation.   There are other aircraft which have a 'lower' g-limit and they're not quite as fragile suggest this could use a more thorough investigation.

Edited January 2, 2024 by GGTharos

[NineLine]

I can only go with the examples I am given. And the track I was given I can see no real issue. 

Even with my example video above I was able to reach higher Gs with a lighter load and not break wings. 

[Volator]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Our controls on our desktops are not exactly the same as what is in the cockpit.

True. Neither do our stick forces increase with higher speeds like in the real jet, nor do we feel the high Gs that woukd make us pull less hard, so DCS has to cater for this,  for example by lowering sensitivity at higher speeds automatically, like Aerges does with the F1. Simple as that. It would in fact increase realism in DCS...

[NineLine]

2 minutes ago, Volator said:

True. Neither do our stick forces increase with higher speeds like in the real jet, nor do we feel the high Gs that woukd make us pull less hard, so DCS has to cater for this,  for example by lowering sensitivity at higher speeds automatically, like Aerges does with the F1. Simple as that. It would in fact increase realism in DCS...

As I said above, I tried the F1 with the same specs as the supplied track of the F-5 with the same results of a wing break. As I said the Spitfire is the best example of this. You can yank the stick to an extreme compared to what you can or would do in the real thing. So in that case you need to consider that when flying, or adjusting curves accordingly. We cannot compensate for every type of stick out there. No two are created equal.

[NineLine]

Also from the real-world manual it even mentions avoiding rapid aft stick input, and that G-limit overshoot may occur. 

[Cab]

To recap, I am of the opinion that the biggest part of the problem is in the controls input. Specifically, very little stick movement results in high g spikes.

Please watch the attached track with the controls indicator displayed on your monitor. There are no pitch curves, fuel is 51%. It starts at 300kts with a full deflection pull to show I have full deflection authority with my stick. I then accelerate to 550kts, wings level, and pull 10 g's pretty rapidly with a stick deflection of about 1/3.

Is this as intended?

F-5 control stick deflection.trk

[=475FG= Dawger]

@NineLine

Here is my last attempt at demonstrating the issue (part of it, anyway).

Two Tracks-

One is the Mirage and the other is the F-5. Notice when the wing fails versus how much nose movement prior to failure. One is like a real airplane, the other isn't. 

Forgetting that a first time catastrophic failure is unlikely since both are failing catastrophically, the problem is the G onset and failure prior to significant nose movement with the F-5. If the F-5 behaved as the Mirage does in this track I wouldn't have heartburn about it shedding its wings in an 11G pull.

I would still complain about the roll asymmetry failure but one step at a time.

 

wingbreak1mirage.trk wingbreak1tiger.trk

[NineLine]

7 hours ago, Cab said:

To recap, I am of the opinion that the biggest part of the problem is in the controls input. Specifically, very little stick movement results in high g spikes.

Please watch the attached track with the controls indicator displayed on your monitor. There are no pitch curves, fuel is 51%. It starts at 300kts with a full deflection pull to show I have full deflection authority with my stick. I then accelerate to 550kts, wings level, and pull 10 g's pretty rapidly with a stick deflection of about 1/3.

Is this as intended?

F-5 control stick deflection.trk 334.75 kB · 3 downloads

According to the manual, yes. I do not want to quote the manual verbatim because 1.16 but rapid movements aft can cause G limits overshoot. 

If you do the same maneuver pulling back slower or less aggressively you will find the F-5 bites in nicely, ends up right around the 7.33 limit and feels really good. In my opinion.

That said I will talk with the lead FM guy on the F-5 and ask him about the g-rates. Again it feels good to me and aggressive moves seem to mimic what is stated in the manual, but I am happy to run it by him. I know you guys don't always trust me and want to hear it from the horses mouth, but last we talked with him on this subject, everything was copacetic. 

[NineLine]

On 1/2/2024 at 3:47 PM, =475FG= Dawger said:

@NineLine

Here is my last attempt at demonstrating the issue (part of it, anyway).

Two Tracks-

One is the Mirage and the other is the F-5. Notice when the wing fails versus how much nose movement prior to failure. One is like a real airplane, the other isn't. 

Forgetting that a first time catastrophic failure is unlikely since both are failing catastrophically, the problem is the G onset and failure prior to significant nose movement with the F-5. If the F-5 behaved as the Mirage does in this track I wouldn't have heartburn about it shedding its wings in an 11G pull.

I would still complain about the roll asymmetry failure but one step at a time.

 

wingbreak1mirage.trk 301.15 kB · 1 download wingbreak1tiger.trk 401.34 kB · 3 downloads

My intent in stating the wings brake in the F1 was not to go down the path of comparing the two aircraft.

1) they are two different aircraft, I am sure we know this.

