PDA

View Full Version : Oleg: A better way to simulate High G structual damage



FatBoyHK
01-08-2005, 11:48 PM
No, this is not a whine post. Wing should break in high g, and we have this simulated realistically in this game. (OK, it is debatable, but this is not my point).

however, i think oleg didn't simulated it completely, and that is why some people think some planes, especially Mustang, is being intentionally porked.

Suppose you pull your stick slowly when you are in very high speed, Before you can possibly break a wing, you should first heard something strange, like stressing a high tension wire... then if you keep pulling your stick, the sound become somethings like twisting metal, and you know it is bad. Keep pulling, and the wing will break.

Some game, like Janes WWII fighter, have this kind of effect. And I think it is way more realistic than keeping your wing in one moment and then losing it in the very next moment. The "critical" stick force is difficult to predict, it is related to your speed, your stick sensitivity, trim, etc... In real life pilot don't predict in this way, instead they will use their feeling toward G pull, and the "response" their plane is giving out. G pull can't be simulated in this game, all we can do is a black screen, but you can't feel precisely how strong the pull is. The plane's response to G, on the other hand, is very easy to simulate.

Progressive damage model can be done, but it may be a bit too much to Oleg... So why don't we suggest, let say, a "tension wire" sound when I reach 80% of of my plabe's G limit, "twisting metal" sound at 90%, and, of course, a broken wing at 100% ? By this way I think most of us would have no problem keep our wing intact... and if someone do break his wing, this would be no more excuse.

FatBoyHK
01-08-2005, 11:48 PM
No, this is not a whine post. Wing should break in high g, and we have this simulated realistically in this game. (OK, it is debatable, but this is not my point).

however, i think oleg didn't simulated it completely, and that is why some people think some planes, especially Mustang, is being intentionally porked.

Suppose you pull your stick slowly when you are in very high speed, Before you can possibly break a wing, you should first heard something strange, like stressing a high tension wire... then if you keep pulling your stick, the sound become somethings like twisting metal, and you know it is bad. Keep pulling, and the wing will break.

Some game, like Janes WWII fighter, have this kind of effect. And I think it is way more realistic than keeping your wing in one moment and then losing it in the very next moment. The "critical" stick force is difficult to predict, it is related to your speed, your stick sensitivity, trim, etc... In real life pilot don't predict in this way, instead they will use their feeling toward G pull, and the "response" their plane is giving out. G pull can't be simulated in this game, all we can do is a black screen, but you can't feel precisely how strong the pull is. The plane's response to G, on the other hand, is very easy to simulate.

Progressive damage model can be done, but it may be a bit too much to Oleg... So why don't we suggest, let say, a "tension wire" sound when I reach 80% of of my plabe's G limit, "twisting metal" sound at 90%, and, of course, a broken wing at 100% ? By this way I think most of us would have no problem keep our wing intact... and if someone do break his wing, this would be no more excuse.

CD_Metal_heaD
01-09-2005, 06:49 AM
sounds good to me.

FatBoyHK
01-09-2005, 07:43 PM
actually, I have a quite "alternative" solution... that is, to reduce the effectiveness of a Mustang's elevator at high speed... If this can solve the problem, I don't mind that.... a hyper-responsive elevator is damaging more than helping anyway.....

Don't know if it is a good solution in the realism point of view... so, if it is bad, just forget about it

but indeed it is not a solution... it is a work-around only.... we still need some kind of warning so that we can make our own judgement.

LEXX_Luthor
01-09-2005, 09:57 PM
I like the idea of continous or progressive process to breakup. I believe this will be modeled in BoB. But the pilot should not hear any sound indicating future breakup, and hear no warning, over the sound of engines. Oleg said such damage will continue through the next missions in a campaign--if the damage is not fixed I guess.

I am guessing (?) that NO flight simmer at this webboard has read any WW2 pilot account of hearing their aircraft approach break up condition, especially over the sound of engines. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

We read many pilot accounts of landing and being told by ground mechanics that the aircraft had been damaged enough to be near breakup. In these cases, no sound was reported being heard by the pilot in flight when the aircraft first approached this breakup condition. In these real life stories, the only way the pilot found out was through the aircraft mechanic after landing.

We flight simmers have no idea of how sudden a fast flying aircraft breaks up when it finally does it. If the pilot does not see any indication of physical damage, he won't hear any, especially over the sound of engines (pilot may hear engine damage, off topic though).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>we still need some kind of warning so that we can make our own judgement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good point about not having a way to make judgement. Real life pilots didn't get any sound warning to make their own judgements. The ones that survived flying combat respected the aircraft's limits and pushed it beyond those limits knowing that sudden breakup could come as total surprise and with no sound warning.

Aaron_GT
01-10-2005, 01:22 AM
"if the damage is not fixed I guess."

I hope it is possible to set the dilligence of the ground crews as a campaign option then! There could be potential for some interesting strategic modelling here. If you bomb aircraft factories then new planes are short requiring more repairs meaning a greater chance of stressed airframes being used and unexpected failures. You'd need some sort of slider to control whether aircraft are repaired or scrapped that you can set appropriately depending on new aircraft availability. Could get complex!

FatBoyHK
01-10-2005, 01:38 AM
let's get back to the topic, shall we ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FatBoyHK
01-10-2005, 02:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
But the pilot should not hear any sound indicating future breakup, and hear no warning, over the sound of engines.

I am guessing (?) that NO flight simmer at this webboard has read any WW2 pilot account of _hearing_ their aircraft approach break up condition, especially over the sound of engines. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

We read many pilot accounts of landing and being told by ground mechanics that the aircraft had been damaged enough to be near breakup. In these cases, no sound was reported being heard by the pilot in flight when the aircraft first approached this breakup condition. In these real life stories, the only way the pilot found out was through the aircraft mechanic after landing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, let's put it this way. We don't see much report of Mustang broke its wing during hard G turn. it did occurred but it was not so frequent. But it is very easy to break a wing in this game, even I am careful. To try to explain that, let me do some guessing:

1. It is a game and people do what real pilot wouldn't do. Yes it is true to some extent. But as I said before, you can break your wing even if you are careful. Of course you can avoid this damage altogther, by doing virtually no turning once your speed exceed 350 MPH.... it can be done but it really limits your choice, and hence your competitiveness. I don't think it simulates the real world realistically.

2. There is some kind of warnings that RL pilot could sense, but not being simulated in this game. I believe it this way, but some of us here don't agree with me.

3. Mustang wing IRL can take some G punishment before it break. I heard quite a few reports saying some planes make it back home with G-damage, and their pilots didn't notice anything wrong until being told by their mechanics.

4. Mustang's elevator in the cureent version is too sensitive in high speed. It enable you to pull excessive G too easily, which you can't do IRL.

Now I think point 3 and 4 may be the reasons. Pls comment.