Demistifying Eagle damage model

^^^^Great points Zhukov.

Thanks, that was the only interesting thing in this whole thread.

Thanks, that was the only interesting thing in this whole thread.

:)

Another one :

Thanks, that was the only interesting thing in this whole thread.

I disagree...:D

Guys, get real. None of you last here offered any explanation nor standpoint besides active trolling without arguments. The few engineers and reasonable people offered some guelines and articles like tharos did for nasa study. David, zukhov etc. you give nothing to clear any point of initial claim so dont push that conspiracy or neverending argument war card, its way out of this topic and can be used on topics from car color to mars rover. Its obsolete. The reason that eagle landed in one peace is on edge of luck and any other deviation would result in crash as all initial claims are very real and valid. Luck saved him and if you have something regarding explanation of aerodynamics or mechanics feel free to add to topic, otherwise dont push that nostandpoint outoftopic posts. ;)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was luck and also good pilot skill - but don't discount the design of the aircraft either (multiple redundant hydraulic systems, multiple fuel cells etc).

As for the game, it is a good point that we are a lot more likely to run into this situation than not compared to RL. It's also not a big deal, most of the time the vpilot can't recover from this ... or if they do, they're unable to land. They certainly can't fight!

Guys, get real. None of you last here offered any explanation nor standpoint besides active trolling without arguments. The few engineers and reasonable people offered some guelines and articles like tharos did for nasa study. David, zukhov etc. you give nothing to clear any point of initial claim so dont push that conspiracy or neverending argument war card, its way out of this topic and can be used on topics from car color to mars rover. Its obsolete. The reason that eagle landed in one peace is on edge of luck and any other deviation would result in crash as all initial claims are very real and valid. Luck saved him and if you have something regarding explanation of aerodynamics or mechanics feel free to add to topic, otherwise dont push that nostandpoint outoftopic posts. ;)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As for the game, it is a good point that we are a lot more likely to run into this situation than not compared to RL. It's also not a big deal, most of the time the vpilot can't recover from this ... or if they do, they're unable to land. They certainly can't fight!

Thats not quite true.

Currently its quite a regular occurrence to take at least 1, sometimes 2, missile hits, receive visual damage on the airframe and yet continue to fight unhindered. It happens in the Flanker too, but mostly in the Eagle against Mirage missiles.

... if you lose a wing? I'm not fussed about visual damage in MP - it sucks but I get why it happens. It's happening a lot more often now than it used to and in SP missiles are causing far less damage to certain entities (last time I shot at a Su-24 it did a good job of shrugging off the sidewinders).

I'm not sure that anything changed in the lua files ... something else happened instead I think, and has more to do with the fuzes and distance of detonation from the aircraft than anything else. This becomes very prominent in MP.

Thats not quite true.

 

Currently its quite a regular occurrence to take at least 1, sometimes 2, missile hits, receive visual damage on the airframe and yet continue to fight unhindered. It happens in the Flanker too, but mostly in the Eagle against Mirage missiles.

Yep, we're looking at a glitch or erroneus change, not a deliberate design choice to a specific aircraft. Jack and co prefer to view it as a design choice...

None of this has anything to do with the OPabiut an Israeli jet. What does or doesn't happen in RL has nothing to do with a damage model GLITCH. Jack, you keep demanding engineering analysis, and I am repeating again : it doesn't matter, the RL aircraft has nothing to do with a glitch. File a bug report and move on. What any of this has to do with real world aerodynamics is beyond me.

''Look, that Hawk has had both wings blown off and is a giant fireball, but continues flying normally!'' Yeah, that was a DM glitch, too. We don't need an indepth analysis of real work flight characteristics to know that. File bug report. Move on.

Guys, get real. None of you last here offered any explanation nor standpoint besides active trolling without arguments. The few engineers and reasonable people offered some guelines and articles like tharos did for nasa study. David, zukhov etc. you give nothing to clear any point of initial claim so dont push that conspiracy or neverending argument war card, its way out of this topic and can be used on topics from car color to mars rover. Its obsolete. The reason that eagle landed in one peace is on edge of luck and any other deviation would result in crash as all initial claims are very real and valid. Luck saved him and if you have something regarding explanation of aerodynamics or mechanics feel free to add to topic, otherwise dont push that nostandpoint outoftopic posts. ;)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Do I really have to explain how moment arms work to an engineer?

