Jump to content

Floppy_Sock

Members
  • Content Count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

142 Excellent

About Floppy_Sock

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

351 profile views
  1. Thanks for the update! Any word about the resolution based scaling that Han mentioned in the visibility discussion post. Is that wrapped into the scaling adjustment or is that coming in a future patch?
  2. @AnPetrovich As to your second update, I believe that was addressed in the paper in the following figure: As his data sets contained a wide variation of subjects from different backgrounds as well as both protected (AGSM/Gsuit/reclined seat) and relaxed testing, the conclusion he came to was that only the tail varies as the protection measures change. This is indicated in a. above by the different dotted tails.
  3. I think Whinnery and Forster's point is that after a certain limit, there is zero blood flow to the brain. Accelerating harder cannot make the blood flow any less - hence the behavior is the same. This is also why I listed some other studies on loss of consciousness due to near instantaneous circulation cutoff since the mechanism which drives consciousness loss is the same in all. No oxygen to the brain. This was confirmed here: This is from a much older publication. I'm simply showing that short extreme exposures have been tested and confirmed to not cause LOC if the duration is sufficiently short. @AnPetrovich does this download link work for you? https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/2046-7648-2-19.pdf
  4. @AnPetrovich As I mentioned here in my post above. The curve that @-=PHX=-SuperEtendard posted is the same one that I posted. I addressed their comparison specifically. This curve is the best fit to only 14 GLOC events. This curve is the best fit to to 880 GLOC events Its data set:
  5. Yes. Sorry that was unclear. SRS is such a life saver on CB. I can simply listen for the calls instead of having to have my HUD up. See here I have consistent CPU driven delayed frames much like what you showed. I also have almost idle temperatures which means there's something holding the frame. That goes away with the HUD disabled for me. I wonder if it's tied to some sort of update call for the HUD?
  6. @Alonzo (I have an index as well) for me those hitches that you have shown in your first post are GUI related. It clears up for me if I simply disable the GUI while flying. I have it in the menus as well but I found no remedy there.
  7. Totally understand! I appreciate the reply regardless!
  8. These are the hard work of @Requiem who has graciously shared his work with me. Every contour was calculated and plotted in excel.
  9. I am aware that it's a time commitment and if it's not on in the cards, I respect that. I simply wanted to express that I appreciated the nature of that thread and hope it could potentially become more regular.
  10. @Jason_Williams I wanted to ask if it were possible to make your "briefing room" thread a "live" thread so to speak. I can only speak for myself here but I really appreciated that thread.. That level of transparency about present issues as well as the current / long term objectives of you and your team was truly refreshing. I think the majority of this community empathizes with the struggles you and your team face. Especially now with the pandemic turning everything "office"related on its head, we know how hard it is. We know that some of the on going issues in the sim are really tough to fix and some of them require huge overhauls of current structures in your product and, at least speaking for myself here, I'm happy to continue to support the team as the iron those issues out. That being said, it is clear that you guys hear us and listen to our feedback. However, right now, we often don't have any feedback of that until the solution is presented. I simply want to emphasize that we, as a community, appreciate feeling heard and I thought your "officer's room"thread was a fantastic way of doing that. So I'm here to to ask if it were possible if you could update that thread, or maybe create a similar thread which you keep updated on a weekly / bimonthly / monthly basis as a means to keep the community up to date on the status / awareness of these "long term" solutions. Even if there's no solution on paper yet, a simple acknowledgement that your team is aware of it and doesn't have an answer leaves little room for misinterpretations / frustration. Essentially, what you did in addressing this question "Q. I'm having trouble spotting aircraft. Am I blind?" in your officer's club thread. That level of detail might not be necessary but answers in that spirit close the communication loop