F-4E wear and tear.

[Japo32]

I think I read that the tear and wear would be only for dynamic campaigns. It would be lost opportunity if also we wouldn't have the personal airframe  in any kind of missions we play. Single or multiplayer. 

Would be great to have that degradation in the plane with every flight we make, and of course possible to fix in special options or other place, or just deactivate the feature. In case it is only in the dynamic missions, we will need to wait for those missions to come and play them to use the feature... and right now there are not so much of those type of missions, unless one day ED would release their dynamic campaign system.

[Stackup]

1 hour ago, Japo32 said:

Would be great to have that degradation in the plane with every flight we make, and of course possible to fix in special options or other place, or just deactivate the feature.

The persistence of wear and tear is mainly for campaign and mission makers, not the wear and tear system itself.  It is a base feature of the F-4E and as such will be active for all F-4E's unless the feature is disabled by the mission designer.  Having the wear level persist between missions in DCS only makes sense during a campaign.  I can design a mission to be flown over the Marianas and one to be flown over Syria, and I certainly do not want the F-4 I fly over Marianas and wore down the components in to be transferred over to Syria where I then have the same damaged components.  Maintenance is a thing and I shouldn't have to tell DCS to virtually maintain my virtual aircraft with virtual tools outside of requesting repair on the runway.  This is why leaving it up to the mission designer like they are is a good thing.

[zarusoba10]

I think that when you launch a specific script during a mission, the state of the F-4's components at that point is saved to an external file or something.
Perhaps this component state file can also be imported into other missions.

If the state file is an external file, HB should provide some way to edit this file.
HB has a precedent of creating a data cartridge editing function for Viggen.

HB has also announced that it will equip the F-4 with an Electronic Flight Bag, so it may be possible to control the components with this. This is a common feature in commercial aircraft flight simulators.

[ARM505]

This will certainly open a whole can of worms in the 'rivet counter' mentality people (which isn't a bad thing) - I for one will not want to look too much 'behind the scenes' (as a pilot, you trust that when you signed it out, the guy who signed it over to you did all the right stuff), but I will appreciate little things like that lack of perfectly symmetric engine parameters, gear deployment etc. and at least the 'feel' of a persistent, non factory fresh aircraft.

[Japo32]

10 hours ago, Stackup said:

The persistence of wear and tear is mainly for campaign and mission makers, not the wear and tear system itself.  It is a base feature of the F-4E and as such will be active for all F-4E's unless the feature is disabled by the mission designer.  Having the wear level persist between missions in DCS only makes sense during a campaign.  I can design a mission to be flown over the Marianas and one to be flown over Syria, and I certainly do not want the F-4 I fly over Marianas and wore down the components in to be transferred over to Syria where I then have the same damaged components.  Maintenance is a thing and I shouldn't have to tell DCS to virtually maintain my virtual aircraft with virtual tools outside of requesting repair on the runway.  This is why leaving it up to the mission designer like they are is a good thing.

Yes, I know that, and the way it is going to be made. And for sure I understand your point of view. But I would love to see the feature I said previously, and of course activated or deactivated in the advanced options. So that way you can fly the F4 the way you feel is more natural, and I can fly it the way I would love it and everyone would be happy. 

I understand that if I fly a mission in Caucasus with my friends, and then next week other in Siria, it doesn't have any sense in real live to have a tear a wear in that plane as reality, but for me it adds a full set of possibilities and fun, as I would treat the plane as mine, and would take much more care in all missions, even I know it is totally unrealistic. But for me DCS is a SimGame that adds possibilities I couldn't reproduce in real life.

I think just having that feature for future campaign designers will just make the feature irrelevant for the 90% or more percentage of flights we make, as usually we just fly with our friends, everyday in a different mission. Maybe for servers as ECW would be perfect for sure, but for me it would be a shame, as it would be non sense to make the future walk around in a plane that you already know is "new" already because you are not in a dynamic environment.

