MFCD Failure

[GGTharos]

I agree with making it toggled off, but what you believe is largely irrelevant. ED have reasonably good sources; if you have hard numbers to back up your claim, or even acceptable 'in the region of' numbers, that's great. Otherwise, 'I can't believe' is pretty meaningless.

 

Even if you fixed the CADC, we still just can't believe the real aircraft fails as much as this. Minor system problems, yes, I believe that, but complete failures? I just don't believe it. It's also VERY annoying while trying to train someone.

[goldfinger35]

Failures in A-10 are nothing.

Wait until DCS releases next sim - DCS: F-16 :) and model F-16 failure rate.

 

Just look at Polish experience with F-16s: Out of first 11 delivered F-16s from manufacturer, 9 had serious malfunctions (broken wires, flight computer errors, anti-ice system, tires, oxygen systems etc.)

 

They even had to make emergency landings due to avionics failures:

http://polandusa2007.blogspot.com/2007/10/f-16-jet-fighters-stationed-in-military.html

[Speed]

1. Don't believe pilots and what you read on the internet. Media reports and garbage that floats around is so fluffed to no end that it's unreal.

 

Have you ever been on an overseas deployment before? Yah, I didn't think so. You are trying to claim facts with insubstatial information.

 

So the HUD truely does completely die every 200 hours of use? The CADC really does completely die every 200 hours of use? Each MCFD only lasts and average of 200 hours before it completely dies? Combine all the systems that can fail together, and you get a very high probability that something major is going to completely die during a long flight. That's a fact with this sim. I don't have any cockpit experience, but I have read pilot accounts of long redeployment flights, and I just don't see them saying stuff like "1, 2, my CADC just died!" "1,3, I have no HUD".

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have had one CADC failure in my entire time of flying the sim. Next

 

 

Good lord man, you need to fly more. I average only about 1.5 hours of flight a day, and still I've had four major failures this month alone that I can remember. More possibly that I've forgetton. And all of them occured in the absence of any enemies, at like 18 thousand feet or more.

 

 

Sorry...doesn't happen. Perhaps you should do some research of maintenance hours per flying hours on some US military aircraft.

 

What would maintenance hours tell me? How would I know how many of them were preventative maintenance and how many of them were fixing HUDs that had completely died, as mine has TWICE this month alone?

 

 

 

 

Although the simplicity of the system failure is implemented, the failure rates are not far off. I can think of 50 ways a display can break..would you rather ED spent time coding in a degraded display failure you create the same effect as just having a complete failure? instead of fixing and improving everything else.

 

This is my gripe entirely. I suspect that they simulated minor system failures as the thing COMPLETELY breaking. In real life, when the CADC may have a minor failure and display your airspeed as 5 knots less than it really is, in the sim, we get a COMPLETE CADC failure.

 

Considering that the only way ED can simulate failures is by complete system failure, if they are simulating complete failures at the IRL rate of partial failures, I would rather that they reduced the simulated failure rate by a factor of 2-4 as compensation.

 

So if so, in the sim, us virtual pilots are alot more encumbered by random failures than a real pilot is, because we get them at the same rate real pilots might get them, but we get COMPLETE SYSTEM FAILURES instead.

 

 

FMC, PMC, ground abort, and repeat/recur rates in A-10 land are comparable to every thing else in the Air Force on average, which puts them around the 75%-85% FMC rate at any given time. In order for that to happen, the planes have to be down for maintenance, otherwise, you would see normal rates in the 90's. This isn't the case. Getting spun up and raising a stink about something you think you have an idea about because you read it on the internet or saw it on a TV documentary is hogwash(pun intended). The real world military aircraft operate a lot differently than what is portraid to everyone else on the outside looking in.

 

Is it that much? 75% or 85% is pretty good, is it not?

 

Keep in mind I'm basing this not off of internet sources, or TV shows (I don't even get TV anymore), I'm basing alot of this off of a common sense gut feeling, the knowledge that ED doesn't simulate partial failures, plus a few things I've heard real pilots say. It just doesn't make sense to have something completely die at such a high rate. I could be mistaken, but I would like you to address if you think that HUDs, MFCDs, CADCS really completely fail at a rate of once every 300 hours.

