Demistifying Eagle damage model

vitor... its going to ignite if you have fuel leak over engine exhaust path and lit afterburner.

autoignition 220°c/exaust gas temperature +800°c - what else to add?

burn temperature 1000+°c/aluminium melting point 600+°c

check that mig29 collision video, read flight manuals and get real. or stay away.

vitor... its going to ignite if you have fuel leak over engine exhaust path and lit afterburner.

autoignition 220°c/exaust gas temperature +800°c - what else to add?

burn temperature 1000+°c/aluminium melting point 600+°c

check that mig29 collision video, read flight manuals and get real. or stay away.

Exactly! You answered yourself buddy, when the MiG-29 collided with the other, Fuel was dumped into the atmosphere as vapor.

If it was in liquid state, it wouldn't burn.

I'm not disagreeing with you about that. Fuel will burn if it's atomized/vaporized. :)

You've got nothing - you're literally disconnected from reality here. If you want to complain about a GAME bug, complain about a GAME bug, not about what the real aircraft can or cannot do - especially since you very, veeeeery obviously don't know.

I mean in the 'it literally doesn't take an engineer to see that you don't know' sense. Yes, it's that bad.

Look at this thread. You're not complaining about the DM, you're complaining that reality didn't happen because it doesn't match your grand engineering authority here. This is a joke - as an engineer, you should flat out know better. Your claim is disproven - the thing that's affecting your credibility is sticking to your conspiracy, not that you asked questions.

Rage: You're right about that bug. That's the core problem of this post. - Im trying to link anything that could give ed team credibility to give f15 this hard dm model. i found only this IAF story. tharos and other guys that claim that plane can fly without complete wing and brake all structural an stability limits are one that my replies are directed to.

Vitor, agree, that is obvious. But check what IAF pilot said about vapour hiding complete wing. we call it brain**** in my county. if so he must have lit it as soon as hit afterbnurners. first person in human hhistory to do that and walk away from a plane - unburnt.

I only saw eagle flying with one wing in DCS, even without booth. brain**** squared.

Did you ever think that maybe in the heat of the moment while the pilot was fighting for his life, he may have not looked very closely, and been focusing on flying the plane? Maybe he was mistaken?

I don't need to personally discredit you - I have no problem with your engineering position. It's you who's sticking to a delusion.

You've literally not been able to provide any proof that it didn't happen - you're up against NASA having it as a reason to start a serious self-healing controls program, and you offer what - speculation about why you believe you wouldn't happen?

Seriously, as an engineer you should flat out know better - you should absolutely be aware that it's a complex enough scenario such that you can't try to make easy explanations. The joke here is that rather than trying to figure out how it happened, you're instead trying to deny reality.

'Oh look, only History Channel mentioned it' ... no, buddy - not it wasn't. It was in Jewish media, it was examined by McAir in a wind tunnel and parameters for this flight mode were found and described. This triggered a program which benefited not only military aircraft, but also civilian aircraft (though they had their own individual triggers also).

No one is denying that there is a lot of luck at play here, but also tremendous pilot determination and skill - on the level of a test pilot ... but you're just sitting here insisting that we should all deny reality because you think the fuel would have ignited.

Buddy, by the time this guy lit the cans that fuel was LONG GONE :)

Again, I am very surprised that you, as an engineer would refuse to take such a thing into account - you've literally turned the scientific method on its head:

- You've made a statement and then offered only 'proof' that makes your statement true

- You failed to create tests that could falsify your statement

Do you want to consider this as a statement to personally discredit you? I don't think you should, no - as I said I'm sure your credentials are fine. But you've stepped out of the box now and you've tripped ... it's better to learn from this than to stick to whatever conspiracy you've come up with.

As for what F-18 NATOPS says, who cares? Is it an eagle with a missile wing? Nope. Is the fuel from that F-18 flowing costantly? Probably. Was it flowing out of the eagle constantly? Probably not, the wing tank was ruptured, voided, and then there was nothing - that can was lit MINUTES after this happened.

BTW I bet the F-111 manual also said not to 'dump and burn' but they did anyway.

maybe you should stop believing in false stories and turn logic on?

i know you can do better than personal discredit attempts. try reading f18abc manual part about dumping fuel.

We don't know what the IAF pilot really said. I can't read Hebrew so I can't look at anything but sources that have repeated and often misquoted the original, if at all, and we lakc the blow-by-low details.