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Japo32

[zarusoba10]

 

This is a circuit diagram of the F-4E's sight drive circuit described in "T.O. 1F-4C-34-1-1 F-4C/ D/ E Weapons Delivery Manual".
HB claims that the F-4E has thousands of internal components, so is it safe to assume that most of the parts depicted in this schematic are individually simulated?

The circuit diagram shows a servo motor that moves the aiming reticle horizontally, but if this servo motor were to fail at a pinpoint point, I wonder if the aiming reticle inside the DCS would also stop moving horizontally.
I wonder if the component system that HB refers to can reproduce this kind of process.

[Super Grover]

The answer to the question is a bit complicated. Currently, there are no servos in the HUD code, but this is because the HUD code is one of the oldest parts of the simulation and requires upgrading to the latest standards. However, we try to implement individual parts, as shown in the diagram, including individual servos, whenever possible and if it adds any value to the simulation. It also means that the HUD will be upgraded to this standard sometime during the EA period.

It's worth mentioning that since all our modules will eventually share a common library of components, any updates will be automatically available to all of them. This means that whenever we improve the simulation of a servo, such as adding more details or new failures, all devices in all aircraft using that servo will get automatically updated. This effectively means that our plan is to keep the modules updated with the latest technology even beyond the early access period.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Super Grover

[zarusoba10]

1 hour ago, Super Grover said:

The answer to the question is a bit complicated. Currently, there are no servos in the HUD code, but this is because the HUD code is one of the oldest parts of the simulation and requires upgrading to the latest standards. However, we try to implement individual parts, as shown in the diagram, including individual servos, whenever possible and if it adds any value to the simulation. It also means that the HUD will be upgraded to this standard sometime during the EA period.

It's worth mentioning that since all our modules will eventually share a common library of components, any updates will be automatically available to all of them. This means that whenever we improve the simulation of a servo, such as adding more details or new failures, all devices in all aircraft using that servo will get automatically updated. This effectively means that our plan is to keep the modules updated with the latest technology even beyond the early access period.

 

It is amazing... 

By the way, is there any unique name or abbreviation for the "new component simulation system" that will be implemented on the F-4E?

It would be convenient if you could describe the system in one word during a conversation.

[Super Grover]

I thought that to give you more context, I could share an example of what is the level of detail at which we work when we model and code the aircraft. Let's consider the AN/ASA-32 Automatic Flight Control System, on which I worked together with @Cat107. In one of the documents published by NASA and publicly available, you'll find this formula:

We managed to identify the resistors and capacitors responsible for that 0.5 damping factor - and actually, it's not precisely 0.5, but if you round it to one decimal digit, it will be. However, we don't model separate RC elements in the code, and we represent them as a single 'canceller' component with a transfer function - just converted to a discrete one - as in the diagram. This yaw rate canceller, together with a pitch rate canceller, and multiple other (electronic) devices such as servos, synchros, amplifiers, relays, switches, rate gyros, accelerometers, and power supplies, forms what is designated as AN/ASA-32. I think the step between an RC element and individual resistors and capacitors is where we want to draw the boundary of our component simulation.

Finally, as I wrote in another topic that is now gone, we are open to sharing the tech with our current and future partners, which also includes benefiting from access to the constantly growing library of components.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Super Grover

[Temetre]

Am 5.11.2023 um 05:37 schrieb zarusoba10:

I think that when you launch a specific script during a mission, the state of the F-4's components at that point is saved to an external file or something.
Perhaps this component state file can also be imported into other missions.

If the state file is an external file, HB should provide some way to edit this file.
HB has a precedent of creating a data cartridge editing function for Viggen.

HB has also announced that it will equip the F-4 with an Electronic Flight Bag, so it may be possible to control the components with this. This is a common feature in commercial aircraft flight simulators.

