Bucic Posted January 2 Posted January 2 1 hour ago, SparrowLT said: What do you mean modless track? there is no mod in that mission as far as im aware... I can also upload the tacview file Tacview-20250102-174935-DCS-AG.zip.acmi 1.8 MB · 0 downloads Modless track - a track recorded by a player using a DCS instance with all mods disabled. 1 F-5E simpit cockpit dimensions and flight controls Kill the Bloom - shader glow mod Poor audio Doppler effect in DCS [bug] Trees - huge performance hit especially up close
nairb121 Posted January 2 Posted January 2 3 hours ago, SparrowLT said: I just was doing an offline mission..its simple.. drop LG bombs on a terrorist camp while a predator lases them.. so first pass.. i get clear hot from JTAC ... dive on target and release a GBU12 out of 4 (so asymetrical resultant loads) i begin to pull up and also doing lateral movement to avoid any AAA fire i expect..and after just 2 or 3 seconds of turn my wing snaps and i lose control and crash... no hits from ground AAA ... i checked tacview and i was pulling 7.6G when it snaped.. track uploaded F-5E wings break 2025.trk 6.19 MB · 0 downloads I'm not saying that DCS's behavior is true to life, but it should be pointed out that this configuration is limited to 6.5 G symmetrical/ 5.2 G roll entry - a maneuver showing failure while within the prescribed limits might make a stronger argument that DCS's modeling is flawed. 1
VZ_342 Posted January 2 Author Posted January 2 Combining a roll with a pitch maneuver is a common reason for wing snap. The official -1 prohibits this. Roll to the angle you want, stop the roll, then pull up. When you need to roll again, release the back pressure on the stick (maintaining your current pitch angle), and then roll. 1
=475FG= Dawger Posted January 3 Posted January 3 3 hours ago, nairb121 said: I'm not saying that DCS's behavior is true to life, but it should be pointed out that this configuration is limited to 6.5 G symmetrical/ 5.2 G roll entry - a maneuver showing failure while within the prescribed limits might make a stronger argument that DCS's modeling is flawed. 1
nairb121 Posted January 3 Posted January 3 14 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said: I included roll-entry g for completeness, but the poster above did exceed the symmetrical g-limit as well. Should it have caused catastrophic structural failure? Probably not - the overload is well within expected safety factor, before even considering the more likely failure modes; but "it broke when I only exceeded the limits a little" is not as compelling an argument as "it broke when I did everything by the book". The latest from ED on the topic seems to be that their opinion is that the lack of artificial feel is the primary contributor to over-g related incidents; they also do not consider TacView to be a sufficiently reliable source for this type of issue. I doubt that the issue will be fully acknowledged unless proof is provided in the form of a track, showing failure within g-limits, with smooth stick application. What's here already is enough proof for me - my point is that it'll probably take hard proof of a gross error to get this fully acknowledged. 1 1
=475FG= Dawger Posted January 3 Posted January 3 3 hours ago, nairb121 said: I included roll-entry g for completeness, but the poster above did exceed the symmetrical g-limit as well. Should it have caused catastrophic structural failure? Probably not - the overload is well within expected safety factor, before even considering the more likely failure modes; but "it broke when I only exceeded the limits a little" is not as compelling an argument as "it broke when I did everything by the book". The latest from ED on the topic seems to be that their opinion is that the lack of artificial feel is the primary contributor to over-g related incidents; they also do not consider TacView to be a sufficiently reliable source for this type of issue. I doubt that the issue will be fully acknowledged unless proof is provided in the form of a track, showing failure within g-limits, with smooth stick application. What's here already is enough proof for me - my point is that it'll probably take hard proof of a gross error to get this fully acknowledged. ED will always tell anyone to “prove” something is wrong with data. However, there is absolutely no data that indicates the G-limit will be exceeded at any other roll other than “maximum rate, 360 degree roll (aileron to the spring stop)” There is no data, no limitation that addresses any other situation. So someone at ED made it up. Most likely they just slapped in a linear relationship to make the wings snap off when you input any sort of roll above 5.2 G Of course they aren’t disclosing the math to us, just telling us to disprove something they invented. It is bit frustrating 2
Recommended Posts