[NO BUG] Far too easy to over G the plane with no feedback.

+ 1 for jetseat. It is a great piece of kit.

+1 on sandman’s comment on real life vs sim

I also have to add that, even before the simshaker update that made it work with the tomcat, I always felt like the F14 is in fact one of the modules that give you the most feedback under load in DCS. I find all that buffet and shaking noise to make this thing far easier to deal with than the mig21 or F5 modules.

Just be aware of your speed and adjust your inputs accordingly and you shouldnt be anywhere near the point of snapping the wings off. With a 350 kts cornering speed you have pretty much the whole stick deflection available to you in bfm and i find that bleeding off energy is more of a risk than overstressing the airframe.

All the feedback loops in the world are immaterial if the user fails to assimilate themselves to their application; that is very much the "learn to play" aspect. Refusing to attempt, or even acknowledge, the depth of additional feedback available to a F-14 crew member in this simulation beyond any other type while demanding more is an invalid argument. And invoking arbitrary balance to do so- in an environment where actual repetitive skill and cognitive situational recognition is the final arbiter is the worst argument one can make.

The F14 due to it having realistic vibration behavior overrides, typical visual cues reserved for simulating "seat of pants" cues. Arguing learn to play is invalid once more as it has nothing to do with the argument of using visual aids or realism as Seat of pants indicator are ironically and inherently realistic in them selves.

So once more barney style, cockpit aircraft shake in some flight aspects is realistic, G Load cockpit shake is a simulation of "seat of pants" feel is also realistic. learning has nothing to do with it. And audio cues like pilot strain, or G-Loc effects are also part of simulation indicators.

Non-argument. If you fail at managing the existing feedback loops in a 6DOF and keep augering short of the threshold because you're not honoring the cues, they don't add a 150% flaps and throttle trainer to get you to wheels contact; you are told, and made, to keep learning and practicing approach technique until you get it right or fail to make certification.

 

You pay your dues with time. The time spent on this argument is valuable time that would have gotten many of you past the wall you're currently hitting if you'd actually pay attention.

we are arguing 2 separate things, The process is the process it has nothing to do at with my argument, once more "Seat of pants" indicators are a real requirement irregardless of the learning process. and since no one can spend 10mil+ for a 6DOF rig. any simulator has a set of tools both audio and visual to simulate realistic effects with the limitations of costs.

So really its just that, if however your argument is that realistic G-load effects and cues should not be simulated then we can just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Arguing learn to play is invalid once more as it has nothing to do with the argument of using visual aids or realism as Seat of pants indicator are ironically and inherently realistic in them selves.

 

So once more barney style, cockpit aircraft shake in some flight aspects is realistic, G Load cockpit shake is a simulation of "seat of pants" feel is also realistic. learning has nothing to do with it. And audio cues like pilot strain, or G-Loc effects are also part of simulation indicators.

except this entire thread shouldn't exist since after dipping like 10 hours in the tomcat you should develop your own sensation for where the plane is at. Again, HB gave us all the tools: there's vast loads of different shaking behaviours and the plane itself flies different at different speeds.

If "learn to play" wasn't a factor, how come I don't break wings anymore and I can easily pull 10G's?

Like 90% of it is just looking at the damn speed gauge, if you're near mach .9 you shouldn't pull crazy AoA. That's all. You're not going to break anything if you stick to that. (And you're reasonable about it...)

This thread seems made for people that want to enter fights at mach 1.2 with abrupt 25 AoA maneuvers and expect their plane to survive, or for people that want to stick to the tail of a hornet at 250 knots with no effort.

Just play and this thread wouldn't even exist. It's literally a non factor and I'm not mr. hot stick, but I can easily defeat AI Su-27s and I don't break my plane anymore in "knife fight in a phone booth" situations vs humans. And trust me, I used to break it ALL FLIGHTS. All of em. (Edit: now I just lose them by the way, I can turn tight but I can't outmaneuver more modern 9G limited planes, but that's part of the fun, learning how to beat 'em. The Hornet feels empty in comparison, it's just not as fun.)

So once more barney style, cockpit aircraft shake in some flight aspects is realistic, G Load cockpit shake is a simulation of "seat of pants" feel is also realistic. learning has nothing to do with it. And audio cues like pilot strain, or G-Loc effects are also part of simulation indicators.

It already has these things. Learning has everything to do with acknowledging and understanding what those cues are telling you, and how to utilize them effectively.

If you disagree with that, stay away from the 6DOF gear because even that doesn't get the seat of the pants correct.

Why not offer an option under the special options tab for the F-14 under settings to enable a G beep and tone just like what the F-15 has? I think that would be a good compromise between realism (something that I would assume the F-15 actual has and does) and providing feedback to the flyer to overcome not being able to feel the real G being pulled.