Certainly the spray could have hidden something at he looked back right after the impact. He may have been glued to his instruments after. The extended versions of the story certainly don't make it this simple, and allegedly the thought of just ejecting crossed his mind several times.

Vitor, agree, that is obvious. But check what IAF pilot said about vapour hiding complete wing. we call it brain**** in my county. if so he must have lit it as soon as hit afterbnurners. first person in human hhistory to do that and walk away from a plane - unburnt.

 

I only saw eagle flying with one wing in DCS, even without booth. brain**** squared.

nightwolf.. he had wingman.. he didn't saw missing wing too.

tharos.. nobody seen missing wing until settled down on runway.. like it was a paperclip. cmon'

i'm rock solid about my claims. im using rule ot the thumb and magnitude level comparison to profile the case. if i had a slight doubt i wouldn't step out with this. the only link between current eagle damage model and RL story is this one from IAF guy. As also is one case of torn of portion of wing from su27 test flight that made all dcs flankers loose wings with fcs on. that was fixed, eagle is on dm steroids rampage.

I can't imagine the wingman was able to stay very close to the plane as it was spiralling down out of control. Likely all the wingman saw was the collision, then the smoke trail as the jet fell out of the sky. The airport was apparently not very far away at all, so there likely wasn't enough time for the instructor to do a full damage analysis prior to the landing. When watching from a distance greater than a couple miles, it's really hard to see details of shape more than that something is there. Combine that with the fuel trail hiding part of it, it's entirely possible that the instructor was never close enough or stable enough to clearly see the missing wing.

The funny part is that they themselves deserved to be mocked. They're complaining about fuel leaks - but the eagle has several tanks. Which tank was leaking? Why would they assume it was all of them?

 

The partially destroyed wing, too - so there's an eagle that's heavily damaged and very hard to control, obviously nowhere near in shape to fight ... but they whine because it's still in the air.

 

Most eagles that were hit lost hydraulics in short order after the hit - yes, the aircraft didn't disintegrate, but it was destroyed anyway.

 

Maybe those viewers - and you - are just whiners?

Maybe...

DCS F15C showtime:

EDIT: ..and that famous IAF pilot was about 10miles from base. This dcs hero and his Eagle surpassed him for over 100+ miles.

Ok, so, serious questions:

A) Regarding the actual flight of the DCS and IAF aircraft, what is your claim?

1) that the IAF pilot, facing 100nm trip would have chosen to eject instead?

2) that the IAF aircraft would have disintegrated?

3) that the IAF aircraft would have ran out of fuel?

B) Regarding SATAL itself:

1) Should a win be granted to such an aircraft making a landing?

2) Would such an aircraft be considered to have gained air superiority?

3) Should SATAL rules affect simulation FM/DM?

Maybe...

 

DCS F15C showtime:

 

 

EDIT: ..and that famous IAF pilot was about 10miles from base. This dcs hero and his Eagle surpassed him for over 100+ miles.

nightwolf.. he had wingman.. he didn't saw missing wing too.

tharos.. nobody seen missing wing until settled down on runway.. like it was a paperclip. cmon'

I have not found a SINGLE OFFICIAL account where they say that the missing wing was not noticed throughout the entire flight.

i'm rock solid about my claims. im using rule ot the thumb and magnitude level comparison to profile the case.

Rule of thumb? Case closed, burn :D

if i had a slight doubt i wouldn't step out with this. the only link between current eagle damage model and RL story is this one from IAF guy.

Actually it is based on the real F-15 aerodynamics, but carry on - tell us how you KNOW that BST simply adjusted the FM to make this one story happen instead of correctly modeling the flight model.

Please include quotes from BST admitting that they have done so, or other actual proof, not your rule of thumb conjecture.

As also is one case of torn of portion of wing from su27 test flight that made all dcs flankers loose wings with fcs on. that was fixed, eagle is on dm steroids rampage.

I don't care about the flanker, we're not discussing flankers.

If you want to discuss differences between DMs that's great, it belongs in its own thread and is an interesting topic I'm sure.

But this thread you started is about landing an F-15 with one wing ripped off: It's not about the damage model, it's not about the flanker either, and it isn't even about the simulation.

Ok, so, serious questions:...?

It's a demagogy.

Did you see F15c in video?