between your team and the community. Maybe this seems too similar to the dev blogs but that usually is restricted to tangible progress that has been made on new features / products and less about the status / acknowledgements of community concerns / bugs. As an example, the resolution based scaling issue that was mentioned in Han's recent original spotting feedback thread was the first time we heard anything about it from the team. Members of the community, including myself, have done testing and presented it in the forums highlighting that this was potentially an issue months ago. You and your team know better than we do that this is a serious issue and I'm sure that whenever ya'll became aware of it, solutions were in the works. We just appreciate knowing it too. I understand that this might be a much larger request than it seems on the surface. Maybe one of the new QA guys can help paint the picture from a more technical side. I appreciate the consideration!
  11. Some people have already linked to my previous posts regarding the comparison of the current IL2 physiology model to results published in the scientific literature. Though I fear it might seem a little repetitive at this point, I would like to provide a summary of my findings and compare them to the current model we have in the game right now. First and foremost, I would like to point out that I think modeling pilot physiology has been a solid forward step for this sim and I am in no way advocating its removal - I simply would like the model to be as accurate as permissible. As such, I'd like to recommend two changes to the current model: 1. The inclusion of the "push pull" effect. It has been well documented in scientific literature that a exposure to -Gz reduces tolerance to +Gz. A few people have already mentioned this phenomena so I'm not going to dwell on it too long. [1] [2] [3] Unfortunately, the literature's testing of this effect is limited comparatively "gentle" -Gz accelerations though it is clear that even very short exposures of mild -Gz can induce substantial tolerances reductions. 2. An overhaul of the rapid onset rate (ROR) tolerances. For this section, I'd like to provide a little bit of context for those who are unfamiliar. If you do a bit of googling about g induced loss of consciousness, you will surely stumble onto this figure This is a figure from a 1956 paper by AM Stoll titled "Human tolerance to positive G as determined by physiological endpoints." It compiles 40 events of which 13 are GLOC events and uses that to create the curve you see above. Remember those number as they're important. This was largely left unchallenged until the 2013 publication by Whinnery and Forster [4] which compiled 880 GLOC episodes spanning the years 1978 to 1992 at the USAF school of aerospace medicine and the Naval Air Warefare Center. This data is a combination of both protected ( g suit / reclined seat) and relaxed GLOC episides and a large variety of participants: volunteer research subjects, aircrew undergoing training to improve G tolerance, students in various aerospace medical disciplines, and aircrew undergoing medical evaluation. An investigation of the entire data set's response to acceleration onset rate revealed the following: Maybe surprising to some, but above an onset rate of 1g/s, the time to GLOC (LOCINDTI) is pretty much constant. See the column outline in yellow in the following table. The data set above is binned and the averages are reported as follows: Regardless of onset rate, the averages time until GLOC remains practically constant. The above data was then used to determine that there exists what is know as a "functional buffer period" (FBP) which is the approximate time the human brain can operate without a blood supply before consciousness is lost. This led to the following model Note the curve I showed at the beginning of this post is marked in red here and labeled Stoll. This is not to criticize Stoll for bad work but simply that he did not have the data sets that are available today when he proposed his model. The current model is marked in blue. Finally, I want to quote a section of the abstract which summarizes the findings succinctly: Note the last sentence - nowhere, regardless of onset rate, did a subject lose consciousness before 5 seconds. To further hammer home this point, compare the above findings of minimum LOC time to the equivalent LOC time from a variety of studies which also induced a rapid LOC - these are direct quotes from [4] on page 8 and 9. See those for sources if interested. Time to LOC is bolded and underlined at the beginning of each test. 6.41 - 6.91 s - Acute arrest of cerebral circulation in 74 humans using a cervical pressure cuff 7.9s (range 6.3s to 12.2s) - Mean time from vascular neck restraint to LOC defined by onset of eye fixation in 24 healthy volunteer police officers 10.4 ± 3.0 s (range 8 to 18 s) - Time to loss of consciousness in 14 filmed human hangings 9.2 and 10.7 s - The mean LOCINDTI values from completely unprotected (no anti-G straining maneuver or anti-G suit) G-LOC episodes for two types of ROR runs (onset rates (1.0-1.5 G/s and 2.2 G/s – 3.0 G/s respectively) to a mean of +6.1 Gz (This is especially relevant to the figure I have shown below) 12.65 s - mean LOCINDTI in a large US Navy Pensacola study, taking 935 individuals to GLOC with a mean +Gz level of +5.3 Gz and a mean onset rate of 0.8 G/s 9.40 ± 4.10 s - the limiting time to complete visual blackout with abrupt onset of rapidly applied external eye pressure equal to or greater than systolic ophthalmic artery pressure in 10 normal individuals Contrast this to the physiology model in IL2 right now. Below is the g load experienced with a fresh pilot during a max performance horizontal break turn in a Spitfire mk9. Here I can achieve GLOC in 6 seconds reliably while loading at approximately ~ 1.5 g/s. This is in stark contrast to the results I showed above. I should reiterate, this is a mint pilot whose g tolerance decreases substantially as the current model renders him "exhausted" but even fresh it does not match the relaxed g tolerances shown above. The green line denotes the turn initiation and the red denotes GLOC. The recording corresponding to the chart can be found here: https://youtu.be/Rt4_5vT_BUo And then a test to see how fast I can GLOC - around the 3.6 second mark is pretty consistent - the 2 red lines denoting a band where blackout occurs. Sorry for the change in chart axes - these are from two different post processing iterations. In the figure below the right axis in orange is the important one unlike above. [1] Xu, Y., Li, B., Zhang, L. et al. A centrifuge simulated push–pull manoeuvre with subsequent reduced +Gz tolerance. Eur J Appl Physiol 112, 2625–2630 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-011-2234-3 [2] Lehr AK, Prior ARJ, Langewouters G, Ullrich B, Leioner H, et al (2001) Previous exposure to negative Gz reduced relaxed +Gz tolerance. Aviat Sp Environ Med 63:405 [3] Wright H, Buick E (1998) The +Gz-tolerance limits of the push–pull phenomenon. Aviat Sp Environ Med 69:202 [4] Whinnery, T., Forster, E.M. The +Gz-induced loss of consciousness curve. Extrem Physiol Med 2, 19 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-7648-2-19 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2046-7648-2-19 (free to download here)
  12. Was just trying to back my vote up with some numbers - but I didn't actually see the no replies just votes. Thanks for pointing that out.
  13. Sorry, didn't read the request for no comments.
  14. I think I'm still not being clear enough. Panthera's condition, if I understand him correctly, is approximately 200 knots TAS, 3.6-3.7 G. If you follow the 370kmh (200 kts) line up until it crosses the 3.6g line (light orange), you will see that in the tests with the DCS 109, there lies a cluster of points at that location indicating that the current DCS bird can achieve said condition. Furthermore, the IL2 109 data is quite close and as I mentioned above, since I cannot be as precise in IL2 since all the telemetry is not available to calculate specific excess power in real time, there will be some measurement error associated with me having to record speeds by hand. The 370kmh line is indicated in yellow, the POI is circled in black for clarity. Please note that the DCS telemetry data is vast and detailed. I am VERY confident in my results from DCS as I can read telemetry from the game at 60hz and then filter it to find the conditions where p_s = 0 +- 0.1. Those are the clusters of points you see in green. If it is true that the DCS 109 engine is suffering from reduced power in the current beta build, then the 109 should perform better than 3.6g @ 200kts @SL. When I have some time I will run the same tests with the DCS P51.
  15. With all due respect @Panthera, did you even parse the data? Maybe you're not familiar with the format? I have added a few contours to the curve to illustrate your condition precisely. The curves originating from the top left and curing down to the right are level sets (contours of constant value) of g. I have added a 3.6g contour in light orange and 3.3g in grey. It shows precisely the data point you describe. Furthermore, the bf109 in the same configuration in IL2 has very similar performance at that speed. The difference is within measurement error but we can assume it performs slightly worse. Maybe .1g worse?
×
×
  • Create New...