If "learn to play" wasn't a factor, how come I don't break wings anymore and I can easily pull 10G's?

Because seat time is OP.

Why not offer an option under the special options tab for the F-14 under settings to enable a G beep and tone just like what the F-15 has? I think that would be a good compromise between realism (something that I would assume the F-15 actual has and does)

Because the Tomcat doesn't have an OWS- that's why.

There is a question - where is the G-meter?

I checked the Manual but no picture to show that position.

Lower right above the leg well.

I think someone of guys are asking for too much and yanking that F-18 around like there is no tomorrow lol ..

The real aircraft buffets and provides excellent feedback on AOA and energy state. The sim doesn't "shake" or "vibrate" artificially, it buffets exactly as the aircraft did. It is a 6.5 G airframe, learn to manage it. You should be doing this in every DCS aircraft.

Oh, and READ the handling tips paper in the sticky, it will help you understand complex aerodynamic phenomena. In months of testing, I have yet to pull the freaking wings off.

That was the shortest offensive of all time...

That was the shortest offensive of all time...

Haha, I just give up ;)

Agree to disagree.

I guess I’m just used to certain sensations that first need to be unlearned before I can learn the new ones.

It was the same in the Huey, I have thousands of hours in helicopters but the Huey kicked my ass initially until I got used to not having the seat of the pants feel I am used to.

The real aircraft buffets and provides excellent feedback on AOA and energy state. The sim doesn't "shake" or "vibrate" artificially, it buffets exactly as the aircraft did...

Actually I fly F-14 with a JetSeat now for a few evenings, and it works marvelously, shakes and buffets as one would expect :D

Really happy I got it, great complimentary to the VR headset too.

The real aircraft buffets and provides excellent feedback on AOA and energy state. The sim doesn't "shake" or "vibrate" artificially, it buffets exactly as the aircraft did. It is a 6.5 G airframe, learn to manage it. You should be doing this in every DCS aircraft.

So it's incorrect to say the simulation provides buffeting in response to G forces. As Sandman says, buffeting and shaking is due to AoA and not due to G forces. If you are going fast enough you can pull more than enough G to break the plane at low AoA. A ButtKicker or JetSeat also isn't going to help: if you are going fast enough there is no shaking.

As is per usual for a forum thread I see people like to reply to without reading the thread. To be clear, this phenomena is NOT due to yanking hard on the stick and being surprised the plane breaks. The problem is if you're doing mach 1.6 you can break the plane whilst being very gentle on the stick.

If you'd like to try it get the plane in a dive to mach 1.6+ at low altitude and then execute a six G break turn without looking at the G meter (you can't always do it in real life). You'll find two things:

• You really don't need to pull hard at all on the stick to over-G the plane.
  
• You can ease it in as gentle as you like, it's still very easy to over-G.
  
• There is almost no feedback at all, especially in VR where the blackout effect is significantly reduced.
  

As Sandmans says this is a problem unique to sims, and in particular unique to DCS. It's not such a big issue in IL2 Battle of Stalingrad which has much better feedback (particularly black out effect) and a better modelling of stick forces and limited pilot strength. Although there's no doubt I could use more practice (when does someone not need more practice?), the truth is that compared to the competition this is an area where DCS is sub-par in terms of the feedback it gives.

So this is incorrect. As Sandman says, buffeting and shaking is due to AoA and not due to G forces. If you are going fast enough you can pull more than enough G to break the plane at low AoA. A ButtKicker or JetSeat also isn't going to help: if you are going fast enough there is no shaking.

 

As is per usual for a forum thread I see people like to reply to without reading the thread. To be clear, this phenomena is NOT due to yanking hard on the stick and being surprised the plane breaks. The problem is if you're doing mach 1.6 you can break the plane whilst being very gentle on the stick.

 

If you'd like to try it get the plane in a dive to mach 1.6+ at low altitude and then execute a six G break turn without looking at the G meter (you can't always do it in real life). You'll find two things:

• You really don't need to pull hard at all on the stick to over-G the plane.
  
• You can ease it in as gentle as you like, it's still very easy to over-G.
  
• There is almost no feedback at all, especially in VR where the blackout effect is significantly reduced.
  

 

As Sandmans says this is a problem unique to sims, and in particular unique to DCS. It's not such a big issue in IL2 Battle of Stalingrad which has much better feedback (particularly black out effect) and a better modelling of stick forces and limited pilot strength. Although there's no doubt I could use more practice (when does someone not need more practice?), the truth is that compared to the competition this is an area where DCS is sub-par in terms of the feedback it gives.

