Jump to content
No.501_Osprey

Pilot Limitation under load and stress

Recommended Posts

well I think no matter how "realistic" we make things, we'll always have those "pilots" who will panic and push some silly manoeuvres just to avoid being shot. 
I fly the sim in what you'd probably define a more "realistic" way, because that's how I learned to fly and think, but I can't expect that all the people with little or no real flying experience understand things like situation awareness, energy management etc... yes, a lot of sim pilots are truly good, but in a way they've learned to fly "the way the sim is", not in a realistic way, and so you see even the "experten" pulling manoeuvres that make you wonder whether they actually understand how an aircraft works.. 

 

That's why I'm looking forward to this product: if it's half as good as ROF, it'd still be a major leap from the old IL-2..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when I used to waste hours and hours typing things the devs were never gonna read...  O the fun we had :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts about "Redout" and "Negative G-forces".

 

In comparision:

 

The F-16 i.e has a "negative Angle of Attack" limiter during normal flight (max. -6° AoA), which consequently results in a negative G-force limitation of about -3G max at higher speeds and full stick forward. This limiter can be "disabled" with a "spring-loaded" MPO override switch infront of the thruttle position allowing more negative AoA to be executed, but it is ONLY used in deep-stall situations for recoveries as there are very good reasons for that negative AoA (and thus G´s) limitation during normal flight.

 

Not only prevents it the integrity or stability of the frame in flight, but the human body is much more sensitive regards negative G´s than postive G´s and thus the true limitation.

 

Red Out

  • While our body can tolerate positive G-forces up to a sustained nine Gs, tolerance to negative Gs is much lower. The first effect one will experience from negative Gs is a "red out." This happens because all of the blood is rushing towards your head, causing your vision to go red from the increased blood supply.

Burst Blood Vessels

  • If negative G-forces exceed about two or three Gs, then the increased blood in the head can cause burst blood vessels. This commonly happens in either the eyes or the brain as the vessels are overloaded by the extra blood being forced through them. This can lead to permanent blindness or brain damage. The effects apply instantly and fatal damage or loss of conciousness can occur after three to four seconds!

Loss of Consciousness

  • Constant changes from positive G to negative G can cause an individual to lose consciousness (Push-Pull-Push-Pull Gundefense). This is because the body's circulatory system cannot keep up with the constant changes in speed and direction of the flow of fluids, causing the heart to slow down and the individual to pass out. Once normal G-forces resume, the body will regain consciousness, albeit in a state of confusion.

 

In WW2 Fighters:

 

As we do not have modern electronical support in the negative G-force or AoA limitations in fighters of that area, the human body (or the "feel in your butt") are our pirmary limitations and "sensors" - besides the structural limits of the airframe itself of course.

 

Therefore we need to address the implications and the modelling of such forces properly, otherwise we will allow unrealitic "exploitations" and litterally RUIN the very basic principles of Basic Fighter Maneuvering aspects. The BFM you fly in a sim will not be the BFM you would be "forced" to apply in real.

Simple as that, period.

 

Offtopic quick: Sorry to say and no offense intented to anyone in specific, but as good as coders might be in their work of programing simulations, they sometimes don´t understand "dick" about flight or the expiriences of flight in certain aspects. Therefore, i personally appreciate it very much, that at least expirienced virt. combat pilots (the Flying Barans) are part of the consulting team for BoS. This gives me hope, that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated.

 

If one allows "gamers" to apply superman-like negative G-forces, they will use it ingame, regardless of realism!

If one allows "gamers" to use a "hubble-telescope" (FOV zoom) to aim and "pray and spray", they will use it ingame, regardless of realism or the risk to loose all flexibility and maybe advantage or energy, because it ENCOURAGES to do so.

 

I haven´t seen many pilots respecting (or even understanding) flight as such, who try to honor flight with realistic "flying" but i have seen many who apply all the methods "available", because "Victory" (in quotes) is all what matters in a competitve GAME, regardless of realism. Am i right ? ;)

 

A good IL-2 pilot once said to me (talking about such things):

 

"You can´t change the reality of it". or others excused with a "It´s just a game".

 

Yes, maybe true.

But we can simulate better and more thoughtfull realism in the future, because such overlooked flaws can change completly the dynamics of a FIGHT. One can and WILL do stuff in sims sometimes, one would not be able to do in real, or think more than twice about it in real before pulling such "stunts".

 

 

Respectfully

 

A.S

 

 

Good post AS

 

The importance of modeling pilot physiology cannot be overstated if one wishes to simulate WWII aerial combat.  This is the second of the two major defining features of 1940's era design.  Stability and control engineering and our knowledge of pilot physiology.  The possibility to model stability and control seems to exist in BoS but is complicated by game controller technology.

 

The pilot physiology model is much easier for the development team to implement and control. 

 

A well done and in-depth model would add a realistic as well fun layer to the game.  It would open up tactical options that did not exist before and close the immersion ruining behaviors resulting from a simple, unrealistic, physiology model.

 

For example, our virtual pilot would be trained in some anti-G strain maneuvers.  Almost every nation's pilots were aware of these maneuvers and practiced them to some extent.

 

The anti-G strain could be controlled by the player.  It would give him the option to temporarily increase his resistance to acceleration at an increase in fatigue rate. The players strategy in the use of this pilot "WEP" button would mean the difference between pulling lead, making the shot, or ending up too tired to maneuver and forced to disengage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farber, I can understand the frustration, but try and walk in the devs' shoes as well: receiving countless, often pointless, rants about the silliest of things (think of the never-ending FW190 cockpit bar debate.. I mean, who gives a rat's about it really?!) is like a war of attrition. Some people's ego is more important than anything else, and you can't win a war against someone's ego. 

