External stores speed limits
-
It would be in T.O. 1F-16CJ-1-2 which isn’t public AFAIK. I’m seeing a few 600 KIAS 1.6M on the fuel tanks. I swear I saw store carriage limitations somewhere.
-
Good question. I will say that if I am “fully loaded” I generally aim to stay under mach.
I’d check the HFFM, Dash-1, and RP5 docs…
-
I thought I read it some where (real life Flight manual or something) where there’s many many pages showing different stores config and it’s speed limits. Anyone has a link to that manual? I thought I found it on Scribd but can’t seem to find it now.
Also, is speed limit modelled in BMS? I do remember hearing some cracking sound if I fly too fast (maybe more than 600kts or so) while heavily loaded.
Definitely is some speed limits modeled, if you overspeed the aircraft the nozzle will start producing black smoke…
Im sure Ive seem store limitations for falcon kicking around somewhere and like Frederf, Im not sure where… skimming through RDs -1 and RP5 atm. Didnt see it in RP5 yet.
I did see a complaint in the RP5 manual however, about some flavors of falcon having unrealistic faults generated for exceeding rated limits in the sim…
-
I did see a complaint in the RP5 manual however, about some flavors of falcon having unrealistic faults generated for exceeding rated limits in the sim…
The faults are un-realistic to be sure. Two of my incentive flights were with wing tanks attached and the pilot just left it in Cat 1 and we torqued the crap out of the airplane to try to get it to 9 Gs. Now with wing tanks it won’t quite get to 9 Gs but it will get really close.
The reason I don’t bother talking about how un-realistic this particular potion of flight is because there are many things that would come out as a result of constantly flying like that which are well outside of the scope of this sim thus there has to be something in play to just keep people from saying screw it and leave it in Cat 1 all day long. Things like phased inspections, ASIP, etc. which the real air forces have to deal with that we get to happily ignore.
-
The faults are un-realistic to be sure. Two of my incentive flights were with wing tanks attached and the pilot just left it in Cat 1 and we torqued the crap out of the airplane to try to get it to 9 Gs. Now with wing tanks it won’t quite get to 9 Gs but it will get really close.
The reason I don’t bother talking about how un-realistic this particular potion of flight is because there are many things that would come out as a result of constantly flying like that which are well outside of the scope of this sim thus there has to be something in play to just keep people from saying screw it and leave it in Cat 1 all day long. Things like phased inspections, ASIP, etc. which the real air forces have to deal with that we get to happily ignore.
Well, I guess Ill have to add “a config realism switch to toggle realistic faults” to my list of IFF I got to direct the dev team wish list : D
-
Well, I guess Ill have to add “a config realism switch to toggle realistic faults” to my list of IFF I got to direct the dev team wish list : D
There are no realistic faults for leaving it in Cat 1 and over torqueing the aircraft PER FLIGHT. The airframe will put up with that abuse for awhile and only develop problems a bit later down the road during a phased or ASIP inspection of the aircraft. Like I said that is beyond the scope of this simulation.
When I was on those two incentive flights and we were pulling close to 9 Gs with wing tanks/TERs/SUUs on board NOTHING happened. Nothing broke. It just took the abuse.
That is fine and dandy when done on occasion but if you do that every flight the airframes will not last. There is nothing in this sim that deals with that kind of scenario so if you were to remove the negative effects of over speed/over G that the sim has in play then you go from un-realistic to REALLY un-realistic as everyone will just ignore the Stores Config light and leave it in Cat 1 all the time with zero ill effects since the sim only deals with one flight at a time.
-
That is fine and dandy when done on occasion but if you do that every flight the airframes will not last. There is nothing in this sim that deals with that kind of scenario so if you were to remove the negative effects of over speed/over G that the sim has in play then you go from un-realistic to REALLY un-realistic as everyone will just ignore the Stores Config light and leave it in Cat 1 all the time with zero ill effects since the sim only deals with one flight at a time.
Would be interesting to add ‘aircraft fatigue’ tracking to the campaign data.
-
I think one of the funniest odd things Ive experiances that should be fixed ( this happended a year ago or suchs) I had two flights on a row where I had loaded up with Mavs and ran into Su-30MKKs and I overspeeded trying to evade missiles.
so what happens… hung stores… nope but blown radar yes… I really dont understand how going 700-800 kts is going to kill the radar, as for the Mavericks I seem to rememeber not being able to aim them correctly but they still fired.
seems odd. -
so what happens… hung stores… nope but blown radar yes… I really dont understand how going 700-800 kts is going to kill the radar, as for the Mavericks I seem to rememeber not being able to aim them correctly but they still fired.
seems odd.I hope you still hit the target! I was playing with a friend of mine trying to teach him how to lock up with the mavericks and he couldn’t figure out how to get them to lock, but he got damned good at using them like rockets…good enough that I thought he had it all figured out!