Can you confirm to this auditorium here that all is fine with F15C in video?

Did you see F15c in video?

Can you confirm to this auditorium here that all is fine with F15C in video?

I watched the video. I see missiles hitting the F-15, and it takes damage. I see a bunch of F-15's taking hits and being damaged or shot down in fact, so which F-15 do you want to talk about exactly?

I saw an F-15 take massive damage, the pilot experiencing great difficulty to control it and finally crashing on landing, which is the likely outcome.

Again, what do you see wrong here?

It's a demagogy.

No, that is just you. You are attempting to manipulate this conversation based on emotions, not based on reason. You're literally complaining about a simulated aircraft taking a lot of damage and limping home with great difficulty. Again, what exactly is the problem with that here?

If you wanted to mention the game engine considering it dead like Rage pointed out (Was is that particular aircraft? I think it was), that is something I would agree with.

Or is there something else that you're meaning to say but you're not saying?

I watched the video. I see missiles hitting the F-15, and it takes damage. I see a bunch of F-15's taking hits and being damaged or shot down in fact, so which F-15 do you want to talk about exactly?

All of them. They are same - DCS F15C marked as PFM/AFM (whatever).

I saw an F-15 take massive damage, the pilot experiencing great difficulty to control it and finally crashing on landing, which is the likely outcome.

 

Again, what do you see wrong here?

That "massive damage" that you see it is only only cosmetics because all that "massive damaged" Egles have:

- no problem to continue the fight

- no problem to fire missiles

- no problem to kill

- no problem to maneuvering in close combat even "massive damaged"

- need 2-3 more missiles to be destroyed and finally harmless

- to be dead/destroyed if engine see it as dead and not to limping home, shoting missiles or go in dogfight...

No, that is just you. You are attempting to manipulate this conversation based on emotions, not based on reason. ..

The only thing I'm trying to do in this conversation and every other about DCS F15c for years is to point out listed above. And instead of solving the problem, you're telling us here everything's okay.

SecureTeam10 called, they want to talk to you about this story.

You guys take this shit to seriously. Maybe the DM is broken... but this is FC3, the fidelity is no where near as good as some of the other modules, and to be quite honest i would never expect it to be. Maybe when we get the F-15E it will be better, but c'mon now... FC3, I doubt that will ever happen. If you want to raise a point about the DM being messed up, do that with DCS proof, not IRL. Setup a mission with a friend, fire missiles of different types at them, do some statistical analysis, and then try on other air frames that are similar... SU-27, J-11, Mig-29... Try and show that the F-15 IS in-fact OP rather than just stating that it is your belief based on incidents that happened in MP. You need to also realize net latency can play a role in what you see vs what really happened, so do it in a MP setup with low latency, and high, see if there is a difference.

 

-jet fuel is highly flammable liquid that is specially designed to maintain stable combustion process in combustion chamber inside jet engine. It is selected for a reason and most important one is rapid flame propagation, or high burn speed that is around 20m/s. By using special technique of slowing down the airstream in combustion chamber, stable combustion is maintained inside chamber but outside of that zone, fuel disperses fast and slows down enough to ignite and burn.

 

Out of curiosity, what's your engineering plan for how the flame front that's traveling at 20 m/s is going to catch up to the aircraft that was going at least 153 m/s?

One notes that in the F-111 videos, the flame front trails behind the aircraft and never catches up, and never damages the aircraft.

I understand that in an argument it's good form to provide supporting evidence, but aren't you supposed to provide supporting evidence for your argument?

Or is this humor that just doesn't translate well into English in a text forum format? If it is, it's pretty clear that the Americans and Brits don't understand the joke. You may have to explain.

Edit: I'll note that while your 20 m/s figure is reasonably good, well within the range cited by journals, the mist under certain conditions might act like a vapor explosion, in which case catching up to the aircraft is no problem. Still, if that's your argument, bring evidence and figures relavant to that, not figures from a flame stagnation experiment.

7 pages of nonsense... and counting.

7 pages of nonsense... and counting.

It's really nonsensical to think that you're in a simulation with all this nonsense in it.

A "glass cannon" mod could be fun. One gentle touch from anything, even a 7.62, and BOOM VAPORIZED :)

Like this? :)

https://vimeo.com/93790719#t=115s

This is called filler and it's very cool!

