Fixed Wing Flight Model (dev branch)

[x3kj 1247]

When you stall in arma, all function of the controllsurfaces are taken away from you (mechanically, visually you can still flop them around). The aircraft is then forced into a certain position that (should) cause you to fall down, therefore gain speed, therefore get out of stall.. When making "a halt" mid air, up to recently the plane would roll sideways to the left, until you are at 90° bank and then stop. Not sure if still the same but i assume it is. The only controll that is not removed is thrust.

 

However, factor of thrustamount is dependant on speed. At 0 speed thrust is barely existant in vanilla planes. I assume they did that to increase take off length.

 

Realistically, when falling down "like a brick", the new center of drag force drag (90° angle of attack) will usually be behind center of mass. Means your plane will tip over and go head first (after some falling time). Provided its not some really unstable aircraft design. This is pretty much a design criterion for modern planes. When stalling they need to automatically recover by distribution of forces alone.

 

 

[oukej 2911]

The control surface effectiveness is dependent on airspeed rather than stall. Down to having zero effect at zero airflow. Usually around Vs the planes still retain some degree of control. Often the first thing you'll notice is that the elevators no longer provide enough pitch moment to retain the AoA needed for a level flight.

As an airplane slows below stall speed, down to basically no control surf. effectiveness or a mid-air stop, it will turn towards the ground depending on it's initial orientation, CG and configuration. Once it's about to fall down - if it had wings leveled then it may just pitch down. More often there will also be some yaw moment.

Goes into dive, regains speed, regains control. Within the abstraction limits (there's no simulation of stalling of different surfaces or wings separately) I believe that this is more or less a correct behavior. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The low thrust near 0 speed used to been an issue with the new jets but that has been already fixed for few weeks on the dev-branch.

[Beagle 684]

3 hours ago, oukej said:

The control surface effectiveness is dependent on airspeed rather than stall. Down to having zero effect at zero airflow. Usually around Vs the planes still retain some degree of control. Often the first thing you'll notice is that the elevators no longer provide enough pitch moment to retain the AoA needed for a level flight.

As an airplane slows below stall speed, down to basically no control surf. effectiveness or a mid-air stop, it will turn towards the ground depending on it's initial orientation, CG and configuration. Once it's about to fall down - if it had wings leveled then it may just pitch down. More often there will also be some yaw moment.

Goes into dive, regains speed, regains control. Within the abstraction limits (there's no simulation of stalling of different surfaces or wings separately) I believe that this is more or less a correct behavior. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The low thrust near 0 speed used to been an issue with the new jets but that has been already fixed for few weeks on the dev-branch.

FCS controlled planes tend to show a "falling leaf" stall pattern. The F-16C and F/A-18C are notoriously known for it. In that case the nose will pitch up and down in stall while the planes falls to the ground. Its one of the hardest stall situations to come out of. The physical reason is that the center of gravity of most modern fighters if often towards the rear, not the nose, hard to controll without FCS but gives a lot more nose up authority at low speed and hence more manouverability. Thats also the reason why "Eurocanards" are so common in european builds... its helps a lot to controll the unstable center of gravity. The USA came quite late to that party, the F-16 was the first of that kind whiel the F-15 is still a conventional aircraft with the CG to the front.

[martin_lee 33]

Stall occurs when airflow over the wing became turbulent. This occurs when the angle of attack is too large. The thing they teach you when learning Cessna is to push the control forward when you approach a stall, rather than trying to point your nose to the ground. AOA is the key.

 

5 hours ago, x3kj said:

Realistically, when falling down "like a brick", the new center of drag force drag (90° angle of attack) will usually be behind center of mass. Means your plane will tip over and go head first (after some falling time). Provided its not some really unstable aircraft design. This is pretty much a design criterion for modern planes. When stalling they need to automatically recover by distribution of forces alone.

 

There are positive, neutral and negative stability. Positive means it will return to the equilibrium point, negative means it will move away from equilibrium point. Neutral is like walking on ice, your state will keep on moving unless it is stopped by an external force. All the old aircraft and modern civilian ones are postive stable, or in some case really close to neutral stability. Anything past that is almost impossible to control by human.