-
There are no realistic faults for leaving it in Cat 1 and over torqueing the aircraft PER FLIGHT. The airframe will put up with that abuse for awhile and only develop problems a bit later down the road during a phased or ASIP inspection of the aircraft. Like I said that is beyond the scope of this simulation.
When I was on those two incentive flights and we were pulling close to 9 Gs with wing tanks/TERs/SUUs on board NOTHING happened. Nothing broke. It just took the abuse.
That is fine and dandy when done on occasion but if you do that every flight the airframes will not last. There is nothing in this sim that deals with that kind of scenario so if you were to remove the negative effects of over speed/over G that the sim has in play then you go from un-realistic to REALLY un-realistic as everyone will just ignore the Stores Config light and leave it in Cat 1 all the time with zero ill effects since the sim only deals with one flight at a time.
I realise this, but I have to take the comment that the developers (DeeJay comes to mind) throw out all the time - Falcon is a program. Whether it is a simulation or not comes down to how you use it.
Id like the kinds of random faults that the jet can have. Id like to see the option of scrubbed missions due to the plane having a fault discovered during ramp start - Id like ramp start checks to have a purpose. In the same vein, Id like to have the option of over"G"ing the aircraft once in a while with an increased risk of the wings breaking off in the future. Mebbe the plane is grounded until maintenance and a FCF can be scheduled. Either way, it comes down to having either unrealistic limitations to try to force people to fly in a prototypical way, or having realistic simulation and pointing out to people when they are doing it wrong.
By your reasoning, the devs could have saved time on modeling LCOs at certain speeds by just having the plane break if flown at those speeds with stores loaded - prevents players from ignoring LCOs and having small ill effects.
Anyway. A config switch would have the benefit that you could choose whether you wanted that setting enforced. That way, there is something for everyone.
Would be interesting to add ‘aircraft fatigue’ tracking to the campaign data.
I think doing this without it being really abstracted would be a ridiculous amount of work to change falcon from its present setup, where individual planes are not tracked, just squadrons and how many planes they have… would be REALLY cool if it could be done though. Mebbe in 4.40?
-
An idea would be to lower your campaign/TE score for over stress the jet….probably not doable and not sure if folks would really care that they got marked down for bending the jet by careless action.
-
I realise this, but I have to take the comment that the developers (DeeJay comes to mind) throw out all the time - Falcon is a program. Whether it is a simulation or not comes down to how you use it.
Id like the kinds of random faults that the jet can have. Id like to see the option of scrubbed missions due to the plane having a fault discovered during ramp start
Well there is an option for selecting random failures currently. One plane having a problem isn’t going to necessarily scrub a mission though. Now if the pilot goes to the spare and that breaks as well then you can run into that for lack of spares/range time.
Id like ramp start checks to have a purpose.
Yeah I saw a post specifically about this which I though made sense. For players that went ramp start and didn’t have random fails selected even then if they didn’t go through some procedure, like a FLCS BIT or some such that there would be a chance of failure based on that. But if the BIT was performed then it would work as it does now without random fails selected.
In the same vein, Id like to have the option of over"G"ing the aircraft once in a while with an increased risk of the wings breaking off in the future. Mebbe the plane is grounded until maintenance and a FCF can be scheduled.
Well if you know what an FCF is then you also know that F-16s don’t break in a way that makes FCFs common.
Either way, it comes down to having either unrealistic limitations to try to force people to fly in a prototypical way, or having realistic simulation and pointing out to people when they are doing it wrong.
True but I think they looked at the situation and chose the lesser of two evils as it were.
By your reasoning, the devs could have saved time on modeling LCOs at certain speeds by just having the plane break if flown at those speeds with stores loaded - prevents players from ignoring LCOs and having small ill effects.
That is about as apples and oranges a comparison as possible. LCOs don’t break the aircraft in any fashion and could easily (at least easily enough) be duplicated in a realistic way. So how do you try and compare something that the sim can, and was, programmed for in a realistic way (LCOs) to something that is completely outside the realm of what the sim was built to do (long term fleet health/logistics)? There is just a WEE bit of difference between something that can be done in the sim versus something that can’t or won’t due to the complexity/time requirement to try and build what doesn’t exist at all now.
