Adding Structural Damage due to use of the cobra button for Realism

Dev Server Archive Dev Server "Hornet's Sting" General Discussion - Dev Server
20

I’d say being aware of the limits of your aircraft is quite a big part of gameplay.

I’m a prop player, but the stuff I can do in props IF I HAVE AN MAX CREW is very stupid.

I took a P-51 cannon mustang.

I dived down to 700 km/h and like 50 m from the ground, yanked the stick back in FRB controls and started turning a whole 180 degrees.

Maxed crew.

What happened?

Screen went a tiiiiny bit black but retain control the whole time. No G suit on P-51 cannonstangs btw. According to WTRTI, I exceeded 12G in an early model allison mustang without consequences.

Now, I did repeat this with a completely untrained crew and I promptly blacked out (still managed to level out from the kamikaze dive beforehand).

Funny thing about the untrained assymetry: Doing a classic dogfight opener (dive down to gain speed, execute a pitchback/sliceback to merge) will knock you out in a Ki-100 without expert, but you can do it just fine with an expert crew.

It’s ridiculous and it prevents gameplay complexity.
Some WW2 match-ups should also rely on airframe construction.
Why would anyone make dive bombers’ and american fighters’ airframe so heavy and tough compared to the acrobatic turnfighters if not partially to better resist the forces experienced in a dive (why spend so much on focke-wulfs if messerschmidts do the job)?

Zeros, assuming you can get them up to speed, can execute similar G dives as purpose-built dive bombers and sturdier airframes.

Quite notably, high-G turns have been noted to cause misalignment/deformation of the tailplane (horizontal stab + elevators) on a lot of WW2 aircraft.

The only reason you’re “forced” to do extreme-G (excess of 10G) maneuvers in air battles at dogfight brackets is because your opponents can as well. If we had more realistic G force limits for ace/max crews, it’d be far less of an issue even without structural stress.

Having structural stress build up would give additional assymetric complexity and a thing to think about in your dogfights which I’d love even if I’d likely forget and stress out my japanese airframes getting greedy.

1 Like
21

Yes so that Gaijin will add the most historically accurate version of the Su-37 Terminator :)

22

Yeah right, i dont understand why people would find it annoying it just makes it so that you know exactly about what your plane can and cannot do. I would really enjoy that.

23

wing warpping happens fast and sudden followed by the wing flying off

24

any damage att all should only happen past the limitations of the planes limit example F/A-18 has max g limt of 9.4 G past that damage occurs below that you reduce life of airframe going past 7.5G going past 7.5g usally causes micro fractures which eventually leads to full wing failure overtime

25

So are we adding this for all aircraft then?

The F16s airframes would not be able to handle some of the turns theyre doing ingame without “stressing” the airframe, but its a video game. If you want realism go play DCS or, perhaps be a real pilot. Planes snapping already from just maneuvering is already annoying as it is (rafale on the deck and the wings fall off when your afterburner is on) because of the crew lock.

The downside to using the cobra button is essentailly converting ALL your energy into a directional movement. Youre sitting about BEGGING to be 3rd partied or for the enemy to disengage and leave you scrambling for energy. It will be useful in a very rare 1 v 1 in (airRB) but its not exactly the greatest when youre facing euromogger or rafale since they can just pre-flare any R73 and youre easier to kill then an A10.

TLDR: progressive stress is a bad thing, i dont want to play aircraft mechainic simulator (this would affect EVERY nation, not just russia so say goodbye to any F16 high G pulls)

1 Like
26

And i agree with that, keep in mind planes in warthunder can turn beyond 17Gs and still be fine, now this is during a normal turn without the AOA limiter off, when you combine it with the switched off safety features don’t you think there should be at least some minor damage to the airframe?

27

yes but unlikely to be modelble as it takes time as cracks start off small and grow bigger over time they would have to add using same plane on multiple missions for it to work
New insights on metal fatigue process | TheCivilEngineer.org

28

For now I’m just saying that it would be better for just the set of planes that have the aoa limiter button, you really cant ask more from gaijin without them screwing it up.

And no I don’t want it to be a mechanic simulator, BUT I’m sure some middle ground could be found where the planes don’t so some purely ace combat type maneuvers and still live without any consequence at all.

what I propose is, fine keep the 17G limit but introduce damage and a proper G calculator for maneuvers that use the aoa limiter

29

what should happen is it being far easier to rip your wings clean off with the cobra button

30

We have arcade mode for UFO flight models and flight behaviour.

ARB is supposed to provide the same physics and mechanics as sim, but with basically no barrier to entry beyond the macro skills required of combat (tactics, situational awareness) and short match times for when you just wanna fly your plane for ~20 minutes or so.

And sim should be as authentic as the computer and physics simulation can handle without over-stressing the servers and maintaining ease of swapping into a new plane (I would not be able to fly japanese or soviet planes in DCS as the instrument panel makes no sense to me, but in warthunder the on-screen HUD and one-button engine start makes it easy to focus on the minutae of flight dynamics and combat).

31

no, because the AoA limit only works at low speeds, so you’re not actually putting much G or stress on the airframe, what you’re suggesting would impact the game a lot more than you might imagine, for everyone and not just the flankers that you want to nerf for some reason. (you didn’t even mention the f18 that can do the same thing).

32

The maneuvers aren’t “high-g” though. At slower speeds, it’s no more than 5-6Gs at the maximum. Normally, it’s 2.5-4Gs.

33

it should make it far easier to break you wings off if your not carefull

34

you might be slow?

The consequence IS running out of speed for using it! you gain directional advantage but you have no speed! Planes that don’t have the AOE button are a different and (due to delta canard config) already able to pull-off these maneuvers without the need for the button. This is just another “Russia cope” post and i don’t like it. if you really wanted structural damage in game you would be advocating for ALL jets, even props, to get it

35

I have in-fact mentioned the f18, i say it should be applied to all planes that have the aoa- limiter switch.

36

Hm yes, thats true.

37

I want structural damage for all aircraft.

Sturdy aircraft construction at cost of maneuverability (Fw190 vs bf109) (Hellcat, p38 vs zeros) should have a benefit.

1 Like
38

ok, so if the flanker is gonna break its wings with 6 or 8 gs, the EF, rafale, gripens, f14, f15, f16, f18, mirages, phantoms, etc etc, every single plane is gonna start to suffer from “airframe stress and recieve damages for pulling 10+gs, untill they rip their wings” right?

1 Like
39

yea everyone would feel it