correct as is F-15C Structual wing surface failure.

[draconus]

4 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Here is an interesting wing rock thesis. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA256613.pdf

It was not at all point of this study to achieve maximum AoA.

@Hazardpro I agree. In the light of simple yet effective structural limit simulation we have a good starting point. Be it wings and flames or other visual damage the message is clear enough that you can't pull extreme over-G's and fly home after. And that number is well chosen for the data available.

Edited January 27, 2022 by draconus

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

It was not at all point of this study to achieve maximum AoA.

 

 

No, it wasn’t but they did it anyway. 

[Cab]

8 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Some of the confusion here seems to stem from what the AoA displayed in the F-15 actually is telling you. 

AoA is not displayed in degrees. It is displayed in dimensionless units. In the F-15 40 units AoA is equal to 30 degrees.

Yes, that does cause confusion. But I am referencing the F2 Info Bar and Tacview, not the cockpit display. I assume they both are displaying actual degrees since they are both labeled as such.

[=475FG= Dawger]

51 minutes ago, Cab said:

Yes, that does cause confusion. But I am referencing the F2 Info Bar and Tacview, not the cockpit display. I assume they both are displaying actual degrees since they are both labeled as such.

That is my point. I don't think everyone here is on the same page WRT degrees versus units.

Also, seeing the AOA spike to a number above the Maximum AOA does not indicate something that is impossible.

Maximum AOA is where the wing stops flying.

It isn't an invisible barrier. It can be exceeded.

Controllability beyond Maximum AOA is also something that is very achievable.

The airplane is no longer "flying" but it can remain controllable.

This accident report indicates an F-15C was maneuvering at 39 degrees AOA when the pilot managed to apply control inputs which caused it to depart from controlled flight.

https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uploads/2019/04/06112018_F15C_Kadena.pdf

[Cab]

4 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

That is my point. I don't think everyone here is on the same page WRT degrees versus units.

Also, seeing the AOA spike to a number above the Maximum AOA does not indicate something that is impossible.

Maximum AOA is where the wing stops flying.

It isn't an invisible barrier. It can be exceeded.

Controllability beyond Maximum AOA is also something that is very achievable.

The airplane is no longer "flying" but it can remain controllable.

This accident report indicates an F-15C was maneuvering at 39 degrees AOA when the pilot managed to apply control inputs which caused it to depart from controlled flight.

https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uploads/2019/04/06112018_F15C_Kadena.pdf

I have no disagreement with anything you wrote above.

However, AOA is just on piece of the puzzle and I still stand by my VERY humble opinion that the totality DCS F-15's dogfighting performance is not "right" by a significant margin. That being said I don't expect any changes based on my observations since I have not offered any real evidence.

But curious people should go to the dogfight servers and watch the more skilled players and make their own objective conclusions.

[Snappy]

On 1/26/2022 at 6:37 PM, Cab said:

 

I think you'd be hard pressed to find RL pilots saying that was within the normal operational flight envelope.

Regardless, there is no way the DCS F-15 performance capabilities on BFM servers reflects reality.

 

4 hours ago, Cab said:

However, AOA is just on piece of the puzzle and I still stand by my VERY humble opinion that the totality DCS F-15's dogfighting performance is not "right" by a significant margin. That being said I don't expect any changes based on my observations since I have not offered any real evidence.

But curious people should go to the dogfight servers and watch the more skilled players and make their own objective conclusions.

That’s well possible, however that is more  because of the way people fly / fight on BFM servers and much less so because of the way ED modelled the eagle FM.
Ok and the limited G-model (of the pilot ,not the aircraft) of DCS is another large contributing factor, because in a way it enables such player behaviour.

The way people (especially the competitive ones) fly on the regular popular BFM servers has usually very little to do with the way BFM is done (or better, was done) in reality. People just want to win, it seems the  majority  simply uses every exploit they can/know of.

In DCS  repeated over g-ing is basically standard operating procedure, so is flying around constantly with large amounts of G for a long time in circles .In reality you wouldn’t be able to do much efficient fighting at all under these conditions. Because you‘d be busy trying hard to stay conscious, would have huge problems moving your head much at all to keep tally and would rapidly fatigue.

None of that is much of a factor in DCS, so people exploit it. Same with the Hornet.Watch any given fight on a BFM server with hornet  and see around 90 % pull paddle to over-g plenty of times in a fight.Just the way people are.

