Inconsistent application of structural limits

[=475FG= Dawger]

I am wondering the logic behind different modules exhibiting radically different structural failure characteristics.

The most obvious example is the F-5E compared to the Mirage F1CE. The two aircraft have incredibly similar published structural limitations, yet one is very easy to rip both wings off and the other behaves completely differently.

I know opinions vary on which is more realistic. I would argue the Mirage is a lot  closer to reality. However, my concern is the inconsistency in module development.

Life might be a box of chocolates but structural limitations modeling should not be. Structural failure behaviors should be similar for all aircraft absent some very obvious public data demonstrating otherwise.

[near_blind]

I would think you're going to see variability in the simulation of difficult to verify aspect of different aircraft made by different corporations in different countries with different design philosophies recreated by different, wholey unrelated software engineers decades after the fact.

[=475FG= Dawger]

On 9/11/2022 at 11:21 AM, near_blind said:

I would think you're going to see variability in the simulation of difficult to verify aspect of different aircraft made by different corporations in different countries with different design philosophies recreated by different, wholey unrelated software engineers decades after the fact.

That explains how the inconsistency could occur if there is not proper coordination regarding a consistent, realistic modeling of aircraft structural damage.

It does not explain why such inconsistency is allowed to persist.

[draconus]

On 9/12/2022 at 11:52 PM, =475FG= Dawger said:

...why such inconsistency is allowed to persist.

Same as aircraft are not made the same, they are not modeled the same and surely they are not modeled in relation to another module.

If you have data that some aircraft has unrealistic strctural limits model please report in the appropriate subforum.

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

Same as aircraft are not made the same, they are not modeled the same and surely they are not modeled in relation to another module.

If you have data that some aircraft has unrealistic strctural limits model please report in the appropriate subforum.

That’s silly.

The two aircraft in my OP have nearly identical published structural limits.

These are the limits used to implement the structural failure modeling. 

Yet they differ radically in modeling of structural failure. 

The only conclusion is inconsistent modeling. 

[draconus]

I guess this is the thread you want to continue...

or here:

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/207-dcs-core-wish-list/

if you wish more detailed DM wrt structural deformations.

Different airframes with similar limits does not imply they should behave the same or are built the same.

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

I guess this is the thread you want to continue...

or here:

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/207-dcs-core-wish-list/

if you wish more detailed DM wrt structural deformations.

Different airframes with similar limits does not imply they should behave the same or are built the same.

There is no evidence that there is any significant structural difference between the two and there is ample evidence that they share similar structural strength.

Both have published G-limits. One, despite any real world evidence of wing failure, will shed both wings at 1.5 times the published limit. The other will not, experiencing failure at a much higher factor.

There is much more evidence of the similarity of the two structures than there is of any difference.

[draconus]

9 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

The other will not, experiencing failure at a much higher factor.

Mind you're talking about early access product just released few months ago. Is it reported on their subforum?

[bies]

On 9/11/2022 at 6:21 PM, near_blind said:

I would think you're going to see variability in the simulation of difficult to verify aspect of different aircraft made by different corporations in different countries with different design philosophies recreated by different, wholey unrelated software engineers decades after the fact.

Exactly. That's why, similar to weapon systems unified by ED, there should be a general ED set of basic rules to apply in this manner, obliging all 3rd parties.

I.e. max tested G * some coeficient like 1.5 = breaking load. Just unified universally through all modules. Obviously it would need to be more nuanced, considering more variables, wing type and shape, non-symmetrical loads, additional data available for different situations etc. Because obviously all 3rd parties and ED are doing their best to approximate such situations, they may just use different methodology right now, which should be unified over the long term.

Edited September 21, 2022 by bies