I would imagine it is an external file that can probably be edited. After all, "campaigns" in DCS are usually just seperate missions, even the scripted non-dynamic campaigns. Same goes for any dynamic campaign like liberation or player managed online campaigns. There is no continuity feature anywhere in the game. Nor would it make sense to have your "practice F-4" to degrade the same plane you fly in a set of regular online missions with your mates.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Temetre

[Temetre]

Am 5.11.2023 um 07:15 schrieb ARM505:

This will certainly open a whole can of worms in the 'rivet counter' mentality people (which isn't a bad thing) - I for one will not want to look too much 'behind the scenes' (as a pilot, you trust that when you signed it out, the guy who signed it over to you did all the right stuff), but I will appreciate little things like that lack of perfectly symmetric engine parameters, gear deployment etc. and at least the 'feel' of a persistent, non factory fresh aircraft.

I think one of the bigger impacts this will have, outside of persistence, is just the fact that the performance of most pats of the aircraft is simulated in some way. DCS' damage model sadly isnt intelligent enough to really apply damage to specific systems, but it 'could' affect damage management.

And also G-forces or operational mistakes. Eg the Pave Spike TGP, if you forget to activate it before launch, will be worn/damaged by it sloshing around durng maneuvers (normally an electric motor keeps it focussed). Doing high G maneuvers beyond its limits will also degrade the pod. Not destroy it, but eg slow the motor at first. Some of that might only be apparent over multiple missions, but I imagine doing the Viper thing where you 9G with a TGP and MK-84s will have some consequences.

Another possiblity is to have a "reliability level" as managed, either simulating factory-QA variety or flaws in equipment handling.

 

Like, from the sounds of it, calling the system "wear and tear" is a massive understatement. This is more akin to a full damage/system simulation model. Cant tell how well itll work and how it developes, theres a lot of things that can go wrong with such a system. But it sounds like theres insane potential.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Temetre

[Dragon1-1]

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

DCS' damage model sadly isnt intelligent enough to really apply damage to specific systems, but it 'could' affect damage management.

Actually, the WWII DM very much is. I'm not sure if a 3rd party is able to apply it to a jet right now, but ED plans to eventually bring it to everything.

As for Pave Spike, that one's going to be a hoot.  This is one piece of equipment that was really sensitive to "operational mistakes". Unless you operated the switches exactly right, it'd go into "idiot mode" and stop responding to commands in a useful way.

[joker62]

On 11/6/2023 at 12:28 PM, Super Grover said:

It's worth mentioning that since all our modules will eventually share a common library of components, any updates will be automatically available to all of them. This means that whenever we improve the simulation of a servo, such as adding more details or new failures, all devices in all aircraft using that servo will get automatically updated. This effectively means that our plan is to keep the modules updated with the latest technology even beyond the early access period.

This is astounding. I hope this project proceeds quickly to also benefit the F-14 Thank you very much.

[Tvrdi]

On 10/30/2023 at 11:55 AM, kotor633 said:

Are you serious?? You're crazy...in a 110% positive sense. A huge step towards more realism. 

This is all fine but if it will be the only module which will be degraded as mission goes and all other modules in DCS arent.....do you get me? Ofcourse if it will be only visually then it isnt important....

Edited November 8, 2023 by Tvrdi

[kotor633]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Tvrdi:

This is all fine but if it will be the only module which will be degraded as mission goes and all other modules in DCS arent.....do you get me? Ofcourse if it will be only visually then it isnt important....

 

Yes I know what you mean. Of course it would be better if all modules had a uniform status (but that will never be the case) And of course not just visually.

[Dragon1-1]

Well, HB is making this a component library, and they said they're open to brining this functionality to other modules. Perhaps it'll be taken up. Could be cool if things like Jester could be part of DCS core (F-15E, anyone?), so that other modules could implement these features.

[Temetre]

Am 7.11.2023 um 16:06 schrieb Dragon1-1:

Actually, the WWII DM very much is. I'm not sure if a 3rd party is able to apply it to a jet right now, but ED plans to eventually bring it to everything.