You could have the same complaint with landing gear over speed conditions as those break the aircraft in an un-realistic way as well. I just chalk up that coding as learning the book limits of the aircraft in the school of hard knocks.
Anyway. A config switch would have the benefit that you could choose whether you wanted that setting enforced. That way, there is something for everyone.
That brings in more complication as you then have to add in another switch to be able to force that one way or another for PVP scenarios like Falcon Online.
-
Well there is an option for selecting random failures currently. One plane having a problem isn’t going to necessarily scrub a mission though. Now if the pilot goes to the spare and that breaks as well then you can run into that for lack of spares/range time.
True but the current random failures don’t make sense to have and they don’t respond to emergency procedures the way they should according to the -1. Also in Falcon there is no provisions to grab a spare - and backing out of and coming back into a mission can mess things up.
Yeah I saw a post specifically about this which I though made sense. For players that went ramp start and didn’t have random fails selected even then if they didn’t go through some procedure, like a FLCS BIT or some such that there would be a chance of failure based on that. But if the BIT was performed then it would work as it does now without random fails selected.
Hmm. Im not thrilled with the idea, if only because that scenario precludes the player ever finding a fault in the startup routine. Startup and checks ought to involve actually checking how things happen, rather than just flicking a prescribed series of switches. I recall a story of the one flight student (civvie) who was just pointing to the gauges his instructor had and saying to himself what the gauge was supposed to read, without actually checking that the gauge in fact was at the correct reading.
True but I think they looked at the situation and chose the lesser of two evils as it were.
well I think in some places they have the one attitude and in others the other. Its not consistent. For instance, the Mirage has the ability to carry the MICA in BMS, which is modelled with a IR seeker that can track targets roughly 40 miles away. Now the correct way for the player to employ this weapon relies on them firing with a radar lock first, but its possible for them to take advantage of the modelling by just uncaging the seeker whenever they feel like it, and if a target is ahead of them it will track.
Whereas the other option would be to force the range shorter, which would prevent the unrealistic employment of the weapon but also remove the ability to do things that the real weapon CAN do. I guess if it were a consistent philosophy I could appreciate the lesser of two evils argument - Id still disagree which is the lesser evil, Id just be able to agree with the logic used to get to the conclusion.
That is about as apples and oranges a comparison as possible. LCOs don’t break the aircraft in any fashion and could easily (at least easily enough) be duplicated in a realistic way. So how do you try and compare something that the sim can, and was, programmed for in a realistic way (LCOs) to something that is completely outside the realm of what the sim was built to do (long term fleet health/logistics)? There is just a WEE bit of difference between something that can be done in the sim versus something that can’t or won’t due to the complexity/time requirement to try and build what doesn’t exist at all now.
You could have the same complaint with landing gear over speed conditions as those break the aircraft in an un-realistic way as well. I just chalk up that coding as learning the book limits of the aircraft in the school of hard knocks.
Well, for starters originally the sim was not programmed to model LCOs in any way. As it turns out, the work done on the flight model made the implementation of LCOs comparatively simple to model realistically. Had that not been the case, then we might be talking very much about something that is completely outside the realm of the sims design.
In any event, the point I was trying to get across, apparently failing to do so, was that of the design philosophy - rather than modelling a situation 100% accurately, adding limitations that dont exist to try and force the player into a certain type of behavior. I agree that the behavior ought to exist - I just disagree on the methods used to attain it.
That brings in more complication as you then have to add in another switch to be able to force that one way or another for PVP scenarios like Falcon Online.
Well, setting those switches is already part of SOP for flying in such scenarios. As people are already working on ways of enforcing those settings (SimCheck) then one additional config switch makes little difference. Again, its all in the approach to the sim. If you are interested in as prototypical a flight simulation as possible, then you are likely building a pit, trying to fly to the standards described in the public documents kicking around that define how F-16 pilots should fly, etc… And if you have a more arcade approach, you might go so far as editing your .dat files to give the aircraft ridiculous performance figures. Setting one switch to adjust whether your aircraft has unrealistic faults or not isnt too difficult in my eyes.
In fact, the reason I dont use the random faults switch in its present incarnation is that the devs have stated that its faults are not particularly realistic - if they gave realistic faults then I would have it enabled.
