[BUG] over 20g w/o break-up needing 21g's to break

hello guys !

F14 is my real life favourite plane since...ever (especially D variant).

that said … i obviously like to see it on top of everything else (especially the evil competitor F15 , LOL) , but i really think this thing has gone way too far.

 

DCS F14 can:

turn 90 degrees in 1 second.

lose 160 knots in 1 second (from 460 to 300)

sustain a peak of 20g turns and "normal turns" at 13g-15g

(to be clear, i witnessed 25g wings opened turns, 17g wings closed, and a 34g finally breaking wings)

 

proof of this:

 

…while the REAL F14 had a soft limit of 6.5g . Grumman give it for +9g -5.5g .

now i want to belive, and i'll say that soft limits are for airframe life cycle purposes, and Tomcat can sustain with no trouble… lets say +9g.

lets even say that in an Emergency life-or-Death situation, pilot pulls 11g, its extreme but i'm still fine with that.

but if for example F15a ultimate g limit is 12g, what in the world make sense in making F14 pulling 20g as if was nothing multiple times in same fight, and have no effects on airframe, instruments, pilot and so on ?

for a simulation thats quite a sad "ace combat" feature.

 

i love F14... with all his strenght and its weakness. please respect it as it was.

Ok, so first of all thank you for reporting, I will merge this thread.

It hasn't been gone on for "too long" though as the pull in 20G without damage bug seems recent. The F-14 can handle 13G without issues (your first pull in the video is normal, however you might probably end up with INS failure), the second pull seems like a bug. EDIT: Wing sweep seems indeed an issue in both, thanks lunaticfringe.

We do model structural damage that occurs above 13G, depending how often and how hard you pull. Your wing will snap off. IRL the Tomcat could probably take somewhere between 13 and 18 G (Grumman tested it up to 13), while the likeliness of damage ofc would increase towards 18G and beyond.

However, I have no idea why you would call a bug an "ace combat feature" and suggesting that we made it on purpose like that. That is, sorry, a completely wrong assumption and quite unfair tbh. Bugs occur, always have, always will, something we all have to deal with unfortunately. On top of that the bug seems recent, like I said, in the past 5 months all the complaints we got were about wings breaking off too easily, so quite the opposite actually.

We are looking into it, and we hope that we can find a fix soon. Thanks again for the report!

DLEGION, the loss rate and DpS isn't the glaring issue here; the lack of sweep is.

In the first phase of your video, you're in excess of Mach 0.75 with wings fully forward and auxiliary flaps at a minimum of maneuver state- that is, less than 22 degrees sweep and well off the schedule. In the next, you're exceeding Mach 0.9 at essentially SL with the wings at less than 30 degrees of sweep, which is so far off the reservation it has a different postal code. Loss rates of a barn door are believable, as are pitch rates with the wing and control surfaces at their greatest achievable positions with the given energy states; what needs to be ascertained is why they're so far off the CADC program.

These point to either damaged flaps or an emergency handle state out of the actuator gear and behind the program, because the jet shouldn't get into either configuration.

With that in mind, I'm going to ask that anyone searching for this stops flying in external view and does so in the cockpit with the information bar displayed (CTRL-Y). A CADC-sweep disconnect from damaged flaps or the emergency handle is going to show immediately as a Master Caution and on the sweep gauge; that's going to tell if it's a raw FM issue, or if the FM is working off of the proper aero numbers and the aircraft was misconfigured or broken going into maneuvering. The rest of the information required is in the bar.

And the design ultimate limit on the F-14 was 13.5 G. Mentioning of it reaching 90% or more of that is above.

@ironmike sorry man you got me wrong about:

"However, I have no idea why you would call a bug an "ace combat feature" and suggesting that we made it on purpose like that."

i mean that people using F14 are posing a show like "acecombat" , not that is your will or theyrs (the users correctly use everything they have to win, its fine).

i just wanted to help with what i think its a recent bug :)

PS: this link lead to a longer video about continuous abuse, and a 25g turn without issues.

@ironmike sorry man you got me wrong about:

 

"However, I have no idea why you would call a bug an "ace combat feature" and suggesting that we made it on purpose like that."

 

i mean that people using F14 are posing a show like "acecombat" , not that is your will or theyrs (the users correctly use everything they have to win, its fine).

i just wanted to help with what i think its a recent bug :)

 

PS: this link lead to a longer video about continuous abuse, and a 25g turn without issues.

We seam to be flying different planes:

While you can clearly take her above 20g for about a 10th of a second, anything sustained above 18 will result in disintegration. This is BTW a clear aft stick movement only, no lateral stick at all. I even stuck the wings forward in 3 of my tests to see if it will make a difference. It didn't.

Are you running any mods?

EDIT: by the way, i love the new afterburner effect. Fix the black ring smear from the nozzles and she's perfect!

We seam to be flying different planes:

 

 

While you can clearly take her above 20g for about a 10th of a second, anything sustained above 18 will result in disintegration. This is BTW a clear aft stick movement only, no lateral stick at all. I even stuck the wings forward in 3 of my tests to see if it will make a difference. It didn't.

 

Are you running any mods?

 

 

EDIT: by the way, i love the new afterburner effect. Fix the black ring smear from the nozzles and she's perfect!

obviously no mod, but your plane was armed and with fuel pods.

my test F14 was 100% clean and 50% fuel.

you sustained about 20g in an armed plane! LOL

The word "sustain" does not mean "happen for a brief second with destructive consequences". Just sayin'.

obviously no mod, but your plane was armed and with fuel pods.

my test F14 was 100% clean and 50% fuel.

 

you sustained about 20g in an armed plane! LOL

Sustained for less then 1/2 a second, if that's what you mean by sustaining. And that is a spike that might not even be actually measured correctly in the info bar. Try and actually "sustaining" g loads and she falls apart at 18 after a second or so (i would hesitate of calling even this sustaining). Now should (and how much) there be any damage in situations such as this? Can't say really, i'm not a structural engineer nor have i worked with or on a Tomcat. GGT made some good points on engine mounts damage above 13g's and i did break some flight controls in that repeated experiment. So take it for what you will. I trust the guys at HB to make things as close as possible as the simulator allows them.

@ironmike sorry man you got me wrong about:

 

"However, I have no idea why you would call a bug an "ace combat feature" and suggesting that we made it on purpose like that."

 

i mean that people using F14 are posing a show like "acecombat" , not that is your will or theyrs (the users correctly use everything they have to win, its fine).

i just wanted to help with what i think its a recent bug :)

 

PS: this link lead to a longer video about continuous abuse, and a 25g turn without issues.

My apologies, I misunderstood you. Your input of course always was and is highly appreciated.

В 12.08.2019 в 14:52, IronMike сказал:

Насколько нам известно, в такой конфигурации он легко выдержит 25G, если вы облегчите его, самолет позволит вам это сделать. Что касается того, почему пилот не отключился, я не могу ответить, поскольку пилотный G-Loc управляется на стороне DCS, а не на нашей.

Its structural limit of 11.25 G will not withstand, at which it will instantly break

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/338325-ai-fm/?do=findComment&comment=5333862