Jump to content

Demistifying Eagle damage model


jackmckay

Recommended Posts

Wait a second here.. This thread started out as a Conspiracy theory about an IAF jet loosing a wing could not happen. The OA complained and complained about fuel would auto ignite from the exhaust then would melt the rear Stabs and a total loss would ensue. I then flushed that argument down the proverbial toilet by explaining that his theory would not hold true due to the Stabs Materials. This thread then moved way off the original topic. Since the current discussion is well argued in specific topics for that. This thread needs SHUT DOWN!


Edited by pr1malr8ge

For the WIN

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wait a second here.. This thread started out as a Conspiracy theory about an IRA jet loosing a wing could not happen. The OA complained and complained about fuel would auto ignite from the exhaust then would melt the rear Stabs and a total loss would ensue. I then flushed that argument down the proverbial toilet by explaining that his theory would not hold true due to the Stabs Materials. This thread then moved way off the original topic. Since the current discussion is well argued in specific topics for that. This thread needs SHUT DOWN!

 

+1

4790K@4,6Ghz | EVGA Z97 Classified | 32GB @ 2400Mhz | Titan X hydro copper| SSD 850 PRO

____________________________________

Moments in DCS:

--> https://www.youtube.com/user/weltensegLA

-->

 

WELD's cockpit: --> http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=92274

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The only thing that should be shutdown is eagle damage model. Everyday we see IAF case on DCS MP servers, even IAF case defys all laws of physicy, with many aspect of nonrepetitive practice, survivability of IAF guy is up to only one factor - luck. So how lucky eagle will remain in DCS, its up to developers but sure one day it will be put on the ground, either by fixing DM or by being overrun by competition in flight sim domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who in the world would accept 'simulator' to have single model OP-ed? Thats no simulator, its rigged arcade game designed for f15 jackasses that should actually play acecombat instead, prefereably on ps gamepad. That is DM level of F15 now. Such a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You know what is unrealistic too? Mig-21 with english cockpit downing F-15C ;)

 

Actually not.

 

Some USSR sold Mig-21 were translated first to English and then to native language. Many were written in native language via no translation at all by just getting the "by hand" experience what they did when the test pilots visited USSR for the initial training (trainee and trainer didn't speak same language in some cases and sometimes there was a translator at the ground station translating what the other person was speaking).

 

Then when the USA started to buy Secretely Migs for their secret pilot trainings, they needed to assemble and figure out all the aircraft functions without knowing what did what. Write down their own testing programs, get to know how to do things and write their own manuals etc.

 

That is as well the time when the US skies had Mig-21's flying with english labels on them....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who in the world would accept 'simulator' to have single model OP-ed? Thats no simulator, its rigged arcade game designed for f15 jackasses that should actually play acecombat instead, prefereably on ps gamepad. That is DM level of F15 now. Such a waste of time.
Even if we would accept that F-15 can fly with one wing, but it is so unrealistic that one would fly combat with such....

 

Like how quickly would hydraulic fluid etc go out in that time etc?

 

Now when flying against those with F/A-18C, it is annoying how easily F-15C survives from 1-2 AIM-7M hits just to get leaking fuel.

 

Like why to do F-22 when F-15 outmaneuver, out-reach every enemy and even can take multiple hits and land at base? You don't need less more expensive ones, but more like that. As you would destroy everyone just with pure strength...

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are asking that question, you did not understand anything what was said on this topic or even previous topics about this.

This topic should indeed be closed cause it seems even the smart people are unable to educate these guy's.


Edited by winchesterdelta1

Go in close, and when you think you are too close, go in closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! Look who's back everybody! :D

 

I really don't understand the stubborn determination here. This isn't a deliberate design choice. The DMs are no good, THAT IS WHY THE DAMAGE MODEL IS BEING REDONE ACROSS THE BOARD.

 

This is common knowledge, the damage models across DCS are being redone. What is the point of this continued ranting? Just to vent? Did an Eagle touch you in your special area? It's life, guys. Get over it.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if we would accept that F-15 can fly with one wing, but it is so unrealistic that one would fly combat with such....