I really would have the same complaint with landing gear overspeed conditions, but I must confess that I hadnt really thought much about it. Since my first 4 ship flight with the 1st VFW back in 2012, when I rather embarrassingly tore off my LG on a go around after failing to retract them and subsequently selecting AB, I have made a concerted effort to always check speed below 250 knots before transitioning the LG.
-
To your point about not having the sim track stress to the airframes - Janes USNF97 had all the aircraft from the “campain” that you ran with the weapon dammage that was inflicted upon it tracked from one “mission” to the next, allocated some repair hours to you after every mission, and allowed you to “fix” the aircraft that were dammaged. No, you couldn’t salvage a bird that you bailed out of, that was a total loss in your inventory. Granted I didn’t really get to play it until more recently with DOSBOX, and yes it ran way too fast, but they pulled something off in that sence. I’ve no idea behind the coding time that goes into that old sim or Falcon - I’ve read that it takes a bunch - and have heard the argument before that FALCONs code is hard to work with in terms of getting unplanned items implemented -THANKYOU DEVS - but I agree that it should be possible to keep track of some issues that would be lurking under the surface and not quite ready to rear their ugly heads. Again, I’m no coder so I don’t know how hard it would be to pull off, but I agree it would be interesting if done. Even if it’s later on down the road. Back I go to my secret lair of secrecy. Multum in parvo. PAX VOBISCUM.
-Babite -
True but the current random failures don’t make sense to have and they don’t respond to emergency procedures the way they should according to the -1. Also in Falcon there is no provisions to grab a spare - and backing out of and coming back into a mission can mess things up.
True but I think this is another case of it being too difficult to try and code. Heck just as a user it can be a PITA to try and schedule a flight just to get the super generic “no aircraft available” message.
Hmm. Im not thrilled with the idea, if only because that scenario precludes the player ever finding a fault in the startup routine. Startup and checks ought to involve actually checking how things happen, rather than just flicking a prescribed series of switches. I recall a story of the one flight student (civvie) who was just pointing to the gauges his instructor had and saying to himself what the gauge was supposed to read, without actually checking that the gauge in fact was at the correct reading.
Yes but other than for engine instrumentation and EPU checking those are the only two systems that require you to look for certain numbers at certain times. Hyd could be added in but you are only looking for 3000 PSI there. The engine being the most specific one for looking at during engine start when the hyd/oil warning light goes out, when the sec light goes out, etc. etc. Most of the avionics systems you aren’t looking for anything other than no MFLs when you complete BIT checks.
well I think in some places they have the one attitude and in others the other. Its not consistent. For instance, the Mirage has the ability to carry the MICA in BMS, which is modelled with a IR seeker that can track targets roughly 40 miles away. Now the correct way for the player to employ this weapon relies on them firing with a radar lock first, but its possible for them to take advantage of the modelling by just uncaging the seeker whenever they feel like it, and if a target is ahead of them it will track.
Whereas the other option would be to force the range shorter, which would prevent the unrealistic employment of the weapon but also remove the ability to do things that the real weapon CAN do. I guess if it were a consistent philosophy I could appreciate the lesser of two evils argument - Id still disagree which is the lesser evil, Id just be able to agree with the logic used to get to the conclusion.
Once again this is a limitation of the code you are talking about. BMS doesn’t have a way to treat a missile as a SARH “and” as a IR missile. You have one or the other. I agree that the way it is implemented gives Mirage drivers a HUGE advantage even over the RL system. Problem is that going the other way and treating it like a standard SARH that BMS could deal with is a huge disadvantage.
Well, for starters originally the sim was not programmed to model LCOs in any way. As it turns out, the work done on the flight model made the implementation of LCOs comparatively simple to model realistically. Had that not been the case, then we might be talking very much about something that is completely outside the realm of the sims design.
In any event, the point I was trying to get across, apparently failing to do so, was that of the design philosophy - rather than modelling a situation 100% accurately, adding limitations that dont exist to try and force the player into a certain type of behavior. I agree that the behavior ought to exist - I just disagree on the methods used to attain it.
The problem with that comparison was that LCOs don’t break the aircraft, simulated or not. LCOs add to the immersion factor but were not something that have to be worried about logistically for airframes. That is why it was really apples and oranges.
I’m sure the devs are all ears if you have a better way to deal with this issue though.
