acknowledged MK-82/84 AIR/SNAKEEYE release speed limits

[konradb3]

Hello,

HD bombs doesn't seem model allowed release envelope.

Especially SNAKEEYEs (MOD 3A, 4) have rather tight release envelope (450-500 kcas).

 >500kcas is structural limit of retarding fins and <450kcas would case fins only partially opening.

This result in bomb impacting long and may increase chance of self fragmentation.

In less extend the same apply to AIR (BSU-49/B, BSU-50/B) but those limits are match more forbidding (200-700kcas).

[79Au]

Well, I think that's beyond the scope of DCS. If there's too many of these limitations, the sim becomes too confusing for the average customer. It just adds up and at some point the sim can only be enjoyed by people who know A LOT about military aviation. For most players, mastering the basics of flying is already complicated enough. OTOH I think implementing these limitations wouldn't be too hard, so as an optional hardcore mode, why not. But, there's the risk of running into issues, bugs, and just general confusion by introducing restrictive rules and expecting customers to be as skiled or as knowledgeable as a real pilot. Furthermore, since DCS is an entertainment sim, people like to fly many different planes, so it's even harder to keep up with all the rules and limitations that apply IRL.

Edited March 30, 2023 by 79Au

[Ironhand]

On 3/28/2023 at 5:35 PM, konradb3 said:

Hello,

HD bombs doesn't seem model allowed release envelope.

Especially SNAKEEYEs (MOD 3A, 4) have rather tight release envelope (450-500 kcas).

 >500kcas is structural limit of retarding fins and <450kcas would case fins only partially opening.

This result in bomb impacting long and may increase chance of self fragmentation.

In less extend the same apply to AIR (BSU-49/B, BSU-50/B) but those limits are match more forbidding (200-700kcas).

The thing to do would be to provide a short track file of the misbehavior and provide that along with documentation of how it should behave. Without that, I doubt anything will be done.

[Fromthedeep]

21 minutes ago, 79Au said:

Well, I think that's beyond the scope of DCS

I think you're correct, the points you raise are the likely reason why these aspects of the game are inaccurate.

[firimar]

So this game must be called IDCS - Inaccurate Digital Combat Simulator. Just to not confuse people.

Same thing with all weapons in DCS - you can fire AGM-65 with 180 degree bank angle, though missile has launch limits of 30 degree for bank. So all we can do is relax and enjoy this flying circus )

Edited April 2, 2023 by firimar

[Dragon1-1]

I think it's more that the limitation is obscure enough ED initially didn't bother modeling it. This is a bug/issue and needs to be fixed.

Conceptually, nothing is "out of scope" or "too confusing" for DCS. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have things like JDAMs losing their alignment after flying straight for too long. If proper docs on this can be found and provided, I'm sure ED will eventually implement the limitations. Yes, this will make it harder to use those bombs, but that's part of the fun.

[79Au]

But then it needs to be done right, the information needs to be present inside DCS, and in the DCS manual as well. Preferably together with an ingame/kneeboard page that shows all the limitations of the weapons that are loaded in-game. Otherwise, if it's hidden, it will be a nightmare. And it must be opt-in. "Realistic weapon employment envelopes" in gameplay settings.

I just don't know what the deal is with these types of posts. If someone's a "pro DCS player" and weapons expert, good for them. They can try to respect these advanced little details like weapon envelopes and stuff, but I don't get it why they need to come here and basically ask ED to start punishing people who just don't know any better. Seems kinda smartassy and elitist in my humble opinion.

 

 

 

[Ironhand]

13 hours ago, 79Au said:

…Seems kinda smartassy and elitist in my humble opinion.

The whole concept of DCS is elitist. So why not ask for the proper weapon limitations?

[Northstar98]

Don't really see the issue here...

You already have to obey speed, altitude and dive angle restrictions in order to manually bomb things via a table in things like the F-5E and it doesn't seem to be a problem there... Is ED "punishing us", with their "smartass elitism" for not adding CCIP to the F-5E?

I keep having to say this, but the 2nd sentence of the game's description is this:

Quote

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.