 

You don't have to accept it, it's been proven - as for flying in combat, that's certainly not happening in DCS. If my wing comes off, I don't have enough control to fight. No one does. You literally have to fly out in front of me and let me shoot you.

 

Like how quickly would hydraulic fluid etc go out in that time etc?

 

You'd lose all hydro from one of the hydro buses right away. But the neat thing about the eagle ... it has redundant hydro systems so yes, you will retain at least one working hydro system.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are asking that question that you did not understand anything what was said on this topic or even previous topics about this.

This topic should indeed be closed cause it seems even the smart people are unable to educate these guy's.

 

 

I could not agree any more, I mean anybody who has heard of the Lifting-Body-Theory and took one look at those huge Stabilators should know that that part of the Flight-model is absolutely plausible.

It's like arguing with Flat-earthers or Anti-vaxxers, you can present one argument after the other, but they wont admit that there are wrong.

 

So ED please shut this thread down, it's spreading nothing but BS, lies and is an eyesore to anyone who knows anything about aviation, aerodynamics and/or aerospace engineering.

 

Yours sincerely

Dr. Goose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who in the world would accept 'simulator' to have single model OP-ed? Thats no simulator, its rigged arcade game designed for f15 jackasses that should actually play acecombat instead, prefereably on ps gamepad. That is DM level of F15 now. Such a waste of time.

 

Dude chill. New Version with dm completely overhauled is coming, current one is primitive at least. Besides there are bugs EVERYWHERE that are more important than the dm right now.

Patience in a virtue lacking in some I guess...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The only thing that should be shutdown is eagle damage model. Everyday we see IAF case on DCS MP servers, even IAF case defys all laws of physicy, with many aspect of nonrepetitive practice, survivability of IAF guy is up to only one factor - luck. So how lucky eagle will remain in DCS, its up to developers but sure one day it will be put on the ground, either by fixing DM or by being overrun by competition in flight sim domain.

 

Who in the world would accept 'simulator' to have single model OP-ed? Thats no simulator, its rigged arcade game designed for f15 jackasses that should actually play acecombat instead, prefereably on ps gamepad. That is DM level of F15 now. Such a waste of time.

 

 

 

 

So, In the beginning of this Thread you try to articulate a false inception that you're an engineer and you know all.. Yet there have been numerous individuals who've tossed your Garbage into the refuse truck to be disposed of. Now, you are coming back unintelligible banter to I can only assume to make yourself feel good..

 

 

 

So Lets pick this apart.

First, The eagle Damage model in DCS.. Yes There is valid argument that an Eagle should break apart if it hits 20+gs while at full gross weight and wing tanks.. How ever... In part of the design of this aircraft it will not be able to achieve self destruction G loading.. So the real problem is not the Damage model but the fact that the sim is allowing this to happen. So the answer is not a DM but rather refining the AF's systems to resolve the issue.

 

 

 

Second; Right now the fact that the F15 is loosing both wings yet still flying is not INHERENT to the F15. I've seen just about every AF in DCS have this happen.

 

 

 

Third, The IAF F15 defying the laws of physics. or your poor spelling of Physicy is your lack of understanding. There is an Age old saying, anything will fly if you have enough power. This is one thing the F15 is NOT lacking in. Therefor, it was not defying, breaking any laws of Physics. Since we can take a flying brick and put it in space.

 

 

 

Fourth, Non repetitive practice and survival. Back to third again have enough power and well it can be repeated and survived. Practical to practice or repeat. Well not intentional. Even the PIC stated had he have known the extent of damage he would have ejected. I'm sure even knowing that it is possible as having been done any PIC would still eject.

 

 

 

Fifth, this issue is DEV solvable. But not in the manor you believe it should be. Refer to 1, the Over G issue which is what you're most pressed with is not a DM issue but a system issue. Second Every plane in DCS right now is affected by the missing wings issue. Therefor either complain about them all or stop complaining specifically about the F15.

