not planned or realistic Balance F18

[Gentoo87]

Any chance we could break the Jet over 7.5G?

Limit the use to a few seconds when at or above corner speed, or under 7.5g?

I notice no negative affects in prolonged fights at 8 to 9G. There should be consequences.

Edited March 6, 2023 by Gentoo87

[FrostLaufeyson]

I also very much hope that this feature can be modeled, because people often use this capability with impunity.

 

Edit: Sorry, because of my poor English comprehension, I have misunderstood the original meaning of the whole post

Edited March 6, 2023 by FrostLaufeyson

[Hulkbust44]

"Balance" being you primary concern is why this is a ridiculous notion.

The Hornet is limited to 7.5G for the sake of the lifespan of the aircraft. The limiter can easily be outrun to 8G+ which would happen IRL too. (You can even see it in a few HUD videos) there would be nothing close detrimental that the aircraft would endure at such a minimal over G.

Are there missing G effects? Sure. A/G stores would be damaged or ripped off at 5.5G+, targeting pod limit is somewhere around 7.8G. Now if ED dared to implement the same thing in the Viper, their would be riots. Difference is the -16 dosen't have a dynamic G limiter so in a simulation where you can't feel the G, you better be staring at the HUD or you're going to break something. While we're at it, at 8G+ simulate the pilot not being able to move their head.

[EnzoF98]

3 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

 Now if ED dared to implement the same thing in the Viper, their would be riots.

You mean the thing they did implement on the Viper?: 

 

[MARLAN_]

56 minutes ago, EnzoF98 said:

You mean the thing they did implement on the Viper?: 

 

Does that video show A/G stores being ripped off or targeting pod damage?

[razo+r]

5 minutes ago, MARLAN_ said:

Does that video show A/G stores being ripped off or targeting pod damage?

Well, watch it?

It shows clean detachment of the wings, including all stores attached to the wings.

No TGP damage is shown (and most likely not simulated either)

[MARLAN_]

19 minutes ago, razo+r said:

Well, watch it?

It shows clean detachment of the wings, including all stores attached to the wings.

No TGP damage is shown (and most likely not simulated either)

I don't think @Hulkbust44was referring to the entire wings coming off as he specifically mentioned A/G stores and TGP damage. Particularly because the entire wings breaking is already implemented in the F-18.

[Harker]

You mean the thing they did implement on the Viper?: 
 

Not what was being discussed, catastrophic failure through over-G is modeled in both aircraft. But with the F-16 lacking a G-limiter (instead only offering an AOA limiter via the CAT I/III switch), it's up to the pilot to make sure they don't over-G the stores.

Which means that if you're not paying attention, you can pull 6.5G without realizing, for example, and then that JDAM you were hoping to release over the target area is hung. The Hornet has a dynamic G-limiter, so the same scenario is less likely.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the consequences of pulling the paddle in the Hornet and going over the 7.5G limit. Which are modeled just fine in the context of DCS, considering that the Hornet can go to 9G without any immediate effects (except when stores are attached, as mentioned above, but I'm guessing the OP refers to a clean configuration), and the 7.5G limit is there as a means to guarantee that the aircraft's structural integrity will remain optimal in the future, especially during carrier landings.

Pulling the paddle and exceeding the limiter is to be used in emergencies, and that includes life or death situations. No pilot will choose to get shot down, if they can help it in any way and there's little sense offering the pilot an option that will cause their wings to disintegrate. ED can certainly include over-G effects on weapons stores and the targeting pod, as mentioned above, but that's it, that won't do anything for clean Hornets, since the effect on the airframe itself is more long term. And since every plane spawns as new, the current implementation doesn't need to change on that front.

[Exorcet]

7 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Now if ED dared to implement the same thing in the Viper, their would be riots.

Not at all, this is a sim. Give us the limits. I already respect them in the F-16, modeled or not. Even respected the wing limits before they were added. It's not hard in the 16 either.

17 minutes ago, Harker said:

Pulling the paddle and exceeding the limiter is to be used in emergencies, and that includes life or death situations. No pilot will choose to get shot down

My understanding is that it's for terrain avoidance. Relying on it a dogfight may win you the battle but cost you the war so to speak because your plane will be in maintenance all the time. No pilot will choose to get shot down, but they plan used to avoid that is proper tactics in an engagement.

[MARLAN_]

10 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

My understanding is that it's for terrain avoidance. Relying on it a dogfight may win you the battle but cost you the war so to speak because your plane will be in maintenance all the time. No pilot will choose to get shot down, but they plan used to avoid that is proper tactics in an engagement.

I don't think that's what he's saying.

It's not an emergency for a fighter jet to be in a merge, but there are situations that would likely be considered an emergency (e.g. a missile is tracking you, you're behind timeline, and jamming, countermeasures, and manuevering has all failed) but end of the day it's up to the pilot to make that call, and then whether or not your CO agrees with you when you recover.

[Harker]

My understanding is that it's for terrain avoidance. Relying on it a dogfight may win you the battle but cost you the war so to speak because your plane will be in maintenance all the time. No pilot will choose to get shot down, but they plan used to avoid that is proper tactics in an engagement.

It's for emergencies that would otherwise lead to the loss of the airframe or the pilot anyway. Obviously, you don't want to be in a position that necessitates for you to rely on that, it's a last resort. And in any case, pilots are much more difficult to replace than aircraft.

[FlankerKiller]

On 3/6/2023 at 1:08 AM, Hulkbust44 said:

"Balance" being you primary concern is why this is a ridiculous notion.

The Hornet is limited to 7.5G for the sake of the lifespan of the aircraft. The limiter can easily be outrun to 8G+ which would happen IRL too. (You can even see it in a few HUD videos) there would be nothing close detrimental that the aircraft would endure at such a minimal over G.

Are there missing G effects? Sure. A/G stores would be damaged or ripped off at 5.5G+, targeting pod limit is somewhere around 7.8G. Now if ED dared to implement the same thing in the Viper, their would be riots. Difference is the -16 dosen't have a dynamic G limiter so in a simulation where you can't feel the G, you better be staring at the HUD or you're going to break something. While we're at it, at 8G+ simulate the pilot not being able to move their head.

You ever fly the Jeff? I break stores all the time. You even have to be careful with the switch in AG2 mode. Seriously I can't understand why dynamic stores damage isn't modeled on ED aircraft. It's been a thing in the sim since the Mig-21.