 

 

Try pulling some legitimate research first before making claims that what someone else has done is incorrect and wrong, especailly if you have no personal experience or knowledge to back up any of your claims.

 

Although the simplicity of the system failure is implemented, the failure rates are not far off. I can think of 50 ways a display can break..would you rather ED spent time coding in a degraded display failure you create the same effect as just having a complete failure? instead of fixing and improving everything else.

 

Sounds like I don't have to do any research, that you are in fact suspecting what I suspect, that ED simulates total system failures at the same rate that partial system failures occur in real life. And if this is in fact true, then it is in fact not realistic, and I would like the option to turn it off. Should this be a top ED priority? No, of course not. But not all changes take the same time to implement. This one could be as simple as adjusting a table of numbers, or adding a new option box in the gameplay settings that does the same.

 

Let me get this clear: I may bitch, but ED has a great product here. But just because they have a great product doesn't mean we shouldn't point out flaws in the software. Either real life HUDs just completely wink out every 200 hours of they don't; I've never read any accounts of them doing that, and I've read several books by pilots; every 200 hours also seems incredibly excessive. Regardless, there should be an option to turn this feature off, as it unecessarily complicates the learning process for new folks. And in the absence of anyone at all providing real data on this (I'm supposed to do research and yet "not believe anything I see on the internet"- what a laugh), I'm just gonna follow my gut instinct that "it ain't right".

Edited April 19, 2011 by Speed

[Druid_]

Built in random failures for those like myself who dont get to load up DCS A10c that often only serves to annoy (MFD & CADC failure in last MP mission meant I missed the finalé!). There are of course the die hards but I'm guessing that if they experienced enough failures in short order they'd get fed up too.

 

Make it an option if possible please.

 

p.s. A little surprised the military wanted built in failures, if this is being used as a training aid I would have thought they would want complete control over failures else unwelcome interruption to training time occurs.

[sobek]

p.s. A little surprised the military wanted built in failures, if this is being used as a training aid I would have thought they would want complete control over failures else unwelcome interruption to training time occurs.

 

What you have is far from the DTS :)

[Druid_]

Of course, I hadn't thought otherwise. Without complete knowledge however of the DTS, its strange dont you think to add-in random failures for DCS if they weren't in the DTS version?

[Rainmaker]

So the HUD truely does completely die every 200 hours of use? The CADC really does completely die every 200 hours of use? Each MCFD only lasts and average of 200 hours before it completely dies?

 

Truth be told, I wouldn't doubt it if the mean time between failures of the display were not even less than that. I don't have any information on that to prove or disprove, just saying that knowing what I do know it would not suprise me. And I think you are misinterpreting what he was saying. The change apparently coming to patch 1.08 is to rate the component failures on a percentage based on 200 hours.

 

The CADC I will agree with...as I think most will that the failure rate was too high. Apparently ED agreed with this as well as it was discussed on the last page that the values were being adjusted.

 

Some components have tendencies to have degraded failures while others have not so uncommon complete failures. The most commom would be an intermittant problem on both accounts. Many discrepancies would be to the effect of a display stutting off or blanking out, say three times in a flight.

 

What unfortunately is not modeled is the ability to perform repair procedured in flight. Built-in test(BIT) or power cycles(off/on or resetting breakers in some cases) can trick systems to clearing internal faults and return them. This is unfortunately hit or miss and would be hard to code even though it would be nice to see. Following checklist items to re-bit something or having to cycle power is something that pilots go through all the time.

 

 

Combine all the systems that can fail together, and you get a very high probability that something major is going to completely die during a long flight. That's a fact with this sim. I don't have any cockpit experience, but I have read pilot accounts of long redeployment flights, and I just don't see them saying stuff like "1, 2, my CADC just died!" "1,3, I have no HUD".