You cannot compare a jet fighter to anything in IL2, they are totally different airframes. I have flown the F14 for... I dunno between 60-90 hours and have never once broken my wings or over-G'd the aircraft... I did however smack into the back of the ship once... point is you need to find out what you are doing wrong and correct it.

Are you really going to tell an actual F14 pilot that he isn't correct? To quote Victory in a previous post of his:

I flew the F14A for eight years, over 1600 hours in the air (USN count flight time from launch to land, not startup, taxi or shutdown time), and Nick's statement in the thread above is exactly correct.

 

The Tomcat gave excellent feedback via buffet on alpha and energy bleed rates. It also buffeted heavily and exhibited wing rock, proverse and adverse roll and needed to be flown using rudder input only with the stick centered laterally for roll at typical air combat turning alpha states. It buffets at one G with the landing flaps down too.

 

The F14 talks to you in a number of ways. Airframe buffet is primarily the result of overwing flow and vortices impacting the vertical tails and horizontal stabilizers. The vertical tails shook visibly under certain conditions, RIO's could see it better than pilots, the latter of which was masked by canopy distortion and position. Heatblur seems to have modeled it well. Use it to your advantage.

 

Most swept wing jet fighters exhibit this behavior, it just hasn't been modeled properly to date.

If you'd like to try it get the plane in a dive to mach 1.6+ at low altitude and then execute a six G break turn without looking at the G meter (you can't always do it in real life).

Why are you doing M 1.6 on the deck? Is it even ment to handle that stress?

You cannot compare a jet fighter to anything in IL2, they are totally different airframes.

We're talking about the quality of the feedback given, not the nature of the airplane. It's perfectly possible to break the wings in a WWII plane, the difference is that one sim gives good feedback and the other doesn't. Not what the nature of the plane is.

Are you really going to tell an actual F14 pilot that he isn't correct? To quote Victory in a previous post of his:

To be clear, I'm saying it's incorrect to say the buffeting gives feedback on G forces. I instead propose it gives feedback on AoA. He says this in his quote:

The Tomcat gave excellent feedback via buffet on alpha

I'm also not saying what's the case in the real plane, he obviously knows vastly more about that topic, I'm just saying it gives very little feedback in DCS for high-G and low-AoA (low alpha).

Victory would be able to provide a lot more info than me, but I don't think you should be doing a 6 G break turn at that speed while that low... but I am not at my PC right now so I can't test it. You don't happen to have tacview do you? Or can you recreate what you did and keep an eye on the G meter in the cockpit?

As far as feedback in modern vs WW2 aircraft my point was more that in a WW2 airframe, since it is slower, you will get more feedback before something breaks vs a modern aircraft that can be going mach 1.6+ where it can suffer an instant catastrophe due to the stresses much more easily.

Victory would be able to provide a lot more info than me, but I don't think you should be doing a 6 G break turn at that speed while that low... but I am not at my PC right now so I can't test it. You don't happen to have tacview do you? Or can you recreate what you did and keep an eye on the G meter in the cockpit?

Yes, you can experience this at a much more reasonable mach number (like 1.3 or something) but I gave a particularly extreme example because the problem gets more acute the faster you go. You can break the plane really easy, even if you're really careful, because there's almost no feedback ... and it's very unrealistic because in real life you'd be perfectly aware you were pulling so much G, as well as the huge stick forces you'd need to achieve it.

I don't have the track to hand at the moment, but the situation was I was being chased and fired on by multiple planes. I was low, and running away very fast (can't remember the exact speed, but it was fast) and I decided I wasn't going to outrun the missile, so I had to break. I knew there was a risk of over-G so I pulled very gently, easing into the turn gradually. None the less I snapped the wings with no warning.

As far as feedback in modern vs WW2 aircraft my point was more that in a WW2 airframe, since it is slower, you will get more feedback before something breaks vs a modern aircraft that can be going mach 1.6+ where it can suffer an instant catastrophe due to the stresses much more easily.

That is a reasonable comment, but to my mind this suggests that DCS should have an even better feedback for G forces than IL2. I'm not complaining that the plane breaks (it should), I'm complaining there are situations where it can break even when you are very aware of the risk of over G, just because there's so little feedback in DCS compared to other sims.

Yes, you can experience this at a much more reasonable mach number (like 1.3 or something) but I gave a particularly extreme example because the problem gets more acute the faster you go. You can break the plane really easy, even if you're really careful, because there's almost no feedback ... and it's very unrealistic because in real life you'd be perfectly aware you were pulling so much G, as well as the huge stick forces you'd need to achieve it.

 

I don't have the track to hand at the moment, but the situation was I was being chased and fired on by multiple planes. I was low, and running away very fast (can't remember the exact speed, but it was fast) and I decided I wasn't going to outrun the missile, so I had to break. I knew there was a risk of over-G so I pulled very gently, easing into the turn gradually. None the less I snapped the wings with no warning.