 

With positive stability you don't fall like a brick, just like what you said. But as dragon01 said, there are aircrafts that are negatively stable, deliberately I might add. This is because such design is what makes them agile. F-16 and Eurofighter Typhoon are one such design. They being able to even fly is due to them being controlled by computer (fly by wire). The pilot is just there to tell the computer how much he wants to turn, what control surfaces are moved are determined by the computer. You want to bank, the computer may move more than just the elevon. Probably it will move the rudder, and the flap (both leading and trailing edge) as well.

 

Now, F-16 can deep stall like dragon01 said, it will fall pretty much like a brick, with the plane being somewhat stable horizontally whilst falling vertically with no horizontal velocity. The same principle of recovering from stall applies: reduce the AOA, it's just much much harder than on a Cessna. By rocking the nose and cause a resonance (just like the tacoma narrows bridge ;) ) you would eventually point the nose downwards enough. The AOA is reduced enough, airflow becomes laminar, you regained control.

[Strike_NOR 898]

10 hours ago, oukej said:

Goes into dive, regains speed, regains control. Within the abstraction limits (there's no simulation of stalling of different surfaces or wings separately) I believe that this is more or less a correct behavior. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The low thrust near 0 speed used to been an issue with the new jets but that has been already fixed for few weeks on the dev-branch.

'

Regarding the first statement, all is true for positive stability aircraft, such as the Caesar and I assume A-164 and Neophron are positively stable too. This means slower speed leads to nose drop, leads to gained airspeed, leads to correct angle of attack and finally regained horizontal flight.

 

Modern fighters often use relaxed stability, but the computer it relies on will often "simulate" flight patterns of positive stability aircraft to make the pilot feel more familiar.

 

Like others have stated, some of the modern fighters can fall into deep stall where it is almost impossible to recover, but this is asking alot from ArmA.

 

 

Regarding thrust, I am happy to see improvements to this at low airspeed. Will test out further.

 

Final note: I noticed a very more responsive nose wheel steering on the buzzard, has this also been changed? Now nose wheel steering is very sharp at low ground speeds, and diminishes once you pick up speed on runway. Just as should be :) I like it!

[dragon01 902]

6 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

Like others have stated, some of the modern fighters can fall into deep stall where it is almost impossible to recover, but this is asking alot from ArmA.

Regardless of the engine, that would be asking a lot from players. As far as the Viper goes, deep stall recovery is incredibly difficult. A "falling leaf" stall isn't that bad, but try getting that resonance in an inverted spin... :) It's possible, just hard, not to mention it takes a lot of time, more than you would have at typical flight altitudes in ArmA. Not only does the rocking take a while to get going, you exit the stall with a nose pointed straight down, and usually some speed, as well. You have to pull up, but not too fast, or it's back to the square one (only this time, you're much closer to the ground). All in all, you do all those tricks with one eye on the altimeter and one hand on the ejection handle.

 

I don't know if 5th gen fighters like Raptor or PAK-FA would be able to exit a deep stall by engine power alone, or if they even exhibit that behavior in first place. However, I'm firmly convinced that deep stalls are the territory of study sims and not ArmA. A toggle, like advanced AFM features would be required, but deep stall stems from the aerodynamic configuration of the plane, the FM is either accurate enough for it to manifest or it isn't. 

[oukej 2911]

1 hour ago, Strike_NOR said:

Regarding the first statement, all is true for positive stability aircraft, such as the Caesar and I assume A-164 and Neophron are positively stable too.

I'd say about all airplanes in A3 are :) The simulation isn't advanced enough for us to sufficiently abstract stability properties. We will always try to give each airplane certain character. But the more we step into areas of things like thrust vectoring or supermaneuverability the more limits we hit and the more we need to abstract or deviate under an "artistic license".

[Sycholic 6]

" The update applies to the Shikra, Black Wasp II, Sentinel, Gryphon and Buzzard. We welcome your feedback on our forums. Thanks! "

 

So you ignored the one plane that cant even take off from Tanoa without smacking the landing gear at the end of the runways.... The Neophron.

Nor any mention of finally fixing the throttle problem when grouped in MP with other players flying the VTOL which requires one to be alone in a private one.   And I hope you put them stall changes in opposite for VTOLs.   They drop like rocks too easy right now...... they need the opposite effect.

[oukej 2911]

Neophron hasn't been ignored, just not done yet ;)
 

2 hours ago, Sycholic said:

Nor any mention of finally fixing the throttle problem when grouped in MP with other players flying the VTOL which requires one to be alone in a private one.

Can you please elaborate more on this?

[Strike_NOR 898]

On 6/26/2017 at 1:50 PM, Strike_NOR said:

Well.... I have not sufficiently tested the "post-patch low speed characteristics" yet

 

I have finally gotten around to properly spending a few hours messing with the new jets flight model and boy is there a huge improvement! I could actually fly high AoA maneuvers and feel like I have thrust again! I did a test and was able to do slow flybys such as this:

 

Landing now happens with greater AoA and sense of control. Also they have become less risky because of the newfound thrust available during low speeds, which means you can get yourself out of a stall situation.

 

Other notable things are:

 

-Better feel during AA engagements with IR missiles, they seem more balanced now.

-Much better ground handling (Nosewheel steering). Some jets such as the F-16 can turn so sharply that the wingtip inside the turn almost remains in the same spot during the entire rotation. This is much better now.

-Overall more satisfactory flight behavior, more consistent stall characteristics with a better chance of recovery.

-Could not reverse-fly any jet during stall, which is good :)

 

Excellent job :)

 

One final thing I thought about that would make the jets visually appear more realistic is flight control surface behavior. Currently, the flight controls directly translate to game input it seems, regardless of speed. What I'm trying to say is that if you are stationary on ground or going 1000 km/h, the canards of the gryphon (as an example) move through their entire range of travel. The faster a jet goes, the less control surface movement is needed for maneuvering. Is it possible to implement a function where the animations are reduced to say... 20-30% of max travel during top speed? And just have it scale from 100% movement at stationary/low speed flight and then gradually decrease the surface max angles towards Mach 1? It just looks very funny when flying supersonic that the canards rotate to maximum positions, because in real life this would break the aircraft :P

 

This feature is generally true for all aircraft. Smaller aircraft with mechanical flight controls are physically limited by airspeed so the pilot does not have enough strength to overcome pressure on the surfaces. Larger aircraft either have servo tabs or flight control systems that allow and restrict movement for all parts of the flight envelope to prevent over-stressing the airframe but also gain optimum performance. I think it's the icing on the cake, because arma flight control surfaces can seem a little "floppy" and "spastic" at times.

 

 

[x3kj 1247]

10 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

can seem a little "floppy" and "spastic" at times.

 

This so much. Flying jets in 3rd person gives the impression that this is some flappy bird game (amplified when using keyboard).

[dragon01 902]

11 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

One final thing I thought about that would make the jets visually appear more realistic is flight control surface behavior. Currently, the flight controls directly translate to game input it seems, regardless of speed. What I'm trying to say is that if you are stationary on ground or going 1000 km/h, the canards of the gryphon (as an example) move through their entire range of travel. The faster a jet goes, the less control surface movement is needed for maneuvering. Is it possible to implement a function where the animations are reduced to say... 20-30% of max travel during top speed? And just have it scale from 100% movement at stationary/low speed flight and then gradually decrease the surface max angles towards Mach 1? It just looks very funny when flying supersonic that the canards rotate to maximum positions, because in real life this would break the aircraft :P

This would tie quite well into the "G limiter" idea I outlined. The control surfaces will, in fact, rotate to their maximum deflection during flight below or exactly at corner velocity, but above their travel range they become limited to limit the forces on the airframe. Roll and yaw axes probably also have a similar behavior, but I guess it'd be somewhat less noticeable and occur at higher speeds. Remember, in air combat you always want the highest turn rate that you can get.

 

Quote

This feature is generally true for all aircraft. Smaller aircraft with mechanical flight controls are physically limited by airspeed so the pilot does not have enough strength to overcome pressure on the surfaces. Larger aircraft either have servo tabs or flight control systems that allow and restrict movement for all parts of the flight envelope to prevent over-stressing the airframe but also gain optimum performance. I think it's the icing on the cake, because arma flight control surfaces can seem a little "floppy" and "spastic" at times.

I think that we don't currently have any planes with mechanical linkages. Even Caesar BTT uses a side stick, which is ill-suited for a mechanical installation.

[Strike_NOR 898]

Caesar is based of Cessna TTx, which has mechanical links, in the fashion of a side-stick :) Kindof neat, and ergonomic!

 

Either way, the point is that high-speed aircraft require "protection mechanisms" to avoid overstressing the airframe. Would look nice to have a visual representation tied to G's or IAS :)

[dragon01 902]

Right now, high-speed jets are incapable of doing things that would overstress the airframe. They can only pull 9-10G turns due to the way their physics are set up, which is not enough to actually harm a fighter. Those things are sturdy. Dynamic pressure at max speed can't rip the wings off a fighter, either, even if you're doing a 10G turn. Thus, the G limit is the only realistic restriction on maneuverability.

 

As for Cessna TTx, doesn't it have some sort of "power-steering", though? Either way, it's kind of moot, because it can't go that fast, anyway.

[Beagle 684]

I would stil recommand to reversethe nozzle animation to fit real world behaviour better. Since there is no afterburner effect on the jets, it would be suitable to have the jet engine nozzle full open at idle and fully closed at 100%. Thats would relect actual behaviour of nozzles much better.

[Strike_NOR 898]

8 hours ago, dragon01 said:

They can only pull 9-10G turns due to the way their physics are set up, which is not enough to actually harm a fighter.

 

Well that's where you're a little too quick to conclude things :) Fighters are in many ways comparable to F-1 racecars. They are often built to the ultimate compromise between weight and structural integrity in order to perform optimally within their design area. However, if you exceed the narrow tolerances, you WILL damage the vehicle catastrophically. A fighter rated for 9 G's, is often only capable of performing that maneuver with a very limited loadout. This often means no external fuel, no bombs, AG missiles, only about 4-6 AA missiles, depending on aircraft type. As soon as you put more stuff on it, the maximum G tolerance is lowered. Sometimes aircraft with "smart systems" can automatically determine aircraft weight and adjust the G-limiter on the fly. Other aircraft have a set of modes, where one limit applies for "heavy config" and one limit applies for "light config". At worst, I know a certain model fully loaded fighter may only perform 3.5 G's, while its maximum is 9G's.

 

So I also know that if you exceed this G-value, things go horribly wrong with the aircraft structure. The main victim is the wing root joints. You have crazy amounts of lift acting upwards on the wings, and aircraft body mass x G value acting the opposite direction. This puts tremendous amounts of force on the wing attachment bolts/joints. And so, such an event normally triggers mission abort and a fair amount of maintenance. We actually used to "punish" fighter pilots on their second "Over-G" mishap and make them dismantle the wing attachment joint covers to experience the amount of unneccesary work they create for maintenance.

 

And sure enough, there are often cracks and excessive wear that shorten the life expectancy of aircraft etc. If you are actually talking about the point where wings will snap off, it is a combination of amount of over G x time spent in the over-G area. 0.3 Over-G may go a long way, but 10-13 G's on a max 9G aircraft is asking a lot and will cause damage. And the next time you pull a 9G turn, it may now actually continue to worsen the damage, because the structural integrity is lost.

It's like the classic paper experiment: Pull a sheet of paper evenly apart from each other and you'll find it is very strong. Make a tiny tear on one of the side, and it rips immediately. 

 

Anyways, long debate about G forces affecting aircraft in general...

 

I believe the major limiting factor today is not the aircraft. It's the pilot. Even with pressure regulating oxygen systems that can forcefully fill a pilots lungs with air, and G-suits that constrict blood flow to the lower body, the pilots are still human. Humans need blood in their brains to function and any prolonged high G maneuver will severely fatigue a pilot and cause him to faint. Of course, red bull air racers are known to hit very high G's (10-12), but only for a very short duration. The blood loss to the brain is so temporary that blood flow is returned again before the oxygen in the brain has been depleted, and even so they have to perform the same muscle contractions, use G-suits and endure training to avoid fainting. The maximum G's allowed in red bull air races was actually decreased from 12 to 10 a few years back, because of safety.

 

So all in all. You can always build a sturdier aircraft that can sustain 20+ G's, no problem, but nobody can fly it. You can't engineer a better human that can sustain those forces, so what's the point of spending x $$$ on a 20G airframe? The human G tolerance is well known and so aircraft developers don't bother making aircraft that can do more G's because that's when you "lose the race". The F-1 car breaks apart easily, but it's the fastest thing on the track. If you reinforced it, it would finish in last place. Maybe it would survive a minor collision or two that would wreck the standard F1, but it would be slower and hence not meet its competition.

 

Therefore, I firmly believe that the future of air combat will be drones. As much as I hate to admit it, the days of sending pilots into combat may be over within our generation. Once air to air fighter drones enter the arena, they will outmaneuver any currently existing human-piloted fighter. And if it's destroyed, the pilot has learned from his mistakes, and is more experienced the next time around. No search and rescue, no need to train a new pilot etc, just give him a new drone to control. 

 

AFAIK, ArmA 3 does not calculate dynamic aircraft weight so developers just have to set a "max G" setting that insures game balance. Cornerspeed is the aircraft speed at which your aircraft will have the highest degrees/second turn rate, and most aircraft will be designed to be able to sustain their turn without exceeding the G limits or aerodynamic stress limits, given that they don't have too much payload loaded. 

 

Control surface deflection is very often primarily limited by maneuvering airspeed (V_A), because you have to make sure you don't deflect the surface to much that it will snap off the aircraft. When you are operating in the area around cornerspeed (V_C), it is therefore CRITICAL that you do NOT deflect aircraft controls to maximum positions, or they can snap off due to aerodynamic load. Traditionally (V_A) is given for maximum aircraft takeoff weight, then manufacturers made plackards and tables that told the pilot what higher (V_A) was allowed for lower aircraft weight configurations. Modern aircraft have this built-in to the flight control systems, and as such, limit control surface deflection as a function of speed and weight. The pilot no longer has to think about aircraft stress, only be aware that the aircraft performance is greatly reduced/restricted by computers at higher weight/speed combinations. The V/g diagram of an aircraft will show you its maximum load and various critical airspeeds. You will see that under certain airspeeds, aerodynamic stall will prohibit maneuvers that exceed the maximum structural load. But once you have enough airspeed, you have maximum lift available and as such, can exceed G limits. At these speeds, an abrupt control movement, or heavy windgust may permanently deform the aircraft structure and tear off control surfaces.

 

Most fighter jets I believe have the speed set at about 400kts +- 100 or so. This translates to about ~700 +-200 km/h in ArmA. If you fly at the aircraft's maximum G limit (instantaneous turn) while in cornerspeed, you will bleed energy very fast. If the engine can't compensate, you will fall below cornerspeed and lose the turn-fight advantage. So the trick is to not fly at maximum G, but at best sustained turn G, which may be a few G's lower. This will allow you to control speed and always have a high degrees/second turn rate. It will also allow you to trade some speed for quick "snapshots" at the enemy during critical phases of a turnfight. 

 

Flying an aircraft to it's max G is normally only done in emergency defensive maneuvers, such as missile evasion. Actually, during a turnfight, if both planes are equally matched the term "slow and steady wins the race" really applies well. The impatient pilot that pulls max G will initially have the highest turn rate, but lose energy and therefore, in the long run, lose the fight!

 

TL;DR

 

This brings me back to my initial point of improvement:

 

It would be nice to see a feature in ArmA that limited control surface animation (movement) to be "softer" and restricted from maximum deflection when flying around the aircraft's cornerspeed. It makes the jets look less twitchy and is also a realistic aspect. It could apply to all aircraft at once, because all aircraft have a maneuvering speed (V_A) at which control surfaces would take damage if they were fully deflected. Like I mentioned before, it could probably be done with a very simple parameter that requires an aircraft speed parameter X, where X is the speed where the dampening will have full effect. Say controls normally move from 0% deflection to 100% (which is maximum angular movement). At speed X, the controls now only move only 20% of their maximum angular movement. At speed 0 they have 100% movement. As the aircraft increases airspeed, it linearly scales from 100% deflection to 20% at speed X.

 

Alternatively, you could have an additional "Y" speed, which is something above 0. This way if you set X to 1000 Km/h, and Y to 500 km/h, you will see full control surface movement until you reach 500km/h, then it will start limiting surface movement from 100% to 20% up towards 1000km/h. At speeds > 1000 km/h you will only see 20% deflection.

 

How this would visually look during a high speed turn: At 1000 km/h you start your turn hard. Flight controls move a little bit, as speed decreases through the turn, the controls deflect more and more, as speed decreases even further towards 500 km/h, you now get full deflection. This is a much better and accurate visual representation of flight controls.

 

Another thing is landing gear. It is now possible to damage it, and I suggest that a speed of about 300 knots or 550/600 km/h with gear deployed should make them inoperable. Therefore I also think there should be camera shake when the gear is extended during flight, to alert the player if he has forgotten to retract landing gear.

[dragon01 902]

As you said, ArmA3 doesn't simulate the weight of an armament or fuel. A typical AA loadout usually could still permit pulling more Gs than the pilot could endure. To actually damage a fighter with G forces, you have to weigh it down with stuff like bombs, heavy rockets or cruise missiles. Planes loaded like that are not expected to engage in air combat, if you are jumped enroute to target, you simply jettison all this and focus on getting home alive. It would've been nice if ArmA simulated that, but it currently doesn't.

 

The basic dynamics of a turn are already there, what it needs is a "G limiter" for restricting turn rates at high speed. This, along with slightly altered speed/maneuverability curves, would be all that's needed. The planes would handle like they're unloaded or (at most) loaded for air combat all the time, but I'm fine with that as far as ArmA goes.

 

Regarding landing gear, it presents a basic problem: ILS. Currently, ILS is enabled by extending landing gear, so if you're making an approach under IFR, you'll want to do that early. While generally, you should slow down to the proper landing speed before flying the glideslope, I don't think that strictly enforcing that with gear damage is necessary.

[Sycholic 6]

On 6/28/2017 at 9:49 AM, oukej said:

Neophron hasn't been ignored, just not done yet ;)
 

Can you please elaborate more on this?

 

Simple, if you are grouped with anyone while flying the blackfish it mucks your throttle up completely unless you make a seperate team and make it private.  not to mention opening chat, your map. and many numerous ways (which happens to all fixed wing aircraft) to make it just magically change randomly to something you did not leave the throttle at...

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

On 6/28/2017 at 11:49 PM, oukej said:

 

Can you please elaborate more on this?

 

in dedi mp

 

if VTOL pilot client is not group leader (group leader is another client), VTOL will power to 100% throttle when touching ground, causing some bouncing effect.

 

have experienced this too. cant fathom the cause yet

[gatordev 219]

On 6/30/2017 at 9:17 AM, dragon01 said:

As you said, ArmA3 doesn't simulate the weight of an armament or fuel. A typical AA loadout usually could still permit pulling more Gs than the pilot could endure. To actually damage a fighter with G forces, you have to weigh it down with stuff like bombs, heavy rockets or cruise missiles.

 

This isn't exactly how it works.  Every high-G maneuver is logged, and the more maneuvers shortens the life of the airframe.  While an airframe may be able to sustain x G-forces, nowadays it's limited to some number less to manage Fatigue Life.  When airframes hit a point of "pulling" "too much," their G-limit comes down and the airframe becomes less deployable.

 

What you're describing is a one-time pull, which a new airframe can no-doubt take (and obviously is what A3 imitates).  But add that up over time, and the operating "box" becomes much smaller.

[dragon01 902]

Which ArmA3 also doesn't simulate. Not only that, if you're fighting an actual war, this sort of thing typically goes out of window. Pilots would rather pull high Gs and possibly break off the wings than don't pull them and get their wings shot off with certainty. Planes would either get rotated out if the conflict doesn't involve the whole air force, or end up pushed to the limits (and occasionally past, with unpleasant results) if it does.

 

Remember, this is, ultimately, an ArmA3 Dev Branch forum. Which means that discussion should be, ultimately, related to what ArmA3 can or should do. We are discussing a simulator, not real life, which means certain things such as metal fatigue or assorted bureaucracy are irrelevant. I'm all for realistic simulation, but certain things are simply out of scope. Even DCS, to my knowledge, doesn't model long term airframe fatigue.

[Strike_NOR 898]

If you are fighting an actual war..... who are you to speak of actual war? We are all more or less armchair generals here. I could take your assumption that pilots would rather pull more G's, and flip it over to say: "pilots would rather respect aircraft G limitations and stay in the fight, rather than lose their wings with certainty". See my point? Fights are mostly won or lost beyond visual range. The few that make it to visual range engage in energy combat, and whoever has the best coordinated team usually wins. A one on one dogfight is extremely unlikely. 

 

However to get back on topic, that's why jets have G limiters. They cannot be exceeded unless the pilot really jolts the controls around in turbulent weather or unpredictable conditions. Otherwise the plane will just say "nope" to pilot input, given that it has such technology. A G-limiter in ArmA 3 would be nice, because it makes your maneuverability a result of speed. The limitation of G happens by predictive calculations that restrict flight control movement as a result of speed and weight (arma 3 does not simulate weight). Ergo a G-limitation will force players to think strategically when it comes to speed during engagements.

 

I don't know what else to say than let's knock off the metal fatigue debate by saying it's irrelevant in ArmA 3 and as such the G limit should not depend on your personal opinion or real life limits, but rather what makes the game more interesting, balanced and enjoyable while not straying too far from its real life counterparts.

 

I apologize for my contribution in dragging this off topic, but I must admit it just strikes a nerve when someone claims X or Y as a general truth for "all fighters" without having the faintest idea how things work in real life or a viable source to confirm it. If you speak with enough confidence, anyone who doesn't know better will take it for granted as being true. There, I'm done.

 

[Beagle 684]

DCS doEs simulate G-force and fatigue, both that of material and pilot, very well. Let#s say it that way...you will try to over G the first times, thinking it might give you an advantage... it does not. The airframe can sustain a little bit more G-force than the pilot can (10-12G, but airframe will be considered unfit to fly again due to deformations)...well the pilot at sustained 9G wil simply pass out well before fatal damage occurs to the airframe.

 

Neither airframe stress nor g-force to pilot is simulated in ArmA III, so the whe discussion about G-limits it as artificial as the whole system is.

The game and its engine is so limited...you simply need such artificial limits (just like rendering range) to keept it playabe at all.

[dragon01 902]

1 hour ago, Strike_NOR said:

If you are fighting an actual war..... who are you to speak of actual war? We are all more or less armchair generals here. I could take your assumption that pilots would rather pull more G's, and flip it over to say: "pilots would rather respect aircraft G limitations and stay in the fight, rather than lose their wings with certainty". See my point? Fights are mostly won or lost beyond visual range. The few that make it to visual range engage in energy combat, and whoever has the best coordinated team usually wins. A one on one dogfight is extremely unlikely. 

Sure, but they do happen. Pilots will respect G limits if it doesn't get them killed. Sure, there might be a situation where you either break off your wings from over-G or get shot to pieces, but that's war for you. However, I can assure you (as was seen many times during actual wars) that pilots will do things that will cause the airframe to be written off post-flight, if they have to. A lot of weird tricks were pulled over Vietnam, including bombing helicopters and even a fighter in mid air (the latter with iron bombs!), slowing down to almost stall to gun down PO-2 biplanes (this ended badly at least once), and one plane towing the other with a tail hook. One MiG-25 clocked Mach 3.2 for some reason (this one is not from 'Nam), which also probably ended with the airframe being retired. I really don't think pilots held back on Gs in dogfights back then, and would be unlikely to do so now, if they ever faced a real threat as opposed to a generation-old junk.

 

Also, we're not only talking dogfights here. As you said, most air combat takes place in BVR. You know what's the actual number 1 source of high-G jinking? Missile evasion. Sure, you don't always have to pull hard, but it's one of the better techniques. Note that exceeding G limitations doesn't usually instantly break the aircraft apart unless you truly go overboard, while missile hits definitely tend to do that.

 

About G limiters, this is what I've been saying. They generally prevent you from having the plane break up in mid air (though hitting them without a good reason is a good way of getting to have a long, unpleasant talk with your CO...). All modern fighters have them, this tech has been around for a long time. However, they tend to be set at either 9 (for Western fighters) or 10G (Russian ones). Airframes can generally take at least two more, unless they're in a really decrepit state.

 

I do know what I'm talking about, but I've chosen to simplify what my replies as not to introduce complexity which is either unnecessary or infeasible to implement. I know how things work in real world, but ArmA isn't even a flightsim, so some things do not need to be considered.

41 minutes ago, Beagle said:

DCS deos simulate G-force and fatigue, both that of material and pilot, very well. Let#s say it that way...you will try to over G the first times, thinking it might give you an advantage... it does not. The airframe can sustain a little bit more G-force than the pilot can (10-12G, but airframe will be considered unfit to fly again due to deformations)...well the pilot at sustained 9G wil simply pass out well before fatal damage occurs to the airframe.

 

Neither airframe stress nor g-force to pilot is simulated in ArmA III, so the whe discussion about G-limits it as artificial as the whole system is.

The game and its engine is so limited...you simply need such artificial limits (just like rendering range) to keept it playabe at all.

Only short term. I was talking long-term fatigue, that is, something you worry about between flights. As far as I know, damage in DCS is only done during the flight and you get your plane in mint condition at the start of the next flight.

[Beagle 684]

19 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Sure, but they do happen. Pilots will respect G limits if it doesn't get them killed. Sure, there might be a situation where you either break off your wings from over-G or get shot to pieces, but that's war for you. However, I can assure you (as was seen many times during actual wars) that pilots will do things that will cause the airframe to be written off post-flight, if they have to. A lot of weird tricks were pulled over Vietnam, including bombing helicopters and even a fighter in mid air (the latter with iron bombs!), slowing down to almost stall to gun down PO-2 biplanes (this ended badly at least once), and one plane towing the other with a tail hook. One MiG-25 clocked Mach 3.2 for some reason (this one is not from 'Nam), which also probably ended with the airframe being retired. I really don't think pilots held back on Gs in dogfights back then, and would be unlikely to do so now, if they ever faced a real threat as opposed to a generation-old junk.

 

Also, we're not only talking dogfights here. As you said, most air combat takes place in BVR. You know what's the actual number 1 source of high-G jinking? Missile evasion. Sure, you don't always have to pull hard, but it's one of the better techniques. Note that exceeding G limitations doesn't usually instantly break the aircraft apart unless you truly go overboard, while missile hits definitely tend to do that.

 

About G limiters, this is what I've been saying. They generally prevent you from having the plane break up in mid air (though hitting them without a good reason is a good way of getting to have a long, unpleasant talk with your CO...). All modern fighters have them, this tech has been around for a long time. However, they tend to be set at either 9 (for Western fighters) or 10G (Russian ones). Airframes can generally take at least two more, unless they're in a really decrepit state.

Only short term. I was talking long-term fatigue, that is, something you worry about between flights. As far as I know, damage in DCS is only done during the flight and you get your plane in mint condition at the start of the next flight.

Damage in DCS accumulates as long as the mission runs, you have to start a full repair with an sht down aircraft at an airfield that has friendly support crews. That takes around 5 minutes in game. A simple rearm will not repair anything.