Huh, so they got a better damage model in WW? Thats peculiar that its not available to cold war planes then  

Or maybe what Zabu on the HB discord mean was specifically missiles, that their AoE damage is too simplistic to allow more localized frag damage.

Am 7.11.2023 um 16:06 schrieb Dragon1-1:

As for Pave Spike, that one's going to be a hoot.  This is one piece of equipment that was really sensitive to "operational mistakes". Unless you operated the switches exactly right, it'd go into "idiot mode" and stop responding to commands in a useful way.

Tbf thats apparently mostly a bug with the first pavespike, and it got improved with a software update^^

I imagine its gonna be rather clunky to use. But hey, LGBs in the 1970s must be crazy!

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Dragon1-1:

Well, HB is making this a component library, and they said they're open to brining this functionality to other modules. Perhaps it'll be taken up. Could be cool if things like Jester could be part of DCS core (F-15E, anyone?), so that other modules could implement these features.

I wouldnt mind that at all, generally it would be nice to have some more universal APIs for stuff like radar or so, that 3rd party devs could build on (if they dont want to make their own).

A while ago Razbam announced they are making their own AI for the F-15E backseat, but IIRC they said it might come after release.

[Dragon1-1]

Just now, Temetre said:

Huh, so they got a better damage model in WW? Thats peculiar that its not available to cold war planes then  

They did, it was a big thing a while ago. I don't know if it's missiles or jet engines that are holding up the implementation of it for the other aircraft, but ED said it's coming... in about two weeks.  

[Temetre]

Gerade eben schrieb Dragon1-1:

They did, it was a big thing a while ago. I don't know if it's missiles or jet engines that are holding up the implementation of it for the other aircraft, but ED said it's coming... in about two weeks.  

To be fair, Im happy to hear there is something coming either way.^^

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Tvrdi:

This is all fine but if it will be the only module which will be degraded as mission goes and all other modules in DCS arent.....do you get me? Ofcourse if it will be only visually then it isnt important....

From the posts HB is pretty clear that this degradation is mostly apparent in campaigns where wear/tear applies after multiple missions.

Otherwise its gonna be more stuff like damaging your craft by overstepping the G-limit of components, for example. I dont think thatll be too extreme.

 

If we talk about absurd situatons where an enemy can over-G like crazy but you cant because of the wear/tear... I dont think thatll feel too bad, considering how much ahead the F-4 is to contemporary planes.

[zarusoba10]

Reproducing individual differences from factory shipments, accumulating wear and tear, and repeated repairs.
I imagine that when these things overlap, a unique F-4E will be created for each player.

"My Phantom has a habit of rolling to the right."
It would be interesting to have conversations like this in multiplayer.

[Volator]

22 hours ago, zarusoba10 said:

It would be interesting to have conversations like this in multiplayer.

… on a private frequency or on intercom. 

[pii]

On 11/5/2023 at 10:13 AM, Japo32 said:

But for me DCS is a SimGame that adds possibilities I couldn't reproduce in real life.

You can add failures to the "simgame" if you like.

[Tvrdi]

On 11/9/2023 at 11:02 AM, zarusoba10 said:

Reproducing individual differences from factory shipments, accumulating wear and tear, and repeated repairs.
I imagine that when these things overlap, a unique F-4E will be created for each player.

"My Phantom has a habit of rolling to the right."
It would be interesting to have conversations like this in multiplayer.

While ppl in other planes will laugh and have an edge in this. Its nonsense. Shouldnt be for MP at all. Only as an option. MP is competition.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Tvrdi

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, Tvrdi said:

While ppl in other planes will laugh and have an edge in this. Its nonsense. Shouldnt be for MP at all. Only as an option. MP is competition.

 

Naw, they will just believe they have more skill than F-4E pilots and tell you to "git gud". The F-5E glass wing is the example for this.