 

 

 

That is a reasonable comment, but to my mind this suggests that DCS should have an even better feedback for G forces than IL2. I'm not complaining that the plane breaks (it should), I'm complaining there are situations where it can break even when you are very aware of the risk of over G, just because there's so little feedback in DCS compared to other sims.

Keep in mind with Glock (blacking out) that it takes time too, the blood has to drain from your brain which isn't instant. So if you do a quick snap pull for whatever G amount you will not black out, at least I don't think so in real life... I know in DCS you sometimes instantly black out on cat shots but I don't think that is realistic.. imo anyway.

I love the way that a lot of people who have never experienced a good dose of g tell us how this is wrong...

I know in DCS you sometimes instantly black out on cat shots but I don't think that is realistic.. imo anyway.

I think we can agree from things like the cat blackouts that DCS's modelling of G is a bit lacking and unrealistic. Giving more progressive feedback, like having less delay to G forces causing blackening of the screen would help a lot with these problems.

The other thing is a better modelling of pilot strength and stick forces. Pulling massive G at high speeds likely requires incredible strength, and you can currently in DCS pull far more G more quickly than any real pilot ever could. It seems that the plane is modelled, but the pilot is not.

I love the way that a lot of people who have never experienced a good dose of g tell us how this is wrong...

I've experienced enough to know that I could feel it :)

Then you'll know there's a huge difference between instantaneous G and a progressive increasing in loading over time.

I can see some merit in the point of the OP in reference to a progressive over G and structural failure, however, there are sound, buffet and data (ASI, Altimeter, G-meter) cues that should all provide sufficient warning to the experienced F-14 jock that they are approaching or at the edge of the aircrafts flight/structural envelope. Experience is the key here and all DCS modules are demanding in some regard of a sustained period of acclimatisation and practise to make the best of them; the Tomcat is no exception.

As for instantaneous over G, no real pilot in the world is capable of hoofing back on the stick suddenly and instantaneously realising he's pulled precisely x.xG too hard. It'd be too late by that point anyway. If you generated that much pitch rate the G would be on you too fast to mentally track - added to which as outlined above, blackout cues do not correspond directly to rate of G onset, being delayed somewhat by the fact that not all blood vessels are vertically aligned in the body and there is a wire-drawing effect to take into account also. Add into this human reaction time and your decision making could be a good 0.5-1 second behind the aeroplane.

What this all means is that it is quite possible to overload some aeroplanes quickly enough that the pilot could not respond quickly enough if he was simply to rely on physiological feedback. Internal g-gauging is developed over a long period and cannot be a precise measure. You simply don't pull those kind of ham-fisted moves because you are trained not to.

As a start I would suggest the chaps having problems either i) invest in a full scale stick or extension, or ii) adjust the curvature profile of their pitch control and furthermore understand the ramifications of that adjustment fully so that they can make the best compromise for their hardware and flyting style.

Too little or 0 curvature will make their tiny movements around datum generate larger surface displacements than they wish, potentially causing over G situations in a high speed break as they pull too far in the initial stages of the break.

Too much curvature will mean very fine control around the datum, but provide even larger surface displacements than originally suffered at 0 curvature as you move the stick to the limit of travel making fine control impossible at higher AoA.

There's so much visceral sensation to real aviating that cannot be replicated in sims; the debilitating effect of G itself; disorientation; vertigo; the 'seat of the pants' feel that provides so much feedback in regards to sideslip/skidding motion. If you're gonna provide some sort of 'game-ism' to compensate for the arguable lack of G feedback, where do you stop?

however, there are sound, buffet and data (ASI, Altimeter, G-meter) cues that should all provide sufficient warning to the experienced F-14 jock that they are approaching or at the edge of the aircrafts flight/structural envelope

As discussed, yes I agree at low speed, but not at high speed. Most cues are due to pulling high AoA, and you can over-G at low AoA at high speed. And at high speed small stick deflections will produce very large G forces very quickly. You don't need to be ham fisted at all.

There's so much visceral sensation to real aviating that cannot be replicated in sims; the debilitating effect of G itself; disorientation; vertigo; the 'seat of the pants' feel that provides so much feedback in regards to sideslip/skidding motion. If you're gonna provide some sort of 'game-ism' to compensate for the arguable lack of G feedback, where do you stop?

So my argument is that "blacking out" in the sim is already a completely unrealistic 'game' mechanism. I'm sure it's nothing like blacking out for real, it's a simulation to compensate for the lack of a realistic effect. Since we're already doing that, we're already including a compensation mechanism .. why not change it slightly to give some of the feedback you do get in real life?