 

Pretty simple stuff to understand there. You can produce 1 unit of lift at the wing root, but the quarter unit of lift at the tip will have a greater effect because it has a 15' moment arm to work off of. Higher airspeed need a lower angle of attack to maintain level flight, thus aileron control will increase the aoa on the farthest point on the wing, causing much more lift to be produced with much less control deflection at high speeds. Pilots don't examine numbers when they fly, they just do what it takes to get the performance they desire.

Incorrect again. The plane can be flying level because it's flying much faster than normal. The aileron will be deflected, the rudders will be deflected, but the longitudinal axis will be aligned with the runway, and lateral axis parallel to the ground. The higher speeds is precisely why this can happen.

 

Landing speed isn't max tire speed either. The max tire speed in my jet is about 1.7x the normal landing speed. Different tires have different tire speeds, and that number is posted as a safety margin, above that speed, all bets are off, which is similar to G limitations on aircraft as well. If you exceed it, you don't know what will happen.

 

As you said, keep your emotions out of it because it was an event that actually happened, and as mentioned, well documented.

This makes perfect sense above and I totally agree with it and works in game with the damage modeling, not sure how accurate? Should be close as PFM's are made up of individual air frame parts with physics equations applied.

I'm not an engineer, if your are or Yo-Yo could punch in the numbers, tho it's not really needed as the sim with PFM's are basically a simulated wind tunnel test anyway and not faked like the scripted SFM.

PFM are honest physics, not scripted to get performance data to match etc.

Not saying the damage doesn't need work, as in hit damage.

Very much looking forward to the new damage/ballistic modeling and missile logic.

-

There was luck and also good pilot skill - but don't discount the design of the aircraft either (multiple redundant hydraulic systems, multiple fuel cells etc).

 

As for the game, it is a good point that we are a lot more likely to run into this situation than not compared to RL. It's also not a big deal, most of the time the vpilot can't recover from this ... or if they do, they're unable to land. They certainly can't fight!

Yes. And keep in mind that while it's somewhat fair and reasonable to assume that two different F-15s configured identically will have very similar performance given the same initial airspeed, attitude, power, and configuration, but when you start damaging these airplanes this assumption is no longer fair.

If you smash a good part of the wing off two different F-15s in two different collisions, your are unlikely to have similar control, maneuverability, and performance afterwards. Moreover, the condition of and aerodynamics of severely damaged aircraft like that these may continue to change as they are flown and subject to continued airflow and g-loadings.

I think there was a lot of luck to go along with a lot of skill in this example. For sure this airplane was not easy to fly in its condition, and as such I don't think the pilot would have spent much time looking over his shoulder at the wing, even if he could assess the damage later in the flight by doing so.

So you are implying the Israelis took a perfectly good F-15...tore a wing off and pretended it was an inflight mishap?

Seriously?

Sierra, that's exactly why 'they' did it (NWO ILLUMINATI) it's so implausible nobody would believe it. IT'S THE PERFECT CRIME *-*

@David OC ttaylor obviously can speak for himself but lawyers assistance is always beneficial.

So let me post you again:

-atomized fuel.. fine, but word meaning is misleading cos you cant atomize molecules, nevertheless, its about air (n78%,o21%,x1%) jet fuel(CnH2) mixture in various rate that is flammable if temperature is above 40°c (flashpoint), if t>220°c autoignition occurs. Exhaust gas temperature is >800%c so you can easily ignite leaking fuel that creates fuel-air mixture cloud behind leaking plane by use of afterburner, that's why egg. f18abc flight manual says that it is FORBIDDEN to do so, ttaylor should know that. Heat is transferred in 3 ways: mixing, transmission and radiation. Fuel/air combo burns at >1000°c (and is/was used in napalm) but that heat is sometimes enough to melt skin of fighter plane which is mostly made of aluminum (composites, steel and titanium have higher melting point) that melts above 600°c. Concerning origin of fuel dump/leak spot and time for fuel to completely scatter and slow down enough to ignite, fireball will be closer to skin, closer to skin, faster it melts, if it melts it loses aerodynamic function etc.. tivial.

-mig29 collision image has sequel where complete plane is engulfed in flames cos fuel mist entered engine. its just few seconds later on video.

 

David OC, get real man, we don't talk conspiracy sh* here, were talking mechanics and physics not being implemented right way on F15 model in DCS. RL parallel is that IAF mystique one winged jedi flight that is by my complete understanding, knowledge and experience complete forgery. If your'e scientist or engineer, please be free to counter any claim from start by numbers or graph. If you're somebody's lawyer, please change profession.