I really don't see how it's issue when it gets closer, even if only by a little bit, to achieving exactly that...

I also don't get this whole "punishing people who don't know better". I'd imagine most people when they started DCS probably didn't know much of anything in terms of operating aircraft unless they operate(d) the aircraft IRL (I certainly didn't) and as with everything, if you don't know something the solution is to research/study it (be it a manual, guide, video, in-game tutorial or simply by asking people for help) and then you do know that something. There's nothing wrong with not knowing something (again, I'd bet money it applied to all of us at some point), but it shouldn't be a reason why something should be omitted.

If it's going to be problematic, make it an option that can be turned off in the gameplay settings (but allow it to be enforced on/off by ME should they desire it).

Edited April 4, 2023 by Northstar98

[Minhal]

DCS isn't a game that should limit itself so it is "accessible for everyone". It is a simulation and should therefore obey real life limitations wherever possible. If proper evidence can be given in regards of DCS doing it wrong and how it should be corrected, it should be implemented.

[79Au]

Can you read, son?

On 3/30/2023 at 3:22 PM, 79Au said:

expecting customers to be as skiled or as knowledgeable as a real pilot.

That's where you guys are headed, and in my opinion that's what ED needs to avoid at any cost.

It's a common issue in game communities that experienced players want to introduce more and more rules and challenges, making the game increasingly difficult to get into for the newcomers.

[Vakarian]

1 hour ago, 79Au said:

Can you read, son?

That's where you guys are headed, and in my opinion that's what ED needs to avoid at any cost.

It's a common issue in game communities that experienced players want to introduce more and more rules and challenges, making the game increasingly difficult to get into for the newcomers.

Well, you have other games for "watered down" experience. It's admirable that ED is trying to get as close as they can/should/are willing to the real thing. That includes all the goodies (capabilities) and the baddies (limitations, exceptions, ...). I hate to speak for others, but I'm willing to bet that most people join DCS community and keep flying here because they want to get as close to the thing they most of the time aren't able in real life. 

If you just want to shoot stuff without caring for weapon and/or aircraft parameters and safe employment envelopes, than you should seek other games than DCS.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Vakarian
spelling

[Lace]

On 4/2/2023 at 11:29 PM, firimar said:

So this game must be called IDCS - Inaccurate Digital Combat Simulator. Just to not confuse people.

Same thing with all weapons in DCS - you can fire AGM-65 with 180 degree bank angle, though missile has launch limits of 30 degree for bank. So all we can do is relax and enjoy this flying circus )

 

Is that a physical restriction on the missile, or an operational restriction?  There are a lot of things which are 'possible', but 'prohibited' IRL.  Just because there are operational restrictions placed on something that doesn't necessarily mean it will not be possible to operate them outside of those limits, it's just at that point you are an unofficial test pilot with little legal protection.  See also V_NE, MTOW, MLW, etc.

Edit - to answer the OP, I think that if there are launch envelope restrictions then they should be modelled in DCS as accurately as possible.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Lace

[BIGNEWY]

On 3/28/2023 at 10:35 PM, konradb3 said:

Hello,

HD bombs doesn't seem model allowed release envelope.

Especially SNAKEEYEs (MOD 3A, 4) have rather tight release envelope (450-500 kcas).

 >500kcas is structural limit of retarding fins and <450kcas would case fins only partially opening.

This result in bomb impacting long and may increase chance of self fragmentation.

In less extend the same apply to AIR (BSU-49/B, BSU-50/B) but those limits are match more forbidding (200-700kcas).

Hi, 

thank you for the PM and the thread. 

We do not model the structural limits of HD bombs in DCS but I have passed on your feedback to the team, it maybe something we can look to add in the future. 

thank you

[Dragon1-1]

Would be really nice if you'd model things like that. Both structural and G limits need to be respected IRL. Should be the case in DCS, too.

[Minhal]

Great to hear it is considered as a future feature. (Learning to) Flying the aircraft in a specific envelope as a prerequitsite for successful weapons employment is a big part of the experience.