This is how the real aircraft are. And what may seem like a "major" system to you is in fact a flyable condition in the real world. That display you may think you have to have and is really important, may in fact be a flyable write-up in some cases that may fly around without getting fixed for weeks at a time. You know what a pilot gets told when he gripes about it? You have two displays...use the other one. :) Degraded airplanes are what the Air Force thrives on. We have a PMC(partial mission capable) rate for a reason, because it's used all the time.

 

I believe the A-10 MESL(mission essential systems list) is somewhere over on epubs. I will see if I can dig it up and post it on here to give you an understanding of what pilots have to go through on a daily basis and what they can be forced to fly with even with the jet not at 100%. You have to remember, you start up an airplane with the jet already at 100%. This isn't the case in the real world...systems are often already noted and previously identified for weeks at a time before they are fixed.

 

 

 

Good lord man, you need to fly more. I average only about 1.5 hours of flight a day, and still I've had four major failures this month alone that I can remember. More possibly that I've forgetton. And all of them occured in the absence of any enemies, at like 18 thousand feet or more.

I have plenty of flight hours. As stated before, it's based on a percentage of failure for a given number of flight hours. You are not guaranteeed a failure per so many flight hours.

 

 

What would maintenance hours tell me? How would I know how many of them were preventative maintenance and how many of them were fixing HUDs that had completely died, as mine has TWICE this month alone?

 

Preventative maintenance is tracked differently than scheduled maintenance. I am sure if you dug around enough you could probably find 4 and 8 hour fix rates for the A-10. These are fix rates only for aircraft that are identified as being broke out for unscheduled(not preventative) maintenance.

 

The FMC rates that I had posted before are also a good indicator of this...

 

 

This is my gripe entirely. I suspect that they simulated minor system failures as the thing COMPLETELY breaking. In real life, when the CADC may have a minor failure and display your airspeed as 5 knots less than it really is, in the sim, we get a COMPLETE CADC failure.

 

And this is an opinionated response....where I have to completely disagree. Most, if not all, CADC failures that I have seen have been compelte failures. It usually either works or it doesn't. And granted the CADC is a normally reliable product in the F-15 world, it does go bad. But there again, I agree with the fact that the current ADC failure rate is too high. However, some of the other ones are highly reasonable.

 

 

So if so, in the sim, us virtual pilots are alot more encumbered by random failures than a real pilot is, because we get them at the same rate real pilots might get them, but we get COMPLETE SYSTEM FAILURES instead.

 

Are you basing thsi primarily on the ADC failures? Because it seems like most are. HUD and display failures are not that uncommon. Just like the real thing, you have to use what's available to you to continue on.

 

 

Is it that much? 75% or 85% is pretty good, is it not?

 

That was a hypothetical number before I went scouring the net. FY 2010 was actually a good bit lower than that and in the low 70's. In Air Force terms...it's probably just making at at the acceptable level. But, if at any given time on avergage, you are only carrying 70% of your fleet at an FMC status...it shows you how big on a maintenance resource our aicraft really are.

 

 

 

Keep in mind I'm basing this not off of internet sources, or TV shows (I don't even get TV anymore), I'm basing alot of this off of a common sense gut feeling, the knowledge that ED doesn't simulate partial failures, plus a few things I've heard real pilots say. It just doesn't make sense to have something completely die at such a high rate. I could be mistaken, but I would like you to address if you think that HUDs, MFCDs, CADCS really completely fail at a rate of once every 300 hours.

 

Again, this is an assumption. Having first-hand experience, I can tell you that you are a good way off in the way of thinking. I don't necessarily blame you. I thought the same thing before coming into the AF. I expected to see 50 wires total in an aiplane and it being spliced togeather with everday household wire nuts. That certainly wasn't the case.

 

You may think that the failure rates should be higher, but in fact they are not that high. As an example, the mean failure time on a generator in an F-15 is only 200 flight hours. That means exactly what it says, over the average of the F-15 fleet, and main generator is only expected to last 200 hours. Some last more and some last less, hence your mean failure time average. And a gen is a pretty major system don't you think.

 

As I say, things aren't always as luxurious as the seem or might appear...but they are what they are.