You can also use the immortal option for training, although it's not realistic. But I agree on that, a special belt with filler would be nice.

You guys take this shit to seriously. Maybe the DM is broken... but this is FC3, the fidelity is no where near as good as some of the other modules, and to be quite honest i would never expect it to be. Maybe when we get the F-15E it will be better, but c'mon now... FC3, I doubt that will ever happen. If you want to raise a point about the DM being messed up, do that with DCS proof, not IRL. Setup a mission with a friend, fire missiles of different types at them, do some statistical analysis, and then try on other air frames that are similar... SU-27, J-11, Mig-29... Try and show that the F-15 IS in-fact OP rather than just stating that it is your belief based on incidents that happened in MP. You need to also realize net latency can play a role in what you see vs what really happened, so do it in a MP setup with low latency, and high, see if there is a difference.

The whole DM is getting update, we know it needs to be much better then it is, with much more detail, this will include ballistic penetration and fragmentation. WW2 aircraft first than the others I believe. I for one cannot wait for this update.:thumbup:

I have said this in another thread recently, that going forward with more FC4 aircraft etc, the DM and FM needs to be accurate / same level across all modules, full one's or FC3 etc.

@jackmckay

ttaylor0024 answered you way back on page 4 about all this, you didn't answer him about his answers for you... Why not?

These answers are coming from a IRL USN F/A-18 pilot, do you think he is lying to you here also about all this, including atomized jet fuel?

Can we now go back to the 27 pages of "stuck on grass" thread.:D

That vapor that you see aircraft leave in the sky are really chemtrail's, it's a big conspiracy, truly it is...:D

Are there any details more, to share with us?

 

Say, plans to:

a) simulate penetration of several modules by a single projectile

b) introduce altered impact behavior, depended on the load (HE/AP) => surface/submerged explosions, ricochets where applicable

c) internal/external fuel tank flame bursts or varied leakage rates depended on hits number/their nature

d) hydraulic fails - drop out chassis, etc

e) stun effects on the pilot (HE "close call" impact)

f) realistic dynamics for damaged planes, including their rapid re-balancing due to pierced tanks/any massive parts departed. Inability to withstand high Gs for their frame any more (where it's appropriate)

g) inflammation that gradually affects plane

 

A digression: I'm not poking developers to do this right from the beginning in some stealthy manner - just wonder what depth are you willing to take?

a) Yes, including true calculation of armour-piercing ability (at least for the first 1-2 walls where experimental results are available to extend for the model). Fragmentation field patterns, etc...

b) yes

c) yes

d) hydrolics can be damaged even now, but it will work regarding its design for each plane - so there will be no undercarriage drop if the up-locks are mechanically driven. Possibly, with the new DM hydrolics will get more detailed damages, say, the pump, the left gear tubing, etc...

e) do not know yet

f) all these features work now. If the main spar is damaged - yes it will lower max G-load.

g) I remember that Racoon answered positive.

-

Based on earlier comments they made, I'm surmising the following

1. They forgot that online play can result in erratic behavior from lag. They have probably not tested to see if it occurs offline or in low latency environments.

2. They are probably commenting on a combination of bugs and lag, but mistakenly believe what they're seeing is by design and is in fact part of an ED/Israeli conspiracy to make Eagle Stronk

3. I note their clan tags reference Flankers, and they earlier mentioned R60s specifically. Being dedicated OpFor they are apparently inclined to believe everything is a NATO conspiracy when they have a bad fly out or experience bugs.

4. They also appear to fail to recognise the R60 is a contender for 'shittiest missile in the game', with a warhead 1/4th the size of that on a Sidewinder. One hit kills on a large aircraft would be rare by virtue of small 5lb proximity warhead vs 60,000lbs of aircraft.

5. They are acute sufferers of confirmation bias, wherein anything even remotely possible to be interpreted as supporting their preconceived notions is automatically interpreted as supporting. They're inclined to think ED favor BluFor against mighty Soviet Air Force? Everytime they see a BluFor aircraft glitch or behave erratically, THAT is the starting point when determining 'why' it happened

I found warheads data somewhere. R60 has warhead weight of some early iglas or even early sidewinders so its no breeze. Actually salvo fire is default for intercept mission bomber kill.

I will answer on that ttaylor post davidoc when im at wider screen. Im glad we have guy that has to read actual manual and take it serious.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk