4.006 DM Discussion

May 21, 2020

Can't use shooting down AI to test this. (See Larner's chart below)

You could however let yourself get hit by a AI and then maneuver.

May 21, 2020

13 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

It's always had terribly weak wings in RoF. Definitely the easiest to pull off in a dive, followed by the S.E.5a.

12 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Reported weak wings with some good footage, hope the "new final " version has stronger wings.

Yes, it’s like that. there is, but I am quite happy with the strength of the Dolphin wings in all versions. There is nothing more interesting than fighting on a dolphin against a skilled pilot on d7f. The only problem is that d7f will be two, or three)). It would be great if at least sometimes they removed this shit like dr1 and camel from server cards, and left really interesting planes.

May 21, 2020

17 minutes ago, emely said:

The only problem is that d7f will be two, or three

So get 2 of your best buddies and fight the 2 or 3 D7f's.

May 21, 2020

1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

Can't use shooting down AI to test this. (See Larner's chart below)

You could however let yourself get hit by a AI and then maneuver.

The AI is programmed to fly within it's envelope, and it may also be able to know what that is even after being damaged. (Not sure about that). So these results of Prof. Larner do not surprise me, but they do provide evidence that the issue is at least partly with how people are flying the planes, given how they have been able to fly the planes previously.

I seem to recall that in the early days the IL-2 GBs developers' philosophy was that the in game plane control surfaces should match the position of the HOTAS, I think the same was true of RoF(?). When it became all too clear that this was providing opportunities for idiotic bat turns in WW2 planes, especially in the context of limited/no black outs, they changed their tune and started to introduce movement limits to reflect the physiological limits of the pilots - so there were speed dependent lags and limits to how far you could deflect control surfaces.

I wonder if these types of changes to GB have not made it into FC?

As for how much stock to put on the MvR data: I would say a lot, at least when talking about Entente aircraft damage. These are not based on anecdotes, but contemporary official reports checked by thorough historical research. If someone could find the combat reports of other German aces that would be wonderful - but I suspect that such do not exist or they surely would have been found by now.

May 21, 2020

6 hours ago, Tycoon said:

The point is in game you can pull 6g all day and all night but a few rounds and the wing is gone.

I want to say that they had the aircraft modeled so that G force damage was cumulative...anyone know if that is true? At any rate, I saw a load testing of the Dr.I...I think it was done by Fokker or maybe Achim Engles. The result was a load limit for the Dr.I at about 6.5 to 7 Gs. Lets say you hit 6 Gs several times in a fight...the 4th time, you could be pulling the wings off, despite being under the ultimate load limit.

3 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

The question isn't so much: "Should a WWI biplane's wings fail at 10g?"

A more interesting question is: "Can you physically pull hard enough on your strick to make a near instant +9g change in a WWI biplane?"

The only way we'll know for sure, is if @Chill31 sacrifices his Dr.I in the name of ~~science~~ ~~everlasting fame~~ nerd cred.

Yes, absolutely! The Dr.I has the lightest stick force per G of any airplane I've ever flown. If I did what this video depicts, my "wing off" light would come on, and I would crash with the same result (next time don't use a plane with stripes for the crash demo! ?). I recently did some dive testing the with 80 Rhone, I was at 140 mph and my RPM was at 1200 during the dive, despite being at idle (I began at about 850 rpm and the rpm increased with airspeed to 1200 when I hit 140 mph). I pulled out of the dive using about 40% stick deflection, and I hit about 2.5 Gs.

3 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

It would appear that airspeed as well as G-loading will cause a wing-rip. In other words, the faster you go, the less Gs you can take.

For example: When dive-testing an undamaged SPAD XIII today, I was able to pull 9G (or just over) out of a dive at 260 km/h. Respawning to get a fresh plane, I ripped my wings at about 8G when trying to pull out of a dive at 270 km/h.

Now, I only have a very base understanding of aerodynamics, but that seems odd to me...? Should higher airspeed limit an aircraft's ability to take on G force?

I think the added strain of airspeed could have a negative effect on maximum G loading. There is a lot of wind pressure trying to rip the wings off as speed increases, even without G-force.

3 hours ago, US93_Talbot said:

Speaking of Chill and his DR1, could he not just add some G-reading device to his cockpit and record the g's he's pulling in his "combat maneuver" videos?

I will rig up a G-meter mounting to do this testing!

3 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

I think he actually has done that in the past. @Chill31 Could you confirm if possible? Cheers!

I used a G-meter that was not up to the task, and my results were suspect.

2 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Talbot and I did some limited initial testing of aircraft damage VS. G-Forces earlier today - something we'd like to explore a little more in-depth. The GENERAL things we want to work out are:

a. What manoeuvres would a pilot typically use in combat and deem 'safe'? I have done a great deal of combat maneuvers as one would do in a turning dogfight, and below about 110 mph, there is not enough speed to hit more than 2-2.5 Gs. Loops, rolls, rudder turns, pull and bury the stick in my lap. All no big deal.

b. What kind of G forces do these manoeuvres cause? 2-2.5 typically, though 3-4 perhaps in an initial diving pass.

c. Can damaged wings withstand these kind of manoeuvres? If so, how much damage can they take before a structural failure? I can't answer that entirely. I do know that the spars of almost all WWI planes have drilled holes in them for bolts to attach fittings. Those holes are nicely done though versus the damage a bullet causes, so I imagine it is a great deal of chance as to whether or not a single bullet strikes a critical wing component that causes structural failure.

And, totally dependent on if Chill31 would do some IRL tests for our benefit (which we would be eternally thankful for, I'm sure!), and, more importantly, if said tests could be done SAFELY:

d. Are the in-game manoeuvres causing 'realistic' Wing-Loading vs. the real thing? I will DL the new patch tonight and try it tomorrow now that they have a G-meter in it.

May 21, 2020

9 hours ago, Tycoon said:

So you are basically saying it's "nice" the game is inaccurate when it comes to pulling G's and also nice because it is accurate when there is damage to the wings?

Not at all. If you are really at the limits of your airframe, then I don‘t expect many bullets (from almost dead 6) to make the difference of making or breaking.

What we have now is a huge step toward a plausible DM. No more, no less.

Also, the lighter the elevator controls, the easier it is to shed wings. If the stick is light enough, you can rip off any wings if you just go fast enough. In our game, unless you have FFB (I assume), you have no feel about this besides the aircraft becoming unresponsive at high g‘s where the actual input is lagging your joystick input drastically. Give the Dolphin Bf-109 controls and the wings would have stayed on in that maneuver.

Even biplane controls can seize up considerably at high speeds. In a Bü-131 for instance, at 170 km/h the controls are light enough to fly the aircraft with two fingers. At 270 km/h, it requires both hands and considerable force. What was done in the video in terms of elevator input is next to impossible in a real Bücker.

My advice is, learn to fly. We have a g meter now. Look at it. Learn your moves and wings stay on.

Edited May 21, 2020 by ZachariasX

May 21, 2020

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

As for how much stock to put on the MvR data: I would say a lot, at least when talking about Entente aircraft damage. These are not based on anecdotes, but contemporary official reports checked by thorough historical research. If someone could find the combat reports of other German aces that would be wonderful - but I suspect that such do not exist or they surely would have been found by now.

Good point. Re: German Ace Combat Reports -

In addition to "Under the Guns of the Red Baron", Franks has also released "Under the Guns of the German Aces" which examines the victories of Voss, Goring, LvR and Immelmann, and "Under the Guns of the Kaiser's Aces" which details Bohme, Muller, Von Tutscher and Wolff. I've just ordered copies of both.

EDIT: Did LOTS more testing tonight, with more interesting results from PvP dogfights. DM report Pt. 2 coming soon with some more data. All I can say is...don't fly a BnZer!

Edited May 21, 2020 by US93_Larner

May 21, 2020

6 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

And what about the shaking? Today* I had to go back to base in almost every sortie because with just a few hits my plane started to shake. Could that be revised as well? Do people like this feature? As far as I know, the shaking thing would come from intense drag or visible structural damage that would affect the balance or airflow. Unless every hit is causing fuselage and wing fractures, the plane is not supposed to shake at all. Perhaps if you get lots of hits in the wing you could have some model for ripped fabric and some drag, but not with a few hits. This is an old feature from ROF that was always criticized if I'm not mistaken. Could you guys get onboard on this or some people like to be shaking in the cockpit? As far as it goes for me, it makes me return to base, especially with this wing shredding thing still going on.

The Fokker D7 also sounds off if we are talking about all planes made of wood.

If the Camel and SPAD have less staying power with the new DM, it could have some interesting gameplay repercussions.

Of course, the Camel and SPAD have always needed this staying power, as they're up against the Fokker D.VIIF all the time. Only, the Fokker D.VIIF is almost always included because the rest of the Central lineup is garbage, which is accurate by April 1918 standards. If the new DM somehow makes them less trash, we could consider no longer including the late 1918 machines (Bristol F.III, Halb 200hp, D.VIIF).

It's a situation we've never had before in RoF either, as the Camel and Dr.I pre-1.034 had comparable performance, and most Central flyers heavily favoured the Fokker Dr.I over the Fokker D.VIIF. Post-1.034 the Camel and Dr.I were both "reworked" in the same way and lost a lot of performance. In FC the Camel has always been the much better performing machine compared to the Fokker Dr.I, but with a comparable amount of durability.

May 21, 2020

5 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Good point. Re: German Ace Combat Reports -

In addition to "Under the Guns of the Red Baron", Franks has also released "Under the Guns of the German Aces" which examines the victories of Voss, Goring, LvR and Immelmann, and "Under the Guns of the Kaiser's Aces" which details Bohme, Muller, Von Tutscher and Wolff. I've just ordered copies of both.

EDIT: Did LOTS more testing tonight, with more interesting results from PvP dogfights. DM report Pt. 2 coming soon with some more data. All I can say is...don't fly a BnZer!

Terrific - I somehow failed to notice that. Now if only Thailand will start to allow inbound air travel again, I will try to get copies from Amazon myself.

May 21, 2020

13 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Some more initial testing by Talbot and myself has seemingly revealed something very interesting.

It would appear that airspeed as well as G-loading will cause a wing-rip. In other words, the faster you go, the less Gs you can take.

For example: When dive-testing an undamaged SPAD XIII today, I was able to pull 9G (or just over) out of a dive at 260 km/h. Respawning to get a fresh plane, I ripped my wings at about 8G when trying to pull out of a dive at 270 km/h.

Now, I only have a very base understanding of aerodynamics, but that seems odd to me...? Should higher airspeed limit an aircraft's ability to take on G force?

Been dusting off my 20 year-old physics textbooks the last few months to try to bring back something of what I used to know (lock-down gets boring....! ? )

So in a detemined effort to wrest away the 'nerd of the week' trophy from yourself, I believe the force exerted on a turning plane (either a flat horizontal turn, or as in this case the pulling out of a dive) would be:

F = (mv^2)/R

m = mass of plane (so heavier aircraft feel more force)

v = velocity (and it's squared, so variations in speed make a bigger difference)

R = is the radius of the turn (so a tight turn leads to more force than a wider turn)

So, yes speed matters. And it's not that "the faster you go, the less Gs you can take" - the G-limit of the airframe will stay the same (unless reduced by damage) - but that turning at a faster speed produces a bigger (G-load) force on the aircraft structure, and so is more likely to exceed the plane's limits.

(And as you say the drag on the wing would also increase with higher speed, but I don't think that would be an issue (unless someone could make a biplane go at 500mph maybe)

Also, your graph from above explains why, playing only offline against AI, I didn't see many wings coming off, and kept arguing here about it..... ?

Edited May 21, 2020 by kendo

May 21, 2020

11 hours ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Yes but, The DR1 is not really a good plane to represent what we're looking for, The wings are far shorter than what any of the other ww1 planes had. We all know you can break a longer stick much easier than a short one. That's why the DR1 was some much stronger than every thing else and didn't need wires.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the SE5a that had the shortest wing sections. Not only does it have normal bays but also mid bay flying wires.to boot.

May 21, 2020

Something interesting that came to me after posting the above.

You said that the G meter was showing 8G the time the wings came off at the higher speed, instead of 9G. So why, despite everything I wrote above should the wings fail at a lower indicated G-force?

I think it has to be this: the G-meter measures the G experienced by the pilot and the plane's airframe. But the actual force on the airframe will vary depending on how heavy the plane is:

From F = (mv^2)/R

If a plane has greater mass m, the airframe will experience a greater force in a turn, or pulling out of a dive. So, if a plane has full fuel and ammo load it will be heavier, and the force on the airframe will be greater than for an empty plane.

So even though the pilot (and G-meter) would register the same G for a turn with same speed and turning circle, the airframe of a heavily loaded plane would feel more force than an unloaded one, and might reach its limit. So, by respawning to get a fresh plane, you presumably got one with more fuel and ammo than previously, so it failed earlier.

So, if testing you need to ensure you use the same loaded weight for the plane.

(and if that isn't it, I don't have a clue....?!) ?

Edited May 21, 2020 by kendo

May 21, 2020

I played a little last evening. The new DM is a good step forward, and I actually like the inclusion of a G-meter because it's hard to ascertain how many G's you're pulling for testing purposes otherwise. I was almost certainly pulling higher G's than I had originally thought when playing.

I'd be interested in learning about how the new DM compares to a broader body of kill statistics from the historical record. And I'd like to see flight model adjustments explored in the future, especially with the on-going discussion of SE5a performance we've had.

But I think we're headed in a good direction so far with this.

May 21, 2020

Definitely a step in the right direction! Most of the birds are now feeling sturdier with the exception of the Spad where I don’t feel much difference. Dva definitely seems tougher and now more of a match for the Camels. Diii also feels super acrobatic and great to safely throw around.

The Dvii is now hilariously tough! Even with the 11mm it feels like I’m shooting a metal WW2 bird. Reminds me a bit of using the two small mgs on the MC202 vs FW-190s. It’ll make MP balancing harder without additions like engine mods (earlier Camel, au engines etc).

May 21, 2020

Total force experienced pulling out of a dive would be Fg + Fc

May 21, 2020

5 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

If the Camel and SPAD have less staying power with the new DM, it could have some interesting gameplay repercussions.

Of course, the Camel and SPAD have always needed this staying power, as they're up against the Fokker D.VIIF all the time. Only, the Fokker D.VIIF is almost always included because the rest of the Central lineup is garbage, which is accurate by April 1918 standards. If the new DM somehow makes them less trash, we could consider no longer including the late 1918 machines (Bristol F.III, Halb 200hp, D.VIIF).

It's a situation we've never had before in RoF either, as the Camel and Dr.I pre-1.034 had comparable performance, and most Central flyers heavily favoured the Fokker Dr.I over the Fokker D.VIIF. Post-1.034 the Camel and Dr.I were both "reworked" in the same way and lost a lot of performance. In FC the Camel has always been the much better performing machine compared to the Fokker Dr.I, but with a comparable amount of durability.

Are you suggesting using the damage model to nerf some planes? Or that it served this purpose? That's what I understood. Who would play in such conditions? In fact I'm not even sure if I'll be back today for more testings.

May 21, 2020

12 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said:

Total force experienced pulling out of a dive would be Fg + Fc

True, so pulling out of a dive would be worse than turning at same speed in a flat turn, as gravity adds to the total force on the airframe.

Edited May 21, 2020 by kendo

May 21, 2020

28 minutes ago, kendo said:

Something interesting that came to me after posting the above.

You said that the G meter was showing 8G the time the wings came off at the higher speed, instead of 9G. So why, despite everything I wrote above should the wings fail at a lower indicated G-force?

I think it has to be this: the G-meter measures the G-force experienced by the pilot. But this may be different from the force on the plane's airframe.

From F = (mv^2)/R

If a plane has greater mass m, the airframe will experience a greater force in a turn, or pulling out of a dive. So, if a plane has full fuel and ammo load it will be heavier, and the force on the airframe will be greater than for an empty plane.

So even though the pilot (and G-meter) would register the same G for a turn with same speed and turning circle, the airframe of a heavily loaded plane would feel more force than an unloaded one, and might reach its limit.

So, if testing you need to ensure you use the same loaded weight for the plane.

(and if that isn't it, I don't have a clue....?!) ?

To put another way, just to help me get my head around this.... g in aeronautics is not really a force but a ratio of lift/weight. So level flight is g=1, g=0 is no lift at all, etc, irrespective of weight.

Clearly a heavier plane needs more lift to fly level, whether turning or not, and it makes no difference where that weight comes from. That lift is a real force.

I think they used to test by putting planes on trestles and adding weights until the wings snapped. Breaking weight / original weight then being the breaking point in gs. So if you had a plane with a huge fuel and bomb load, and then added weights until the wings snapped, you could add less weight than if you started empty. So the breaking point of wings expressed in gs must be at a specified operating weight.

2 minutes ago, kendo said:

True, so pulling out of a dive would be worse than turning at same speed in a flat turn, as gravity adds to the total force on the airframe.

Not necessarily, because gravity is always acting on your plane in exactly the same way. A 60 degree flat turn, for instance, always has a g of 2, irrespective of speed or weight. Pure geometry.

May 21, 2020

In a level turn there would be a smaller element related to the angle of the bank.

May 21, 2020

We've been working hard and have at least 75 "tests" for study from our server

May 21, 2020

The angle of bank increases the lift you have to produce in order to stay level. How much extra lift depends on the angle of bank. Once you reach 90 degrees bank you need infinite lift.

So as I said - it depends.

May 21, 2020

11 hours ago, Chill31 said:

I saw a load testing of the Dr.I...I think it was done by Fokker or maybe Achim Engles. The result was a load limit for the Dr.I at about 6.5 to 7 Gs. Lets say you hit 6 Gs several times in a fight...the 4th time, you could be pulling the wings off, despite being under the ultimate load limit.

Can we begin to agree that we likely have gotten used to expecting to be able to fly these birds online in a fashion that over short periods of time just were not realistic or tolerable in real life?

Edited May 21, 2020 by J5_Baeumer

May 21, 2020

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

To put another way, just to help me get my head around this.... g in aeronautics is not really a force but a ratio of lift/weight. So level flight is g=1, g=0 is no lift at all, etc, irrespective of weight.

...

i was worried someone would ask me this ?

I'll put this in a spoiler to avoid inflicting more of this on everyone....

Spoiler

I'll speak from what i know in physics. it comes down to the slightly imprecise way we tend to speak of G's, G-force, etc, which tends to mix up two different things: acceleration and force.

So, for instance, acceleration due to gravity (written as small g) is 9.8m/s^2. A man of mass 80kg will feel a force due to this gravity (his weight) of mg = 80 x 9.8

An object turning in a circle will have an acceleration of a = v^2/R. But similarly to the above, the force felt by that object due to turning will be F = mv^2/R

So an aircraft (and pilot) turning at a certain speed v and radius R, will both feel the same acceleration a = v^2/R. If this acceleration is say, 19.6 m/s^2, then we describe it as a 2G turn. and the in-game G-meter will give this.

But the force exerted on the airframe will be different if the aircraft is more heavily loaded (fuel and ammo, etc).

In this case the m in mv^2/R will be bigger for the fully loaded plane, and so the force exerted when it turns will also be bigger.

Edited May 21, 2020 by kendo

May 21, 2020

9 minutes ago, J5_Baeumer said:

Can we begin to agree that we likely have gotten used to expecting to be able to fly these birds online in a fashion that over short periods of time just were not realistic or tolerable in real life?

May 21, 2020

18 minutes ago, kendo said:

i was worried someone would ask me this ?

I'll put this in a spoiler to avoid inflicting more of this on everyone....

Hide contents

I'll speak from what i know in physics. it comes down to the slightly imprecise way we tend to speak of G's, G-force, etc, which tends to mix up two different things: acceleration and force.

So, for instance, acceleration due to gravity (written as small g) is 9.8m/s^2. A man of mass 80kg will feel a force due to this gravity (his weight) of mg = 80 x 9.8

An object turning in a circle will have an acceleration of a = v^2/R. But similarly to the above, the force felt by that object due to turning will be F = mv^2/R

So an aircraft (and pilot) turning at a certain speed v and radius R, will both feel the same acceleration a = v^2/R. If this acceleration is say, 19.6 m/s^2, then we describe it as a 2G turn.

But, for the force, things get different.

The pilot's mass will not tend to change between flights (* see below) 80kg, and so mv^2/R for him will also produce a felt force twice that of his weight (2G) , and the in-game G-meter will give this.

But the force exerted on the airframe will be different if the aircraft is more heavily loaded (fuel and ammo, etc).

In this case the m in mv^2/R will be bigger for the fully loaded plane, and so the "g-load"force exerted when it turns will also be bigger.

--------------------------------

*

(unless he is a French pilot after lunch, in which case he may well be heavier, and also feeling the effects of half a bottle of red wine...)

May 21, 2020

1 hour ago, kendo said:

True, so pulling out of a dive would be worse than turning at same speed in a flat turn, as gravity adds to the total force on the airframe.

No, the G-meter is the end all be all regarding instantaneous G load. 6 Gs is 6 Gs to the airplane.

The turn circle physics take into account "God's G," normal acceleration from gravity. A pull up into a loop at 6 Gs is really only using 5 Gs to pitch up. Once inverted, a 6 G pull receives 7 G of turn performance. Throughout all of this maneuvering, the plane feels only 6Gs.

It is true, a lighter loaded plane can pull more Gs than a heavier plane. It depends on materials, but I think it is pretty close to linear. If you reduce weight by 10%, the plane can handle 10% more Gs. If you can pull 8Gs fully loaded, you could pull 9 by cutting weight by 12%.

**i should add that rolling and pulling Gs creates asymmetric G loads. This means one wing is pulling more Gs than the other. In a 6G rolling pull, one wing could experience 5G and be fine while the other experiences 7 and breaks apart.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Chill31
Asymmetric Gs

May 21, 2020

1 hour ago, kendo said:

Hide contents

I'll speak from what i know in physics. it comes down to the slightly imprecise way we tend to speak of G's, G-force, etc, which tends to mix up two different things: acceleration and force.

So, for instance, acceleration due to gravity (written as small g) is 9.8m/s^2. A man of mass 80kg will feel a force due to this gravity (his weight) of mg = 80 x 9.8

An object turning in a circle will have an acceleration of a = v^2/R. But similarly to the above, the force felt by that object due to turning will be F = mv^2/R

So an aircraft (and pilot) turning at a certain speed v and radius R, will both feel the same acceleration a = v^2/R. If this acceleration is say, 19.6 m/s^2, then we describe it as a 2G turn.

But, for the force, things get different.

The pilot's mass will not tend to change between flights (* see below) 80kg, and so mv^2/R for him will also produce a felt force twice that of his weight (2G) , and the in-game G-meter will give this.

But the force exerted on the airframe will be different if the aircraft is more heavily loaded (fuel and ammo, etc).

In this case the m in mv^2/R will be bigger for the fully loaded plane, and so the "g-load"force exerted when it turns will also be bigger.

--------------------------------

*

(unless he is a French pilot after lunch, in which case he may well be heavier, and also feeling the effects of half a bottle of red wine...)

Spoiler

I am agreeing with you, essentially, that the actual force on the wings is not perfectly measured by an accelerometer unless the weight is specified, but I think your explanation is potentially confusing in it's use of terms.

Take two otherwise identical planes of different weights to fly exactly the same track (flightpath, altitude and speed). The heavier plane must generate more lift throughout. Lift is a real force which can break wings. So there must be some circumstances where the wings of the heavier plane will break but those of the lighter one not.

The pilots, however, will feel the same accelerations, (unless the wings of the heavy plane break ) since their motion is identical. The planes will also have the same load factor at identical points on the track, since this is a ratio.

So the only point of real disagreement is that I would not say that the heavier plane experiences a higher "g-load": it does not. It experiences a higher force needed to make the same "g-load".

Edited May 21, 2020 by unreasonable

May 21, 2020

On 5/21/2020 at 4:39 PM, Chill31 said:

No, the G-meter is the end all be all regarding instantaneous G load. 6 Gs is 6 Gs to the airplane.

The turn circle physics take into account "God's G," normal acceleration from gravity. A pull up into a loop at 6 Gs is really only using 5 Gs to pitch up. Once inverted, a 6 G pull receives 7 G of turn performance. Throughout all of this maneuvering, the plane feels only 6Gs.

It is true, a lighter loaded plane can pull more Gs than a heavier plane. It depends on materials, but I think it is pretty close to linear. If you reduce weight by 10%, the plane can handle 10% more Gs. If you can pull 8Gs fully loaded, you could pull 9 by cutting weight by 12%.

That's really what I was trying to say - that a fully loaded plane will experience a bigger force in the turn than the same plane when lighter. And so the same type of plane may break at different Gs.

(this is dangerous stuff to dip your toe into on this forum I am learning.... ?

I went back and edited some things to try to make it clearer )

On 5/21/2020 at 4:47 PM, unreasonable said:

Hide contents

I am agreeing with you, essentially, that the actual force on the wings is not perfectly measured by an accelerometer unless the weight is specified, but I think your explanation is potentially confusing in it's use of terms.

Take two otherwise identical planes of different weights to fly exactly the same track (flightpath, altitude and speed). The heavier plane must generate more lift throughout. Lift is a real force which can break wings. So there must be some circumstances where the wings of the heavier plane will break but those of the lighter one not.

The pilots, however, will feel the same accelerations, (unless the wings of the heavy plane break ) since their motion is identical. The planes will also have the same load factor at identical points on the track, since this is a ratio.

So the only point of real disagreement is that I would not say that the heavier plane experiences a higher "g-load": it does not. It experiences a higher force needed to make the same "g-load".

Reply below ?

Spoiler

We actually agree totally here. The problem came when i ignored my own advice and used a sloppy phrase "G-load force" at the end of that post. You're right - I should have just said force. (I've changed it now). I was trying to link in people's minds the two concepts but ended up making it more confusing.

And yeah, both pilots feel the same acceleration in that case.

edit (again!): You were right. Reading that post again it was more confusing than I thought, so went back and edited it. Hopefully clearer now.

Edited May 25, 2020 by kendo

May 21, 2020

I dig the hide-and-seek twist this thread's taken, just as it was getting boring ?

May 21, 2020

11 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Not at all. If you are really at the limits of your airframe, then I don‘t expect many bullets (from almost dead 6) to make the difference of making or breaking.

You did watch the videos I posted right? A few bullets from dead 6 is making or breaking the aircraft.

11 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

What we have now is a huge step toward a plausible DM. No more, no less.

I'd say a bit on the less side.

11 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

11 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

My advice is, learn to fly. We have a g meter now. Look at it. Learn your moves and wings stay on.

So I learn my moves, how I'm I supposed to know when I've lost 3 Gs of maneuverability after a few rounds go by my plane?

May 21, 2020

Anybody using a FFB stick? If so, does increasing dive-speed increasingly hinder control surface deflection?

May 21, 2020

33 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Anybody using a FFB stick? If so, does increasing dive-speed increasingly hinder control surface deflection?

The stick stiffens to some degree.(joystick that is) You can also feel the plane begin to shake.

May 21, 2020

15 hours ago, Chill31 said:

I want to say that they had the aircraft modeled so that G force damage was cumulative...anyone know if that is true? At any rate, I saw a load testing of the Dr.I...I think it was done by Fokker or maybe Achim Engles. The result was a load limit for the Dr.I at about 6.5 to 7 Gs. Lets say you hit 6 Gs several times in a fight...the 4th time, you could be pulling the wings off, despite being under the ultimate load limit.

I just don't see how the critical G load would be cumulatively reduced by repeatedly inducing the Gs to the load limit in real life... especially for wood spar wings. Wood is not subject to fatigue as metal is. Even metal spars would probably not fatigue enough to get anywhere close to causing failure in just one flight. But that is different from damage caused by being hit with rounds. I'm just saying that you should be able to pull whatever the load limit is ... say 6.5 G... all day and night long ad infinitum without failure of an undamaged spar. I haven't noticed any cumulative modeling of such in the game.

May 21, 2020

I just did a flight test with the new model and the G-meter. The G meter is a very cool feature, but something is flawed here. I'm not sure what it is, but I'll see if I can work with Andrey on it.

I did a loop in the Dr.I, starting at 90mph, just like mine. I hit 3.5 Gs in the pull up and 4.5 on the backside! I tried doing the loop at different levels of aft pull, and to get it to loop like mine (6.5 seconds to complete a loop), it takes almost full aft stick (which is they way it should be). The problem here is that full aft stick is giving me 3.5-4 Gs for the pull up and 4.5 on the back side of the loop.

I did left and right 360 turns, and the FC Dr.I stabilizes at 3.xx Gs. I don't think I have ever hit 3 Gs in a left or right turn...

3Gs is a good pull. You can feel the G force sagging your cheeks and pressing you into the seat at 3 Gs. At 4Gs, it is unmistakable. Your body feels heavy, cheeks defnitely sagging, and I will start an easy G strain to start keeping blood in my head. I am quite sure I have NEVER hit 4Gs in my Dr.I. I do feel compelled to check this with a G-meter now, in order to be sure I am accurate with my observations. For this moment though, I think something is off in the G force calculations.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Chill31

May 21, 2020

30 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Anybody using a FFB stick? If so, does increasing dive-speed increasingly hinder control surface deflection?

Yes (FFB G940) and not that I can see, at least in a D.VII which I just checked.

It did not feel different over the speed range including a long dive. I had no difficulty pulling parts of the wings off a D.VII with a sudden full elevator deflection in a dive, although you can feel the force feedback kicking in. Over a more normal flight regime I do not, the elevator is so light and effective. That is with 100% FFB setting and a very weak self centering spring. That is with unaltered default control curves.

I will leave that to the engineers here to decide if that is right or not.

May 21, 2020

4 minutes ago, JG1_Vonrd said:

I just don't see how the critical G load would be cumulatively reduced by repeatedly inducing the Gs to the load limit in real life... especially for wood spar wings. Wood is not subject to fatigue as metal is. Even metal spars would probably not fatigue enough to get anywhere close to causing failure in just one flight. But that is different from damage caused by being hit with rounds. I'm just saying that you should be able to pull whatever the load limit is ... say 6.5 G... all day and night long ad infinitum without failure of an undamaged spar. I haven't noticed any cumulative modeling of such in the game.

Metal spars are even worse than wood. There are two limits with solid materials, yield strength and ultimate strength. Yield strength is how much the material can take and still return to its original shape. If you exceed yield strength, the material will stay permanently deformed and have permanently reduced strength. For example, lets say a wing spar has a yield strength of 7 Gs and an ultimate strength of 9 Gs. I can pull to 7Gs all day long, no big deal. Lets say I pull to 7.1 Gs though...the material (Wood, metal, styrofoam, etc) will suffer permanent deformation, but it will not break apart. If I hit 7.1 Gs 100 times, it may fail from repeated permanent deformation. New Jet, new Day: If I hit 8.9 Gs, the next time I hit 7.8 Gs, it might fail, depending upon the material of course. Finally, New jet, new day: lets say I pull straight to 9.1 Gs. BOOM! Wings gone, because I exceeded the ultimate load in one shot.

10 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Yes (FFB G940) and not that I can see, at least in a D.VII which I just checked.

It did not feel different over the speed range including a long dive. I had no difficulty pulling parts of the wings off a D.VII with a sudden full elevator deflection in a dive, although you can feel the force feedback kicking in. Over a more normal flight regime I do not, the elevator is so light and effective. That is with 100% FFB setting and a very weak self centering spring. That is with unaltered default control curves.

I will leave that to the engineers here to decide if that is right or not.

Fokker Dr.I and D7 have extremely light control forces at all speeds...they are not a good example of the effects you guys are trying to study. Aircraft with non-aerodynamically balanced controls are the ones most susceptible to those effects. In my experience, old airplanes are built with enough control authority to break them with aggressive pitching. Ailerons can get very heavy though, and I would be surprised if any aircraft modeled in FC would break from rolling.

May 21, 2020

Thanks for the clarification Chill and I agree. I should have been more specific in referring to "yield" vs "ultimate". I still can't say for sure if this is in any way modeled in the game.

And just as an aside regarding wood spars I've seen numerous Citabria wood spar wings with cracks and they pretty much always followed the grain from fixture attach holes... usually from the strut and main attach points. This is an Airworthiness Directive. We had the choice of replacing the spars or buying new metal spar wings... I only rebuilt one set of wings with wood spars. The customer coughed up the $ for new metal spar wings in all other cases. That's not to say that metal spars aren't more susceptible to fatigue than wood (they certainly are) just that the "modern" wings are better engineered in this case..

Edited May 21, 2020 by JG1_Vonrd

May 21, 2020

38 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

I just did a flight test with the new model and the G-meter. The G meter is a very cool feature, but something is flawed here. I'm not sure what it is, but I'll see if I can work with Andrey on it.

I did a loop in the Dr.I, starting at 90mph, just like mine. I hit 3.5 Gs in the pull up and 4.5 on the backside! I tried doing the loop at different levels of aft pull, and to get it to loop like mine (8 seconds to complete a loop), it takes almost full aft stick (which is they way it should be). The problem here is that full aft stick is giving me 3.5-4 Gs for the pull up and 4.5 on the back side of the loop.

I did left and right 360 turns, and the FC Dr.I stabilizes at 3.xx Gs. I don't think I have ever hit 3 Gs in a left or right turn...

3Gs is a good pull. You can feel the G force sagging your cheeks and pressing you into the seat at 3 Gs. At 4Gs, it is unmistakable. Your body feels heavy, cheeks defnitely sagging, and I will start an easy G strain to start keeping blood in my head. I am quite sure I have NEVER hit 4Gs in my Dr.I. I do feel compelled to check this with a G-meter now, in order to be sure I am accurate with my observations. For this moment though, I think something is off in the G force calculations.

The difference between 2 and 3 gs in a level turn is only 10.6 degrees of bank angle. I am sure you would feel that difference in your real Dr.1 but not so easy on a screen while maintaining exact height as well. I found it fairly easy to maintain a D.VII at ~ 2gs with ~ 60 degrees flying very close to the water to incentivise level flight!

Anyway, be interested to hear your later observations: it is wonderful to have someone with a real WW1 biplane interested in our sim hobby. The G meter on the ground is showing 1.0, so at least that point is right!

27 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

Fokker Dr.I and D7 have extremely light control forces at all speeds...they are not a good example of the effects you guys are trying to study. Aircraft with non-aerodynamically balanced controls are the ones most susceptible to those effects. In my experience, old airplanes are built with enough control authority to break them with aggressive pitching. Ailerons can get very heavy though, and I would be surprised if any aircraft modeled in FC would break from rolling.

Thanks - probably why I like flying the D.VII so much. I will have a go on a SPAD as well.

Edited May 21, 2020 by unreasonable

May 21, 2020

I flew the turns in the FC Dr1 the way I did in this video, with no regard for maintaining height. At 1:25 in the video, you can see that I have demanded everything from the airplane, and it hits an accelerated stall with slight right wing drop. If i am pulling 3-4 Gs, these are the easiest Gs I've ever pulled in my life.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Chill31

May 21, 2020

1 hour ago, JG1_Vonrd said:

That's not to say that metal spars aren't more susceptible to fatigue than wood (they certainly are) just that the "modern" wings are better engineered in this case..

Out of curiosity, in your experience, where do you see fatigue damage easier, metal or wood?

2 hours ago, Tycoon said:

how I'm I supposed to know when I've lost 3 Gs of maneuverability after a few rounds go by my plane?

To understand you correctly, since after some bullets hit and your plane broke up at 6 g, you assume sturctutal strenght of the Dolphin is 9 g?

As we are truly riding ther very edge of the envelope in this game, there are probably several factors in play that give us what we see.

Edited May 21, 2020 by ZachariasX

4.006 DM Discussion

Recommended Posts

US103_Baer

emely

NO.20_W_M_Thomson

unreasonable

Chill31

ZachariasX

No.23_Triggers

BMA_Hellbender

unreasonable

kendo

HagarTheHorrible

kendo

NO.20_Krispy_Duck

No.23_Starling

JGr2/J5_Klugermann

SeaW0lf

kendo

unreasonable

JGr2/J5_Klugermann

No.23_Gaylion

unreasonable

JGr2/J5_Baeumer

kendo

JGr2/J5_Baeumer

No.23_Gaylion

Chill31

unreasonable

kendo

Zooropa_Fly

Tycoon

76SQN-FatherTed

JGr2/J5_Klugermann

JG1_Vonrd

Chill31

unreasonable

Chill31

JG1_Vonrd

unreasonable

Chill31

ZachariasX

Browse All

Activity