Jump to content

Server Option to enforce G-limits


Cab

Recommended Posts

What would happen if someone exceeded the G Limit?

 

I just envisioned a hard limit on how many g's a jet could pull, so that would really just affect aircraft without a g-limiter in real life. F-14's and F-15's would only be able to pull 7.5 and 9.0 g's respectively. I don't know which, if any, of the Russian jets have limiters. To be consistent the override in the F-18 would have to be disabled.

 

Making this an option for server admins to enable would avoid forcing the change on everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I would like to see pilots flying their air raft to the G Limits correctly. I just don't think DCS will be able to simulate screws and rivets degrading from pulling Gs. Maybe there's some sort of function where aircraft health can degrade the harder the aircraft is flown but I'm not sure. An instant death when exceeding the limit would be too gamey and unrealistic in it's own way, and an artificial cap on the aircraft would be unrealistic as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just envisioned a hard limit on how many g's a jet could pull, so that would really just affect aircraft without a g-limiter in real life. F-14's and F-15's would only be able to pull 7.5 and 9.0 g's respectively. I don't know which, if any, of the Russian jets have limiters. To be consistent the override in the F-18 would have to be disabled.

 

Making this an option for server admins to enable would avoid forcing the change on everyone.

Just as a point here: as the F-14 doesn't have a limiter, and you can also find accounts that Grumman testers pulled up to 10.5g fairly often with no ill effects on the airframe (there's also some early Grumman marketing stating it too iirc), what's your 'real-life' limit in the this case? The max 7.5g rule the F-14 hit the fleet with in the 70's? The later reduced 6.5g that was chosen to preserve airframe life? Or are you picking the known mechanical limit?

 

More generally, what problem are you trying to solve? Is this related to the debacle from the recent charity event? Where it was a 0.1s spike in the recordings caused by server instability/lag and not a real over-g event?

 

Most airframes in DCS do implement some over-g damage states.


Edited by Buzzles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a point here: as the F-14 doesn't have a limiter, and you can also find accounts that Grumman testers pulled up to 10.5g fairly often with no ill effects on the airframe (there's also some early Grumman marketing stating it too iirc), what's your 'real-life' limit in the this case? The max 7.5g rule the F-14 hit the fleet with in the 70's? The later reduced 6.5g that was chosen to preserve airframe life? Or are you picking the known mechanical limit?

 

More generally, what problem are you trying to solve? Is this related to the debacle from the recent charity event? Where it was a 0.1s spike in the recordings caused by server instability/lag and not a real over-g event?

 

Most airframes in DCS do implement some over-g damage states.

 

Use operating manual limits because that's how they were intended to be flown. Players constantly exceeding those limits as a matter of tactics is not realistic and makes it more like a game.

 

Personally I don't think that was a debacle. Some people want to experience more realism and that was the goal. The difficulty is staying within those limits in DCS and this would eliminate that for those that want more realistic performance.

 

Other than the F-14 I am not aware of over-g damage in DCS modules. And even that is only in the most extreme circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Use operating manual limits because that's how they were intended to be flown. Players constantly exceeding those limits as a matter of tactics is not realistic and makes it more like a game.

 

Personally I don't think that was a debacle. Some people want to experience more realism and that was the goal. The difficulty is staying within those limits in DCS and this would eliminate that for those that want more realistic performance.

 

Other than the F-14 I am not aware of over-g damage in DCS modules. And even that is only in the most extreme circumstances.

There's pilot accounts for F-14, F-15, etc... (basically anything without an non-overridable limiter) all going over the written limit in their respective manuals, both in training and in real world combat, so even going by the operating manuals isn't exactly fair if you're claiming realism is the goal.

 

As your post is in response to the event, I'd say you'd probably have a stronger argument stating that over-g DM's need more development in order to serve your goals, rather than enforcing an arbitrary limit via the server config.

 

As an aside, pretty much all the WWII birds have over-g limits resulting in wings breaking off, others modules do too to various degrees as well.


Edited by Buzzles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's pilot accounts for F-14, F-15, etc... (basically anything without an non-overridable limiter) all going over the written limit in their respective manuals, both in training and in real world combat, so even going by the operating manuals isn't exactly fair if you're claiming realism is the goal.

 

As your post is in response to the event, I'd say you'd probably have a stronger argument stating that over-g DM's need more development in order to serve your goals, rather than enforcing an arbitrary limit via the server config.

 

As an aside, pretty much all the WWII birds have over-g limits resulting in wings breaking off, others modules do too to various degrees as well.

 

Arbitrary? I guess that's one way of looking at it.

 

It has been proven in other threads that some opinions won't be swayed even by provable SME's, so I am not out to change anyone's mind here. Suffice to say once an aircraft exceeds it's g-limit it is down until inspected. Pilot's do not, I repeat, DO NOT enter into every fight with a plan to intentionally exceed the limits of their jet.

 

But thank you for contributing. I am going to put you down as a solid "No". If by some chance such a thing is incorporated then you will have the option of not participating on any server that enables it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pilots absolutely enter the fighting mentally prepared to do whatever it takes to survive and win what are you talking about

so right back at you: you have the option of not participating in any game that enables realism


Edited by probad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

pilots absolutely enter the fighting mentally prepared to do whatever it takes to survive and win what are you talking about

 

your attempt to veil your desire to reshape reality in your favor isnt fooling anyone

 

LOL!!!

 

You had me there for a minute until I read your signature line.

 

Good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pilots absolutely enter the fighting mentally prepared to do whatever it takes to survive and win what are you talking about

so right back at you: you have the option of not participating in any game that enables realism

 

Oh my. You edited your post from what I quoted above, so now it sounds like you were actually serious. My apologies.

 

This is likely to be considered a subjective opinion but being "mentally prepared to do whatever it takes to survive" is not the same thing as overstressing your jet as a matter of routine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That does not make any sense. It's like asking to keep within speed limits in a car sim.

Pilots in DCS already have g-limits. Almost all aircraft in DCS suffer from over-g. Artificially limiting it makes it only less realistic. This is simulation of what aircraft and pilot can do IRL. Grounding them or punishing is another story.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 14s case, the NATOPs limits were about reducing maintenance hours/prolonging the life of the airframe, not what the airframe could sensibly do - this is a game and I don't care if my maintainer gets cross!

 

How about a 500' bubble during BFM? How about no face shots? Because that didn't go so well for the 'real' pilot in recent AI test flights - one side played fair, the other won! Whats next, we have to say 'trigger down' rather than actually shoot someone down? Because that's what real pilots do in training!


Edited by Kula66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arbitrary? I guess that's one way of looking at it.

 

It has been proven in other threads that some opinions won't be swayed even by provable SME's, so I am not out to change anyone's mind here. Suffice to say once an aircraft exceeds it's g-limit it is down until inspected. Pilot's do not, I repeat, DO NOT enter into every fight with a plan to intentionally exceed the limits of their jet.

 

But thank you for contributing. I am going to put you down as a solid "No". If by some chance such a thing is incorporated then you will have the option of not participating on any server that enables it.

 

 

To be clear, I was saying arbitrary in regards to the numbers you picked, not the 'limit' itself.

 

I'm definitely a No to a number based server restriction stopping people simply pulling harder and the aircraft artificially being stopped, which is what you'd described.

I'm a Yes for better DM's, and draconus says, better g-modelling for pilots, in order to improve realism and I think that's a better way to achieve your goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been proven in other threads

 

Really? Proven? By whom? What exactly? I'm all for wish-lists, even though ED is the least likely developer to implement anything through them, but when people start writing this kind of drivel (sorry there is no other more appropriate word) it's when I stop reading.

Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 14s case, the NATOPs limits were about reducing maintenance hours/prolonging the life of the airframe, not what the airframe could sensibly do - this is a game and I don't care if my maintainer gets cross!

 

I can only assume you have never been accountable for following NATOPS.

 

Yes, the 6.5 limit was administrative to prolong life. 7.5 was the actually limit pilots were expected to adhere to. Fun Fact: The original F-15 only had a 7.5 limit, too. (Actually it may have been 7.33 but I can't remember that far back.)

 

Playing this as a game I agree with you 100%. But if it was only a server option why would you care? You would not be affected at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That does not make any sense. It's like asking to keep within speed limits in a car sim.

Pilots in DCS already have g-limits. Almost all aircraft in DCS suffer from over-g. Artificially limiting it makes it only less realistic. This is simulation of what aircraft and pilot can do IRL. Grounding them or punishing is another story.

 

Do real race car drivers have top speeds they are limited to? I didn't know that. Maybe for tire wear to minimize tire changes.

 

I must be lucky. I have exceeded the g-limit in every DCS jet I own and the only one that sustained damaged was the F-14. Maybe I am forgetting something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Proven? By whom? What exactly? I'm all for wish-lists, even though ED is the least likely developer to implement anything through them, but when people start writing this kind of drivel (sorry there is no other more appropriate word) it's when I stop reading.

 

To clear, my original quote was, "It has been proven in other threads that some opinions won't be swayed even by provable SME's"

 

Since this is such a delicate topic please allow me to restate it this way: It has been demonstrated in other threads that some opinions won't be swayed even by verified SME's.

 

Here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=285205

 

BTW "drivel" was hurtful. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

f-16 players before g limit patch: "we're not winning we must need higher g limits"

f-16 players after the g limit patch: "oh no we're still not winning the g's must be being used against us make it go away"

 

Well, Falcon pilots, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, I was saying arbitrary in regards to the numbers you picked, not the 'limit' itself.

 

I'm definitely a No to a number based server restriction stopping people simply pulling harder and the aircraft artificially being stopped, which is what you'd described.

I'm a Yes for better DM's, and draconus says, better g-modelling for pilots, in order to improve realism and I think that's a better way to achieve your goals.

 

So...in your world settling on the actual g-limits in the NATOPS, -1 (or whatever the Air Force calls it), etc, is just picking arbitrary numbers. I just want to be clear on that point.

 

But what if a server admin wanted that level of control? How would that affect you?

 

For the record, I agree there are other ways to do this, and some may even be more desirable. Mostly I just wanted to start the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...in your world settling on the actual g-limits in the NATOPS, -1 (or whatever the Air Force calls it), etc, is just picking arbitrary numbers. I just want to be clear on that point.

 

But what if a server admin wanted that level of control? How would that affect you?

 

For the record, I agree there are other ways to do this, and some may even be more desirable. Mostly I just wanted to start the discussion.

In this context, yes they are.

 

The numbers in the Natops/-1 are not arbritary to be equally clear with you. I think we're both aware they're engineered numbers, calculated down based on what the airframe can do at max (from structual testing in the factory) with a safety margin (normally 1.5x), with a further margin added for airframe lifespan.

 

They are most definitely not a hard number = plane breaks just past it, for reasons previously discussed.

 

So picking it for this g-limit option you've proposed is an arbitrary choice, again, in this context.

That said, Nat-Ops/-1 limits +1.5x I could get behind though, as although a non-real number, it probably actually closer to the real airframe limits.

 

 

I think we're both in agreement that there's definitely things that need to be done by the devs to improve this entire area though :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this context, yes they are.

 

The numbers in the Natops/-1 are not arbritary to be equally clear with you. I think we're both aware they're engineered numbers, calculated down based on what the airframe can do at max (from structual testing in the factory) with a safety margin (normally 1.5x), with a further margin added for airframe lifespan.

 

They are most definitely not a hard number = plane breaks just past it, for reasons previously discussed.

 

So picking it for this g-limit option you've proposed is an arbitrary choice, again, in this context.

That said, Nat-Ops/-1 limits +1.5x I could get behind though, as although a non-real number, it probably actually closer to the real airframe limits.

 

 

I think we're both in agreement that there's definitely things that need to be done by the devs to improve this entire area though :thumbup:

 

Ok, that's fair. We just have an honest disagreement on what we would like to simulate. You want to simulate the ultimate capability of the aircraft and I prefer simulating (enforcing, really) how the aircraft are employed. Nothing is wrong with either of those approaches.

 

Where we disagree, I think, is how the aircraft are flown in real life. For example, flying an F-15 with repeated excursions to 10, 11, or even 12 g's is just not realistic. Many people don't believe this, as is their right, but the actual no kidding fighter pilots on this forum insist it's true. So who you are you going to believe.

 

Do I do it? Hell, yes! Because in DCS that's the way it is. I even pull the infamous F-18 paddle if I'm fighting an F-15 or F-14 because I assume they are going to exceed their limits.

 

But I think there's also value and satisfaction in fighting (and sometimes defeating) a 9g F-16 in a 7.5 g F-18. It's fine with me if others don't feel that way. This shouldn't be personal, after all. BUT if there are others that feel the way I do AND it would require only a low level effort on ED's part, then why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do real race car drivers have top speeds they are limited to? I didn't know that. Maybe for tire wear to minimize tire changes.

 

Maybe not a top speed limit but if you're constantly redlining, sliding on your wheels, and taking damage to your car, then you may win the first lap but you'll end up losing the race.

 

Every piece of machinery has limits and the operator has to weigh the Risk vs. Reward during each attempt at exceeding those limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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