Realistic Tailhook and gears.

[Silver_Dragon]

Actualy, that feature has none realistic, we see planes that are not prepared for the deck of an aircraft carrier, landing without problems, including taking off, more properly of a arcade game, no a realistic combat simulator.

That require the propper deck physics of both the tail hooks and the landing gear should be recreated correctly. Other point has recreate the land arrest systems and your propper phisics on bases to make emergency procedures.

[sirrah]

15 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Actualy, that feature has none realistic, we see planes that are not prepared for the deck of an aircraft carrier, landing without problems, including taking off, more properly of a arcade game, no a realistic combat simulator.

That require the propper deck physics of both the tail hooks and the landing gear should be recreated correctly. Other point has recreate the land arrest systems and your propper phisics on bases to make emergency procedures.

I'm not sure what exactly you refer to as being unrealistic (for instance; in DCS, the Hornet's landing gear can withstand much higher impacts than for instance the Viper's landing gear. As is correct).

 

If you only refer to DCS players landing non carrier capable aircraft on aircraft carriers:

Sure, some planes were not designed to land on carriers, but that doesn't mean they can't land on or take-off from them. If you value your life and the aircraft, it's just not a very wise thing to try and do in real life (hence the reason that for most of these airframes, it was never tried in real life). But that doesn't mean it's impossible.

I understand where you're wish is coming from. I too prefer realism over arcade and suppose that's what most DCS players seek. But there will always be folks who try and search the boundaries of what's possible in DCS; the stuff that would absolutely get you jailed in real life, but that's completely fine, because this is a computer game/sim, where everybody can do what he/she likes.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2024 by sirrah
typo

[Gunfreak]

It would "simply " require that damage modeling on the hook on none carrier aircraft to correct. The hook on the F16 would not withstand the use on a carrier, neither would the F5s. Someone said the hook on the F15E is more powerful than on the F16.  But I'm doubtful it could stop the giant beast that the F15E is.

[upyr1]

The only usaf fighter in dcs that might be able to make a carrier landing would be the F-4. Even that is questionable because the landing gear are different

 The F-16 or F-5 should have their tailhooks ripped out 

[draconus]

On 5/29/2024 at 4:37 PM, sirrah said:

Sure, some planes were not designed to land on carriers, but that doesn't mean they can't land on or take-off from them.

This.

If the intent of this wish is to just stop pilots doing it altogether because it's wrong then I do not support it.

If the intent is to fix/improve damage model of the hooks and landing gear of these aircraft to make it more realistic then I support it.

Which one is it @Silver_Dragon?

btw: With enough head wind I can smoothly VTOL any jet in DCS so the carrier landing is even easier and the forces on the hook and gear are negligible.

Edited May 31, 2024 by draconus

[FR4GGL3]

Think about it. DCS is already a handfull for beginners. I am pretty sure that there are some less realistic things in order to keep at least a few rewarding moments for beginners. Imagine if the physics would be completely realistic, a lot of people (me included) won't be able to land on a carrier a lot of times, just because we impact to hard, snap the tailhook, make it jump or simply brake the Gear. It would be realistic, but:

I know that what I will type next is a big no go here, but DCS is still a GAME. It should be rewarding and it should be fun. If you do the real real physics, you also need a checkbox to make it not so real for beginners. It is a trade off.

Edited May 31, 2024 by FR4GGL3

[draconus]

1 hour ago, FR4GGL3 said:

If you do the real real physics, you also need a checkbox to make it not so real for beginners.

Why? You come to the most known realistic combat flight sim just to seek easy game elements? There are many other relaxed realism titles.

That's the whole point of it being a good sim - it's realistic and made more so - not the other way.

The realism is the fun here and by being difficult (subjective) it is rewarding to learn the skills, procedures and tactics.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, FR4GGL3 said:

I know that what I will type next is a big no go here, but DCS is still a GAME. It should be rewarding and it should be fun. If you do the real real physics, you also need a checkbox to make it not so real for beginners. It is a trade off.

Well, as often as this is said, the objective of this game (and it is a game) is to depict this stuff accurately.

Surely the more rewarding thing here would be to land on carriers (in suitable aircraft) at a rate of descent and speed that doesn't lead to damaging landing gear?

 

[Lace]

Landing gear is designed to withstand very high shock loading.  One aircraft I have flown was landed so hard (not by me!) there were tyre marks on the underside of the wing skin! The undercarriage was inspected and no damage was found.