Like GGTharos has said, probably very few things in DCS are similar to the way it’s done in reality.
 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Snappy

[Cab]

4 minutes ago, Snappy said:

 

That’s well possible, however that is more  because of the way people fly / fight on BFM servers and much less so because of the way ED modelled the eagle FM.
Ok and the G-model (of the pilot ,not the aircraft) of DCS is another large contributing factor, because in a way it enables such player behaviour.

The way people (especially the competitive ones) fly on the regular popular BFM servers has usually very little to do with the way BFM is done (or better, was done) in reality. People just want to win, seemingly 90 or so % use every exploit they can/know of.

In DCS  repeated over g-ing is basically standard operating procedure, so is flying around with large amounts of G for a long time in circles .In reality you wouldn’t be able to do much efficient fighting at all under these conditions. Because you‘d be busy trying hard to stay conscious, would have huge problems moving your head much at all to keep tally and would rapidly fatigue.

None of that is much of a factor in DCS, so people exploit it. Same with the Hornet.Watch any given fight on a BFM server with hornet  and see around 90 % pull paddle to over-g plenty of times in a fight.Just the way people are.

Like GGTharos has said, probably very few things in DCS are similar to the way it’s done in reality.
 

It reads like you're agreeing with me, but feels like you're not. 

However, with the DCS F-15 I do think it goes beyond just high g loads. The paddle in the Hornet is an equivalent problem but for a different thread, I think.

[Snappy]

3 hours ago, Cab said:

It reads like you're agreeing with me, but feels like you're not. 

However, with the DCS F-15 I do think it goes beyond just high g loads. The paddle in the Hornet is an equivalent problem but for a different thread, I think.

What I wanted to say in my post was,  if people would be more disciplined in their flying ( more respectful of RL G-limits) and striving more to approach BFM the way it is trained/ was done in reality, you would likely see a very different picture on the  same servers, with the same aircraft.Probably somewhat more realistic.

In my opinion to the large part it’s down to the players that things look the way they do now. I only brought it up because your post seemed to imply the structural limit implementation of the DCS F-15 was the reason for that and I disagree.I think the players are the reason.

Can‘t say much about the DCS F-15. As far as I know it’s AFM is pretty accurate, there’s some discussion about STR, but EDs latest statement was something like  „it’s accurate according to our data sources“.

Personally, I’m much more suspicious about the Hornet and the JF-17, but with very little public performance data, it’s hard to say.

Probably best to accept, DCS will be only be a limited though respectable representation of aircraft and combat .

Edited January 27, 2022 by Snappy

[jackmckay]

14 hours ago, Snappy said:

What I wanted to say in my post was,  if people would be more disciplined in their flying ( more respectful of RL G-limits) and striving more to approach BFM the way it is trained/ was done in reality, you would likely see a very different picture on the  same servers, with the same aircraft.Probably somewhat more realistic.

In my opinion to the large part it’s down to the players that things look the way they do now. I only brought it up because your post seemed to imply the structural limit implementation of the DCS F-15 was the reason for that and I disagree.I think the players are the reason.

Can‘t say much about the DCS F-15. As far as I know it’s AFM is pretty accurate, there’s some discussion about STR, but EDs latest statement was something like  „it’s accurate according to our data sources“.

Personally, I’m much more suspicious about the Hornet and the JF-17, but with very little public performance data, it’s hard to say.

Probably best to accept, DCS will be only be a limited though respectable representation of aircraft and combat .

 

You're right in most but one critical sensor is missing here - pilot body g-force feel. Every combat pilot knows when he's on the edge, well trained to recognize signs of high g-forces and intervene in right time dancing on the edge. Even well trained racing drivers use that feel not to slip over the road edge in high-speed cornering. Thing is that that feel is below structural limit of most combat airframes. Maybe there could be a solution in form of on-screen visual aid as g-force meter (g-suit compression) with some structural stress red zones. That could help this thing not to happen or even discuss too much.

[draconus]

6 minutes ago, jackmckay said:

Maybe there could be a solution in form of on-screen visual aid as g-force meter (g-suit compression) with some structural stress red zones.

G effects are already implemented (tunnel vision, grey-out, G-LOC, red-out). Airframe stress-meter is about to come for X-box version.

[jackmckay]

1 minute ago, draconus said:

G effects are already implemented (tunnel vision, grey-out, G-LOC, red-out). Airframe stress-meter is about to come for X-box version.

In this case (tunnel vision, grey-out, G-LOC, red-out) seems to be not indicative enough. Maybe that is the thing that has to be tuned up too. (Airframe stress-meter is about to come for X-box version.) - why not add the indicator on screen in PC version just like ctrl-enter controls indicator?

Last case for me was when I broke F-5 wings in a pullout. Was it my fault or not, its hard to tell but there it is, structural damage too easy to accumulate. There's no time to react properly.

 

[draconus]

3 minutes ago, jackmckay said:

Last case for me was when I broke F-5 wings in a pullout. Was it my fault or not, its hard to tell but there it is, structural damage too easy to accumulate. There's no time to react properly.

If you pull it hard quickly like that there will be no warning - you simply break it. That's in part a deficiency of our sticks without strong FFB.

btw, the x-box version was sarcasm, just to show off how arcade idea it is.

[jackmckay]

Its not easy to tell was it hard or not. Pilot body would say that to his mind. There was deflection in flight path for some 10-15 deg up. No warnings, no indication. Even if one masters the maneuvers and keeps it under structural limits, there are still updates in FM to cope with. So every update gives something new, even as catastrophic as it is in that case. So yes, X-box indicator might be good aid during learning and adaptation to FM updates.

[Cab]

49 minutes ago, jackmckay said:

In this case (tunnel vision, grey-out, G-LOC, red-out)

The problem is this doesn’t currently solve the exploitation of 13g F-15/14’s, 11g F-18’s, and 10g F-5’s. To curtail these excessive g-loads, grey out should start at .1g above the published limit increasing to total gloc at, say, 1.5 above the published limit. This would provide a visual queue to the player so he can ease his pull while at the same time preventing excessive g-loads. And gloc is preferable to catastrophic wing failure because you can have a chance to recover and continue the fight. And of course this should be a feature that can be turned on and off at the server level.

But of course that wouldn’t be realistic   so we are stuck with players exploiting the higher g’s.

”Fight them at 11g’s! Fight them at 12g’s! Fight them 13g’s! We will never quit! We will never surrender!!” Cab 

 

 

[draconus]

@Cab What exactly is your grudge with those high-G pilots? It's within pilot and aircraft limits and you're allowed to do it too. Anything over 9G starts the G-effects so it's not like you can constantly keep it there. Afaik, over-G are cumulative in some modules meaning you can break the aircraft sonner, below their starting structural limit. So that's another risk of over-G flying. Pilot stamina/fatigue implementation is a frequent request on wishlist though.

Edited January 28, 2022 by draconus

[Cab]

2 minutes ago, draconus said:

@Cab What exactly is your grudge with those high-G pilots? It's within pilot and aircraft limits and you're allowed to do it too. Anything over 9G starts the G-effects so it's not like you can constantly keep it there. Afaik, over-G are cumulative in some modules meaning you can break the aircraft sonner, below their starting structural limit. So that's another risk of over-G flying. Pilot stamina/fatigue implementation is a frequent request on wishlist though.

 

I dont' have a grudge. I was just addressing the comment and offering a solution.

However, you can write anything you want but words are just words, and you really don't know what you are talking about. The fact is jets maneuvering at those limits is not realistic at all. And, no, we are not talking about "that pilot who said he once pulled 12g's with no damage to the jet." We are talking about continuously maneuvering at 11 to 13g's and that just doesn't happen. And by insisting it be allowed to continue makes DCS more like x-box than a simulator in that respect.

Look at it this way. When real life fighter pilots watch a dogfight tournament and laugh at the g-loads the players are flying, maybe something is "not right".

But it is what it is and not what we want it to be. A 13g F-14/15 can be dealt with flying an 11g F-18, so I am good, thanks. 

[Cab]

25 minutes ago, draconus said:

It's within pilot and aircraft limits and you're allowed to do it too. 

 

Where? In game or in real life?

[GGTharos]

So you're going to start a training camp for VR pilots and punish them if they fly wrong? 

[Cab]

3 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

So you're going to start a training camp for VR pilots and punish them if they fly wrong? 

Not sure where that came from but maybe I'm not communicating well.

I am okay with the status quo and will happily pull my Hornet paddle when necessary. And when I fly the Eagle or Tomcat I will certainly be pulling 13g's just like everyone else.

However, to claim that players fighting with the currently allowed g-loads is realistic is just plain incorrect. 

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, Cab said:

However, to claim that players fighting with the currently allowed g-loads is realistic is just plain incorrect. 

The dirty secret is that every single airframe in this game can pull more g than it should be able to.  Absent of things like g-limits, the control surfaces are achieving things they should not.   Can an F-15 pull 13g?  Not likely, the highest every recorded is 12.5, that was stick full back for a few seconds at 'the right speed' for getting as much g as possible.

Can a hornet pull 11g?  Probably,  but not much more.  How about a MiG-29?  You need 16g to break the wings ... could it physically pull that much?  Not likely.

Nor is g-loc a limitation for spikes to these g-loads, DCS models some simple version of the STOHL curve.  You're not going to black out right away.

[Cab]

5 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

The dirty secret is that every single airframe in this game can pull more g than it should be able to.  Absent of things like g-limits, the control surfaces are achieving things they should not.   Can an F-15 pull 13g?  Not likely, the highest every recorded is 12.5, that was stick full back for a few seconds at 'the right speed' for getting as much g as possible.

Can a hornet pull 11g?  Probably,  but not much more.  How about a MiG-29?  You need 16g to break the wings ... could it physically pull that much?  Not likely.

Nor is g-loc a limitation for spikes to these g-loads, DCS models some simple version of the STOHL curve.  You're not going to black out right away.

I don't think there is anything here I disagree with. 

Hence, my idea described above for a more targeted grey out-to-gloc implementation (even if not realistic and only as a server option) would mitigate the issue for all aircraft and compel players to limit themselves to more realistic maneuvering. And yes, it would have to work with the g-spikes, too, so if I spike to 13g's I am out like a light.

And admit it. Wouldn't you want to see the reaction of the "high-g warriors" after that exploit is taken away from them? 

[draconus]

46 minutes ago, Cab said:

Where? In game or in real life?

Game, of course.

Look, I'm not saying it is all OK. I have not seen such cases yet. Are you sure the G-effects are even turned on on the server? How Gs were measured? Don't you think it deserves own thread with tracks and tacview files? It looks like unproductive rant here.

[Cab]

1 minute ago, draconus said:

Game, of course.

Look, I'm not saying it is all OK. I have not seen such cases yet. Are you sure the G-effects are even turned on on the server? How Gs were measured? Don't you think it deserves own thread with tracks and tacview files? It looks like unproductive rant here.

Yes, this has gone in longer than I intended.  I was just trying to give my opinion on why ED implemented the structural wing damage as they did but you guys keep engaging me.  Am I just supposed to let it go? 

Yes, g-effects are on. And, no, I have zero interest in dealing with the firestorm that would result from a dedicated thread on this. Like I wrote above, it is what it is and I am perfectly comfortable flying the planes as they are. 

[GGTharos]

4 hours ago, Cab said:

I don't think there is anything here I disagree with. 

Hence, my idea described above for a more targeted grey out-to-gloc implementation (even if not realistic and only as a server option) would mitigate the issue for all aircraft and compel players to limit themselves to more realistic maneuvering. And yes, it would have to work with the g-spikes, too, so if I spike to 13g's I am out like a light.

And admit it. Wouldn't you want to see the reaction of the "high-g warriors" after that exploit is taken away from them? 

I am going to present the imperfect opinion I have as this:

A 13g spike (even repeated 13g spikes) can't win a fight when BFM is flown well.  So, I while I understand that it is an issue, I don't believe it's a huge issue.  If there were fixes to do, I'd like to see air pressure etc. resisting the control surfaces and limiting the amount of maximum achievable g via physical simulation.   The airframes are strong and you can already sense performance based on AoA buffet, but this takes effort to train.

I don't agree with 13g spikes GLOCing pilots as this isn't realistic - not that it can't happen, but rather you're not going to model a pilot forgetting to do his AGSM.  This sort of random thing (because it would have to be a random thing) is more likely to eventually infuriate players and see the feature turned off no matter how many sing its praises.

Force players to adhere to more sensible flying by flying better BFM than they do, or have them suffer for it

[Cab]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

A 13g spike (even repeated 13g spikes) can't win a fight when BFM is flown well.

I don't agree with 13g spikes GLOCing pilots as this isn't realistic

Maybe, but in my experience I don't think so. It just doesn't seem reasonable that being able to pull up to instantaneous 13g wouldn't be relevant. But, of course, maybe I am not flying well enough to prove the point. 

However, unless you've actually fought someone under those conditions it's just theory. I fight with the Hornet without the paddle whenever I can, but with the paddle up to 11g's when my adversary is flying at those extreme g loads. I can tell you it's like flying two completely different airplanes.

Also, you have to pick your poison (or in this case realism). Personally, if it comes down to maneuvering at 13g's and gloc'ing at 1.5g's above the operational limit, then I pick the former.

But to each his own. No harm.