 

 

 

But just because they have a great product doesn't mean we shouldn't point out flaws in the software. Either real life HUDs just completely wink out every 200 hours of they don't; I've never read any accounts of them doing that, and I've read several books by pilots; every 200 hours also seems incredibly excessive.

Here is the opinion talking again. You are calling something wrong that you have no experience with or data to back it up. You are just saying that it's incorrect and someone's coding is at fault here.

 

Just because you personally haven't read about it, doesn't mean you can viably take that and try to spin it into some factual information and claim what others have done is wrong. It doesn't work that way and no developer is going to listen to that. Or if they do, they are completely rediculous. Just because you THINK something is bogus or excessive, doesn't mean in fact that it really is.

 

There is an old addage, assumption is the mother of all ****ups.

Regardless, there should be an option to turn this feature off

Perhaps, and I can think of ways to agree or disagree with this.

as it unecessarily complicates the learning process for new folks.

Do you know how many posts I can quote with folks wanting as high of a fidelity sim as possible? Yet, you want to be able to turn around and have an uninterupted flight where you never have to worry about a failure? If you want soemthing to simulate the real thing, this is what is included, like it or not.

 

 

And in the absence of anyone at all providing real data on this (I'm supposed to do research and yet "not believe anything I see on the internet"- what a laugh), I'm just gonna follow my gut instinct that "it ain't right".

 

I can give you some advice then. You can keep on bitching all day long but you aren't going to change anything. You have to remember, you are the one kind of trying to demand that what's in here is wrong yet you cannot prove anything to back up these claims you are trying to make. So shouldn't it be you that does a little digging to come up with reasons to make a change? You already said that you have absolutely ZERO experience in this field, yet you are trying to get someone to believe you and make a change based on your opinions. That just sounds absurd and rediculous.

[kevins]

What you have is far from the DTS :)

 

 

I'm not asking you to disclose classified info, but how is it "far" from what is available to us?

[GGTharos]

Quite extreme if you were to use both - last I heard, anyway, which was a while ago.

 

I believe DTS didn't feature AFM for example.

 

I'm not asking you to disclose classified info, but how is it "far" from what is available to us?

[robmlufc]

200 hours without any electrical or avionic hiccup would be pretty good going, some aircraft need servicing every 250 hours.

[Snoopy]

200 hours without any electrical or avionic hiccup would be pretty good going, some aircraft need servicing every 250 hours.

 

Our jets break everyday, entire system failures are VERY rare. Part of that is the preventive maintenance that is scheduled throughout the life cycle of the airframe as well as phase inspections and programmed depot maintenance. The first jet I was on today ground aborted so we had to go to the spare. Then once we got both engines up the #2 generator wouldn't come online and fuel was spitting out of the gang drain. The difference obviously is I was there to trouble shoot the issue and we got the problems corrected and he made his sortie and landed Code I.

 

Anyone that knows firm hard numbers of real time failure rates that post here won't and shouldn't say (FOUO and OPSEC). Concerns have been noted....

 

Can't we all just get along!?!?!?

[Speed]

...

 

Right. So you demand that I provide numbers, which you know is next to impossible (wouldn't such numbers be FOUO?), and yet you provide none yourself. Perhaps, since you demand I do some research, and you claim to have knowledge of air force equipment, you could tell me where and how to start looking.

 

And I'm just supposed to you on faith? Sorry, but I can't, as just one lone defender claiming to have experience (but no raw numbers) is not enough to convince me- not when you are implying that things like HUDs have MTBFs of only a few hundred hours.

 

The only thing I can find, is if you search HUD MTBF and things like that, is that they seem to typically be rated in thousands of hours... I haven't read of a single HUD specced to hundreds of hours. Of course, those could be only newer HUDs, maybe the A-10C uses some archaic P.O.S. with a really short MTBF. It seems like it's that, or you're just wrong about how often they fail.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Speed

[RodBorza]

Well, in midst of all this, I just want to say that I was in a perfectly good day of flying then my Autopilot died on me. No MFCD failures, but Autopilot suddenly out.

[Frederf]

These MTBF figures must be coded into LUA files somewhere. Can we at least see them?