A Viper landing gear will have a lower tolerance for g loading than a Hornet, but both are designed with huge margins of safety.  A lightly loaded Viper should be capable of a firm landing on a carrier deck as the gear will be built to withstand a heavy landing at a high gross weight on a land runway.  It will not take a fully loaded jet slamming into an upwards pitching deck.

Tail hook physics, IDK. The Viper is designed to take the wire at the far end of the runway with minimum speed on.  Whether it would take an arrested landing would depend.  With a decent headwind it might take the wire as low as 100kts.  

I'm personally not a fan of the silliness of operating non-carrier aircraft from carriers, I've never even thought to try it as it would never happen IRL, but this is a game, and people can try all kinds of things which would never happen in real life.  Look at the typical logbook number of deaths/ejections/kills and compare it to a real life fighter pilots stats.  DCS is just not played in a realistic way by anyone.  Tactics, procedures, operations are almost all pure fantasy anyway, so what difference does it make if someone plays in a different unrealistic way.

[FR4GGL3]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Why? You come to the most known realistic combat flight sim just to seek easy game elements? There are many other relaxed realism titles.

That's the whole point of it being a good sim - it's realistic and made more so - not the other way.

The realism is the fun here and by being difficult (subjective) it is rewarding to learn the skills, procedures and tactics.

It is okay if you can extend the realism over the time. But you need to let people stand a chance to get into it. Not everyone has hours over hours just to get the basics. You can and will get better over time, but you need some rewarding moments in order to control the frustration. I guess the community would rapidly decrease, if you do it the hard way without loosen some things if needed.

 

But maybe I am wrong. I just think that DCS has a good trade off at the moment. It is realistic enough to be a good simulation, but the small lackings in realism makes it easier to get into it. As I said: maybe I am wrong.

 

But I remember a discussion when Wags called it a "Simulator Game".

Edited May 31, 2024 by FR4GGL3

[FR4GGL3]

23 minutes ago, average_pilot said:

In the world of flight simulation there is this psychological problem, that a good portion of the users need a sort of "validation" making sure none else is allowed to do things in the game that they regard as unacceptable. How else could they consider themselves "pro pilots" by using some software if others are using the same piece of software to do all kind of silly things?

 

That is not my point. I love DCS. And I also can see why a lot of people take it serious. But in order to last DCS longer it needs more customers and it needs more "assets" (Aircrafts and things). So if you enforce more realism, you need to make sure that you can also weaken it in order to keep attractive on new customers. And you need a way to keep new modules not over complicated (if we aren't already there).

I think that a perfect Simulation Software is easy to learn, but hard to master. It must suck you in and leave you a lot to learn. If this isn't the case it would either get too tough to be attractive or too boring later on. And I also think that this is a thing that DCS does well.

But yeah, I also love funny Videos of doing stupid things with this beautiful Machines. Live is serious enough. Lets make some stupid things that can't harm anybody.

Edited May 31, 2024 by FR4GGL3

[draconus]

1 hour ago, FR4GGL3 said:

But maybe I am wrong.

Yes, the sim doesn't have to be less realistic to be easier to get into. You do it by doing easier things first in a less demanding aircraft, not following any rules, crashing and dying as many times as you want... ex. you start in the air and do whatever you want, no need to learn anything at first. You probably want to learn how to taxi and take off if messing with buttons and switches do not interest you. Maybe shoot some weapons. Then maybe landing correctly in visual approach straight in. Then maybe some pattern, ILS, low vis, bad weather... Finally formation flying, AAR, advanced multi-ship tactics, dogfight aceing... All the steps on the way are rewarding. Plus there are many helpers built in already.

Edited May 31, 2024 by draconus

[BarTzi]

22 minutes ago, draconus said:

Yes, the sim doesn't have to be less realistic to be easier to get into. You do it by doing easier things first in a less demanding aircraft, not following any rules, crashing and dying as many times as you want... ex. you start in the air and do whatever you want, no need to learn anything at first. You probably want to learn how to taxi and take off if messing with buttons and switches do not interest you. Maybe shoot some weapons. Then maybe landing correctly in visual approach straight in. Then maybe some pattern, ILS, low vis, bad weather... Finally formation flying, AAR, advanced multi-ship tactics, dogfight aceing... All the steps on the way are rewarding. Plus there are many helpers built in already.

 

This is exactly like the players who try to AAR before they learn the basics of formation flying, and then ask for an easy mode for AAR.