Well, setting those switches is already part of SOP for flying in such scenarios. As people are already working on ways of enforcing those settings (SimCheck) then one additional config switch makes little difference. Again, its all in the approach to the sim. If you are interested in as prototypical a flight simulation as possible, then you are likely building a pit, trying to fly to the standards described in the public documents kicking around that define how F-16 pilots should fly, etc… And if you have a more arcade approach, you might go so far as editing your .dat files to give the aircraft ridiculous performance figures. Setting one switch to adjust whether your aircraft has unrealistic faults or not isnt too difficult in my eyes.
In fact, the reason I dont use the random faults switch in its present incarnation is that the devs have stated that its faults are not particularly realistic - if they gave realistic faults then I would have it enabled.
I just brought up the Falcon Online aspect since it has been proven many times over that some clowns will get into any kind of cheating that they can to get an unfair advantage over an opponent. removing the Cat 1/Cat 3 break points would just add another item to have to be verified.
I really would have the same complaint with landing gear overspeed conditions, but I must confess that I hadnt really thought much about it. Since my first 4 ship flight with the 1st VFW back in 2012, when I rather embarrassingly tore off my LG on a go around after failing to retract them and subsequently selecting AB, I have made a concerted effort to always check speed below 250 knots before transitioning the LG.
I brought up the landing gear since that is an apples to apples comparison of breaking the aircraft in an unrealistic way compared to how the real aircraft deals with the abuse. Since I don’t see the devs putting in those kinds of logistics factors into this sim I just can’t think of a better way to deal with that problem than what they came up with.
-
True but I think this is another case of it being too difficult to try and code.
I brought up the landing gear since that is an apples to apples comparison of breaking the aircraft in an unrealistic way compared to how the real aircraft deals with the abuse. Since I don’t see the devs putting in those kinds of logistics factors into this sim I just can’t think of a better way to deal with that problem than what they came up with.
probably my preference short of aircraft logistics tracking (which I agree is way out of scope) would be to assume that the jets are already fatigued and assign a chance of a dangerous fault for breaking the ‘safe’ conditions. Enough of a chance that its possible to see, and enough to discourage the virtual pilot from abusing the ability, but also so there is no guarantee of it happening on a specific flight unless you really are trying to get such a fault.
for the landing gear this is really easy to see, as you can model that as a chance to break the gear or not. For the airframe and overspeed or overG limitations its not so clear cut. Perhaps add a chance of sudden and total airframe failure, where the wings break formation with the jet?
I have to agree that I cant see a good compromise that would be simple to code, which is why I havent made a suggestion that the devs try to do so - I merely comment that I wish things were otherwise : )
mebbe if you had to scan in a 781 after the flight, and a write up to the BMS team explaining why you overGed your jet before it would let you fly another mission… LOL : P
-
Hi, as it was stated here already, the most damage for over stressing will be to the airframe itself and maintenance crews and not necessarily to the jet itself at flight time. Next version will not be 100% about this either but will be much more accurate and will also cause you to regret at some cases that you broke the G/speed limits.
-
I just wanted to share my mission experience in 4.33. I was ingress on some tanks and Mig’s were all over so I flew low and fast. When I got to the target every single one of my Mavs would not fire and had an H above it. I am guessing this was due to over speed or too much stress. Any one know if this is modeled?
I found this and it explains a bit. It looks like I need to pay attention better in the ready room. It sure is fun figuring this stuff out. With every new update it gets more immersive. Excellent!
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?23073-Stores-config-cat-3&highlight=hung
-
Also, is speed limit modelled in BMS? I do remember hearing some cracking sound if I fly too fast (maybe more than 600kts or so) while heavily loaded.
IRL most of the time you will never hear anything at all.
-
It would be in T.O. 1F-16CJ-1-2 which isn’t public AFAIK
It is out there officially, and anyone can have it, so the -1 as and the -1-1.
Would be interesting to add ‘aircraft fatigue’ tracking to the campaign data.
Exactly. A monitoring system to record over-g’s, over-speed’s etc, then this data will affect aircraft availability to the following missions on the campaign. More aircraft grounded for repairs, less available aircraft for the squadron, for the time required completing the repairs.
There is a similar; addon for FS9/FSX, that records in real time pilot inputs, G’s, even hard landings, also (virtual) “passengers” react to such effects, and final evaluation after landing can send the aft for repair and the (virtual) pilot on the (virtual) company Chief pilot for explanations and some extra training courses…
Mebbe in 4.40
Well I could not believe that easily that current TFR implementation with raster video etc would be possible in Falcon, so I (we) have to admit that since it is all about coding, the limit is only available dev time.