Ok, you're right about the melting point of Aluminum. But in your argument of melting alu skin isn't applicable. The skin of the Vert/Horizontal Stabs are a Boron-composite. I.e. Boron coated tungsten filament weaved and bonded like carbon fiber. Boron has a melting point of 2100C and Tungsten is 3400c

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1973/1973%20-%201574.PDF

Even if the flame front propagated past the exhaust stream which it wont due to insufficient heat to maintain the flame, it would only be able to reach the Horizontal Stabs and they will be just fine in that environment for the short duration before the fuel supply was exhausted..

So you are implying the Israelis took a perfectly good F-15...tore a wing off and pretended it was an inflight mishap?

 

Seriously?

Initial thoughts by MD was that the aircraft hit something taxing.

As far as jets taking multiple missiles, has anyone stopped to consider that maybe ED is actually modelling proximity explosions now? In the past missile kills were literally a matter of direct hits, generally tied to the cockpit. If you spoofed missile at a far enough distance from the cockpit it would just sail right by. We may be spoiled by the thought of seeing an explosion at all meaning a hit, when that might not be the case anymore. With the new explosion effects a lot of time a bandit doesn't die it looks like the explosion is happening just behind them. Near misses in my own jet tend to vary between no visible damage (but the ground crew will do repairs), to obvious shrapnel marks with or without smoke/fuel leaks. The ground crew will repair any damage that isn't limited a blown tire.

They always modeled proximity. Something else is going on, or combined with proximity.

Is this an issue in SP or only MP? To that end it'd be useful to know how the hit detection works in MP, i.e. if it's server side or client side. If client side there could be all sorts of issues with net code interfering with what should otherwise be solid hits.

2nd potential issue: the R-73 only has an 8Kg expanding rod warhead. Traditionally DCS hasn't modelled fragmentation, only r^3 blast effects, so perhaps it's possible for an exploding missile to be far enough away from the target airframe to deliver relatively low blast damage when in reality the expanded rods would actually have ensured a hard kill.

Is this an issue in SP or only MP?

SP is affected too. Missiles with rod or not - does not matter.

I do not know if it's normal or not ... but seeing a f-15 in flames that keeps flying seems strange ... hit the f-15 and see it still fly, it seems strange ... maybe you have to review the damage model?

I do not know if it's normal or not ... but seeing a f-15 in flames that keeps flying seems strange ... hit the f-15 and see it still fly, it seems strange ... maybe you have to review the damage model?

 

 

 

Its a shame nothing is changed by Belsimtek when its obvious that F-15 can't make 24G with fuel tanks and that you need two missiles to kill F-15. F-15 can take more punishment then A-10 and Su-25 should rise questions. If you think this is oki, Plz try to fly MP event against F-15 and lose against it just because F-15s are flying/fighting on fire.

I hope ED put some pressure on Belsimtek in order to have better events where no one feels that they loose because of bugs or unrealistic damage model.

Its a shame nothing is changed by Belsimtek when its obvious that F-15 can't make 24G with fuel tanks and that you need two missiles to kill F-15. F-15 can take more punishment then A-10 and Su-25 should rise questions.

If you think this is oki, Plz try to fly MP event against F-15 and lose against it just because F-15s are flying/fighting on fire.

 

I hope ED put some pressure on Belsimtek in order to have better events where no one feels that they loose because of bugs or unrealistic damage model.

+100 :thumbup:

Its a shame nothing is changed by Belsimtek when its obvious that F-15 can't make 24G with fuel tanks and that you need two missiles to kill F-15. F-15 can take more punishment then A-10 and Su-25 should rise questions.

If you think this is oki, Plz try to fly MP event against F-15 and lose against it just because F-15s are flying/fighting on fire.

 

I hope ED put some pressure on Belsimtek in order to have better events where no one feels that they loose because of bugs or unrealistic damage model.

Maybe is something related to multiplayer code, lag or similar. I´m always going down on the first missile that hit me.

And when its supossed that ED is going to implement the dedicated server?

it would not hurt the dedicated server ... but in this case, I think there's a revised F-15 damage model

If you think this is oki, Plz try to fly MP event against F-15 and lose against it just because F-15s are flying/fighting on fire.

Nobody says it's OK. There is general problem with damage model not only MP, SP too, and not only F-15C, other models too. It's been reported numerous times. The problem is further escalated by comparatively tiny missile warheads (R60, 3kg) to the relatively heavy fighter which happens to throw countermeasures while being targeted. There are also countless RL accidents telling that missile hit is not equal to the aircraft's fatal damage.

OTOH try to fight Eagle vs Mig-31 (with their R-33) and tell me how tanky Eagle is. Then try to hunt Su-24 in Eagle with missiles and see how it goes.

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