[Rainmaker]

Right. So you demand that I provide numbers,

 

LoL...

 

I'm not demanding that you provide anything. You are the one wanting something changed remember? I'm fine with the failure rate as is. I'm just pointing out the fact that you are griping about something you have no real experience with and you want changed because you FEEL that it isn't right. That would be the same as me bitching because the flight model doesn't FEEL right do me and I come on the boards raising a stint because I want it changed...yet I provide no real data to prove my point.

 

Good luck in your endeavours...because the case you trying to build is pretty weak at the moment.

[nomdeplume]

IMO the accuracy of the failure rate is a side issue, the real question is why has ED made the decision to implement something which purposefully degrades the user experience, and not have the ability to turn it off?

 

Even the hardcore realism junkies will want to have the jet's system entirely under their control some of the time. For example as Druid mentioned earlier, trying to learn a complex system where things can just randomly stop working through no fault of your own is very frustrating - especially when there's lots of things that can and should break through operator error.

 

"Real pilots have to deal with that". Yes, I know, but a) I'm not a real pilot, I'm not being paid to do this full time, I'm doing this out of my own expense in my own spare time; and b) real pilots have experienced instructors and ground crew who can rapidly help them determine if it was human error or mechanical failure. (Also they learn much of this stuff through desktop simulators which don't have random failures included... :D)

 

This really should be implemented as a slider on the options screen, similar to the bird slider. Let the user decide if they want 0% of the 'realistic' failure rate or 1000%, or anything in between. Forcing this on every player in every session smacks of catering to the hardcore audience rather than the majority of customers, and I'm hopeful that it's just a temporary situation until it can be parametised and hooked into the UI (of course, I've been hoping that since the betas).

[Speed]

LoL...

 

I'm not demanding that you provide anything. You are the one wanting something changed remember? I'm fine with the failure rate as is. I'm just pointing out the fact that you are griping about something you have no real experience with and you want changed because you FEEL that it isn't right. That would be the same as me bitching because the flight model doesn't FEEL right do me and I come on the boards raising a stint because I want it changed...yet I provide no real data to prove my point.

 

Good luck in your endeavours...because the case you trying to build is pretty weak at the moment.

 

Well, look on the bright side. There's three things we agree, or sorta agree on. 1) CADC failures are excessive. 2) We need to be given an option to turn this off or turn it down. 3)My case is pretty weak.

 

My point is, what is ED's case? Surely, failure rates are somewhere between FOUO and secret.... probably FOUO or confidential. Heck, even the class guide that would tell us is FOUO, IIRC? So there is no way, unless these figures and numbers are in fact public, that the failure rate we currently see in the sim is the correct failure rate. It could be in the ballpark, or it could be way off, as I suspect. There is no way ED was allowed to release a sim with a FOUO or classified failure rate correctly modelled to the public domain.

 

Perhaps if some more AF maintenence guys chimed in, or we got some actual pilot testimony (doesn't even have to be an A-10), I would start to believe the current failure rate. But the only other guy with real experience here seems to be much closer to my point of view, that major system failures occur too often in the sim.

 

I totally believe that minor system problems happen constantly, of course. I'm not stupid. I've also read plenty of accounts of modern air combat where they talk about minor system problems, or aircraft that are flown with them.

 

As far as MFCDs go, yea, you can fly just fine with one, it's just a little annoying. I've also never personally had a MFCD failure that wasn't caused by enemy fire. But I've had many, many CADC failures, and three or four HUD failures... two this month alone.

 

Maybe I just "won the lottery" on the HUD failures and once they reduce the rate of CADC failures, I will see a "more realistic" random failure rate.

[GGTharos]

It could be in the ballpark, or it could be way off, as I suspect.

 

It's in the ballpark.

 

Perhaps if some more AF maintenence guys chimed in, or we got some actual pilot testimony (doesn't even have to be an A-10), I would start to believe the current failure rate. But the only other guy with real experience here seems to be much closer to my point of view, that major system failures occur too often in the sim.

They already have.