2) The F1 may very well be WIP on any aspect of the FM and DM. I cant really comment on the F1 except for simple little tests like I did above.

3) in your Tiger track it shows you pulling almost 12Gs, and the gauge in the F-5 stops at ten, I mean I know you said your head would explode if I told you you were pulling too many Gs, but the suggested limit is 7.33 and you pull 11.9 in a full afterburner, high-speed dive. I am sorry... I don't know what else to say.

Attached is me taking control of your track, trying to match your dive and showing that you can pull out successfully by watching your Gs and being a little softer on the stick. As I said above, this is noted in the manual as a caution, that abrupt control input can result in G-limit overshoot. Cautions are generally for things that are bad to do.

https://youtu.be/8gr_gz7gcng

 

And the fact that you can do this sort of dive, doesn't mean you should. Full afterburner towards the ground like this seems to be asking for something to go wrong.

 

 

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

My intent in stating the wings brake in the F1 was not to go down the path of comparing the two aircraft.

1) they are two different aircraft, I am sure we know this.

2) The F1 may very well be WIP on any aspect of the FM and DM. I cant really comment on the F1 except for simple little tests like I did above.

3) in your Tiger track it shows you pulling almost 12Gs, and the gauge in the F-5 stops at ten, I mean I know you said your head would explode if I told you you were pulling too many Gs, but the suggested limit is 7.33 and you pull 11.9 in a full afterburner, high-speed dive. I am sorry... I don't know what else to say.

Attached is me taking control of your track, trying to match your dive and showing that you can pull out successfully by watching your Gs and being a little softer on the stick. As I said above, this is noted in the manual as a caution, that abrupt control input can result in G-limit overshoot. Cautions are generally for things that are bad to do.

 

 

 

And the fact that you can do this sort of dive, doesn't mean you should. Full afterburner towards the ground like this seems to be asking for something to go wrong.

 

 

@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. 

 

Edited January 3, 2024 by =475FG= Dawger

[Cab]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

According to the manual, yes. I do not want to quote the manual verbatim because 1.16 but rapid movements aft can cause G limits overshoot. 

If you do the same maneuver pulling back slower or less aggressively you will find the F-5 bites in nicely, ends up right around the 7.33 limit and feels really good. In my opinion.

That said I will talk with the lead FM guy on the F-5 and ask him about the g-rates. Again it feels good to me and aggressive moves seem to mimic what is stated in the manual, but I am happy to run it by him. I know you guys don't always trust me and want to hear it from the horses mouth, but last we talked with him on this subject, everything was copacetic. 

Okay, thanks. And it isn’t that I don’t trust you, it’s just that we disagree on this. I stand by the opinion that the F-5, as it is right now, would be considered completely unsafe and unsuitable for flight, let alone combat IRL. There just aren’t any airplanes in the air that will break so dramatically performing their designed tasks. 
 

Considering the dramatic g excursion I demonstrated, I think this is one case where the onus would be on ED to provide evidence. Are there any recorded incidence of F-5 wings ripping off? Were the pilots of the 20 countries operating it just so well trained and disciplined that they avoided the problem? Has any SME verified the jet needed such careful handling to remain within the operating limits and that wings breaking off was a real consequence they lived with?

Other than all that, I really don’t know what else can be said. The F-5 module is very popular in Enigma’s Cold War server because it’s really the only Blue Air fighter option. I imagine that many players who are frustrated with it will just switch over to the F-4 when it’s mature enough.  

[=475FG= Dawger]

6 minutes ago, Cab said:

Okay, thanks. And it isn’t that I don’t trust you, it’s just that we disagree on this. I stand by the opinion that the F-5, as it is right now, would be considered completely unsafe and unsuitable for flight, let alone combat IRL. There just aren’t any airplanes in the air that will break so dramatically performing their designed tasks. 
 

Considering the dramatic g excursion I demonstrated, I think this is one case where the onus would be on ED to provide evidence. Are there any recorded incidence of F-5 wings ripping off? Were the pilots of the 20 countries operating it just so well trained and disciplined that they avoided the problem? Has any SME verified the jet needed such careful handling to remain within the operating limits and that wings breaking off was a real consequence they lived with?

Other than all that, I really don’t know what else can be said. The F-5 module is very popular in Enigma’s Cold War server because it’s really the only Blue Air fighter option. I imagine that many players who are frustrated with it will just switch over to the F-4 when it’s mature enough.  

Well said. The Phantom can’t get here fast enough. 

[draconus]

46 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

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. 

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.

40 minutes ago, Cab said:

Were the pilots of the 20 countries operating it just so well trained and disciplined that they avoided the problem? Has any SME verified the jet needed such careful handling to remain within the operating limits and that wings breaking off was a real consequence they lived with?

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.

[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.