 

 

Sixth, you're last quote in whole.. Get off your Russian Bird loving High horse. This is a Simulator, there for it's not designed to make Multiplayer Fair. Again as said the DM is not the issue for the f15 but rather for all the aircraft. You're crying like a Baby because the f15 can OverG in finite conditions that do not benefit the player and get away with it. The DM isn't the resolve for that, it's the systems. Yet what's funny is we didn't see you complaining when the Su27 was pulling 20-50Gs during actual combat maneuvers against live players with positive results for the su27 player. When that was fixed you and a lot of your SU community got upset and set out to belligerently try and dispel something that isn't an issue.

 

 

The more and more you respond you should probably head your own thoughts keep emotions out and play Ace-combat on a PS gamepad!

 

 

:pilotfly:


Edited by pr1malr8ge

For the WIN

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about XB70 case?

 

I think everything you’ve said has been pretty well disproven, but I wanted to comment on this because I love the XB-70. The XB-70 incident you mentioned was an aircraft that as I remember it made an emergency landing while still heavily loaded. The loaded weight on the XB-70 is around 530000 pounds. Empty weight is 253000 pounds. We can safely assume the aircraft in question was within these weight parameters during that landing, and max braking at those weights is likely to cause a brake fire. The F-15 you compare it to has an empty weight of 28000 pounds and a loaded weight of around 44000 pounds. Again we can assume the accident aircraft was within these weights. It’s clear to me that a 253-530K pound aircraft with 1960s brakes and early, if any, ABS and unique experimental wheels would be, idk, maybe a little more susceptible to brake fire and tire blowouts than a 25-44K pound jet with modern ABS and brakes as well as more refined tires.

"Though I fly through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil. For I am 80,000 feet and climbing." -9th SRW Det. 1 Wing Ops, Kadena AFB, Okinawa, Japan

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

i5-4460, 16GB of RAM, MSi GTX 970 Twin Frozr V, ASRock H97M Anniversary, 2x 1TB HDD, Fractal design Core 1100, Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog, CH Pro Pedals, Corsair Vengeance K70, Razer Abyssus mouse, BenQ 1080P monitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everything you’ve said has been pretty well disproven, but I wanted to comment on this because I love the XB-70. The XB-70 incident you mentioned was an aircraft that as I remember it made an emergency landing while still heavily loaded. The loaded weight on the XB-70 is around 530000 pounds. Empty weight is 253000 pounds. We can safely assume the aircraft in question was within these weight parameters during that landing, and max braking at those weights is likely to cause a brake fire. The F-15 you compare it to has an empty weight of 28000 pounds and a loaded weight of around 44000 pounds. Again we can assume the accident aircraft was within these weights. It’s clear to me that a 253-530K pound aircraft with 1960s brakes and early, if any, ABS and unique experimental wheels would be, idk, maybe a little more susceptible to brake fire and tire blowouts than a 25-44K pound jet with modern ABS and brakes as well as more refined tires.

 

This is OT but what XB-70 incident are you referring to? If you’re referring to the infamous photo op XB-70 incident, that aircraft broke apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is OT but what XB-70 incident are you referring to? If you’re referring to the infamous photo op XB-70 incident, that aircraft broke apart.

 

 

He's talking about this

 

 

TFhned9man8

For the WIN

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, my fault.

 

What on earth does that have to do with the F-15? :huh:

 

 

The OP mentioned it in the opening post in this thread. His debate was that the one winged IAF f15 landing at high speed would have resulted in a similar tire explosions and fire as the XB did with it's high speed landing.. What the OP fails to realize is that the XB weight is exorbitantly more then the f15 at roughly the same touchdown speeds. How ever speed was not the issue in this. It was mechanical failure which just busts the OP's theory..

 

 

The XB-70's maiden flight was on 21 September 1964.[82] In the first flight test, between Palmdale and Edwards AFB, one engine had to be shut down shortly after take-off, and an undercarriage malfunction warning meant that the flight was flown with the undercarriage down as a precaution, limiting speed to 390 mph – about half that planned.[83] During landing, the rear wheels of the port side main gear locked, the tires ruptured, and a fire started

 

Ontop of that the wheels of the f15 would have been several years of development better.


Edited by pr1malr8ge

For the WIN

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...