 

Maybe I just "won the lottery" on the HUD failures and once they reduce the rate of CADC failures, I will see a "more realistic" random failure rate.

It is entirely possible that you won the lottery in terms of failures. ED already made mention that CADC failure rate would be corrected.

[StrongHarm]

ФрогФут said it's going to be toned down in the next patch.

159th Viper was serious when he said the figures aren't pulled out of a .. well ya know.

Paulrkiii is a RL A-10C Crew Chief and is on the ED Test team.

There's already been much discussion about this behind closed doors. All is well.

 

I'm glad to be part of a project where realism and the community are key. Can't wait to see what the future holds!

[Speed]

It's in the ballpark.

 

They already have.

 

Yes, two did, and they offered what appeared to me, conflicting experience. Rainmaker says one thing, paulkrii says something quite different- "Our jets break everyday, entire system failures are VERY rare".

 

He also says, "I agree with my experience some of the failures happen more often in the aim than on the line."

Not sure who he is agreeing with, and "more often in the aim than on the line" is either supposed to be "more often in the air than on the line" or "more often in the sim than on the line". Donno which, but a is right next to s on the keyboard.

 

If he had come out and said that "ED's total HUD failure rate, MCFD total failure rate, is not too high", it probably would have been enough to shut me up. Instead, he appeared to both agree and disagree with me- but he appeared to state that minor problems are very common (of course) but major problems are very rare. He also says that pilots fly with many systems off during redeployment, but I would assume that this does NOT include the HUD... that's a pretty vital (but not irreplacable for navigation purposes) little instrument to have.

 

It is entirely possible that you won the lottery in terms of failures. ED already made mention that CADC failure rate would be corrected.

 

Too be honest, if it weren't for CADC failures, I probably wouldn't have been annoyed enough by this to start bitching. Though two HUD failures only 20 minutes appart in the SAME mission were so damn annoying. I would have bombed the buildings where the maintenence folks were hanging out, except that I didn't have a HUD to aim my dumb bombs with :)

Edited April 20, 2011 by Speed

[GGTharos]

Though two HUD failures only 20 minutes appart in the SAME mission were so damn annoying.

 

... you need to go out and buy a ticket :)

 

I would have bombed the buildings where the maintenence folks were hanging out, except that I didn't have a HUD to aim my dumb bombs with :)

 

There is an emergency/standby mode for the HUD AFAIK. Did that not work as well or did you not try? Just saying, you might have still hit something ;)

[Speed]

... you need to go out and buy a ticket :)

 

 

 

There is an emergency/standby mode for the HUD AFAIK. Did that not work as well or did you not try? Just saying, you might have still hit something ;)

 

 

LOL well I suppose I could also have just tried dive bombing, with sel-jettison and armed bombs, but I always sucked at IL-2.

 

No I just blew the aircraft up (back to spectators) and left the game after the second one.

[Direwolf5]

As a former USAF Minuteman III maintainer, I can personally state that equipment failures occur quite often and at the most inopportune times, and considering how much the US taxpayer pays for them it is surprising, you would think that they would last longer.

 

I have seen equipment worth tens of thousands fail protecting the nine cent fuse that was supposed to protect them. In some cases it was bad design, and in others a critical installation step was deleted from the T.O.'s by mistake.

 

Case in point, there were 3 AC power transformers on the missile sites that were rated for 40KV which kept failing every three to four months, we eventually found that a paragraph that instructed you to put heat-sink compound on a overload resistor was removed from the T.O. We were lucky that we had an old copy of the T.O. that had not been updated in which we found the missing step. It had become common knoledge among the senior maintainers so when they decided to clean up the T.O. they removed it because the thought it was an obvious step that it had to be done. After they retired or were let go in the drawdowns after Vietnam that knowledge was lost.

[Frostiken]

I, to this date, have yet to suffer a CADC failure :P

[Stingray66]

ED has implemented a random chance of failure on just about everything that cannot be turned off.

 

how is this related to the option 'Random system failures' which CAN be turned off. With it turned off I have never ever had any failures other than induced by gunshots or MY flying ;)