 

I really do hope that the devs will work the other way around, as in saying: "we're gathering feedback on the light effects now. Not the 3d models, not the flight models.. the light effects. Any other comment will be ignored". That's probably the only way to keep things healthy and working.


 

The anti-G strain could be controlled by the player.  It would give him the option to temporarily increase his resistance to acceleration at an increase in fatigue rate. The players strategy in the use of this pilot "WEP" button would mean the difference between pulling lead, making the shot, or ending up too tired to maneuver and forced to disengage.

 

I like where this is going..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one would welcome many of the suggestions put forward here. Namely,

 

1. Accounting for instantaneous G-loading airframe damage and fatigue (this will give us more realistic flight behaviour by our virtual pilots, who will wish to avoid unnecessary AC and pilot damage). I would also argue that pilot head tracking whilst pulling such Gs should likewise be evaluated in the context of realism and high, rapidly changing numbers and axes of Gs. I would posit that self-control under preplanned aerobatic maneuvering is not, quite :biggrin:, the same thing as trying to control oneself whilst maneuving in a chaotic situation, trying to find targets and threats in space (where the hell is he), at speeds often much higher than those experienced by aerobatic pilots, with tracers lacing the sky, panicked radio chatter, often in extremely hostile weather conditions, with no preplanning of maneuvers, and what was for most WW2 pilots, a plane which they weren't all that truly familiar with, with tiny, cramped cockpits and no head room, and whose handling characteristics at the limit were often much less predictable and harsher than modern acrobatic planes. I could go on...

 

2. Providing for sustained G-loading greyouts and fatigue at lower Gs than is the norm for most WW2 flight sims to this date. Even the loss of full vision while maintaining AC control under sustained Gs will tend to mitigate unrealistic virtual pilot behavior and antics. It will also help replicate the defender's historical ability to perform emergency higher-G maneuvers to escape. Although the defender might suffer a greyout and tunnel vision, he, if able to tread the g-limit line, would still be able to maintain AC control. However, such maneuvers might cause the 6 oclock attacker who follows to more readily lose visibility on the target (through this same tunnel vision and greyout), thus allowing the defender a chance to escape.

 

It then follows... if defensive maneuvers are to historical effectiveness, that

 

3. Ordinance must also be effective to historical levels. An average burst which is on target (even one hit on the pilot or critical engine or coolant system, etc) should cripple an enemy fighter (bombers with their higher amounts of structure and armor must of course be looked at from the historical view that it was more difficult). If G-loads are made historically correct, ammunition effectiveness must also be made correct, or there will be what some may call a "disturbance in the force", and there will be difficulty in shooting down target AC in situations where, historically, it would have been highly likely to have achieved a kill.

 

In parting, I would say that although there is a cardinal rule revered by some WW2 sim developers to "keep the realism moderate so as to keep the sim fun and the player base numerous", I would caution that, in my humble opinion, this rule deals largely with the highly technical matters related to AC operation, and not the ones I have discussed here, such as the G-load simulation or ammunition effectiveness. In reality, the suggestions here are intuitive and will be readily accepted, even appreciated, by most players of a historical WW2 AC simulation. One simply has to look at console action-shooter audiences to appreciate what I am saying, the ringing of ears from explosions (losing hearing of nearby threats), the narrowing of vision secondary to gunfire near misses (losing ability to see completely around you), etc... even these very non-technical players appreciate how their game makes them feel immersed in combat. It is an intuitive quality, and makes the visceral punch of the situation come home. How much more, then, does our cherished IL2 Stalingrad need such features? :cool:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons real fighter pilots can move their heads around while pulling G's, is that they spend time in the gym building up those neck muscles.  Same for the arms, even though fighters today have hydraulic/computer control systems.  I once read that the Blue Angles fly with full nose down elevator trim, which requires ~45 lbs pressure....at 1G!

 

When I flew with Air Combat USA, I reverted to my flight sim experience without thinking, and got a big wake up call the first time I yanked and banked.  And this is after my instructor briefed me on pulling G's and after my previous modest amount of aerobatic experience in real life.

 

I'm all for realism, and hope more of it gets into our flight sims.  One caveat, though.  The level of realism should be the pilot's choice.  Sometimes, I just want to have fun. :)  I guess that means that, online, someone should be able to dictate the level for that mission.

 

binky9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons real fighter pilots can move their heads around while pulling G's, is that they spend time in the gym building up those neck muscles.  Same for the arms, even though fighters today have hydraulic/computer control systems.  I once read that the Blue Angles fly with full nose down elevator trim, which requires ~45 lbs pressure....at 1G!

 

[...]

 

I'm all for realism, and hope more of it gets into our flight sims.  One caveat, though.  The level of realism should be the pilot's choice.  Sometimes, I just want to have fun. :)  I guess that means that, online, someone should be able to dictate the level for that mission.

 

binky9

 

I'm not a gym guy and I can turn my head ok when pulling Gs, it's a matter of getting used to it really, you don't need to be a superman to deal with Gs. Long term tolerance is another story, but turning your head is easy.

 

I totally agree about the second part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First a few things i would not like to see:

 

  • Head shake: while that might be a perfeclty fine feedback/penalty mechanism in something like a simple arcade shooter, i think that in a sim like this, between headtrackers, all that importance of tiny visual structures like cockpit dials and single pixels in the sky and then quite possibly worst-case fps in those situations where you do your most radical flying, it would just result in some sublte negative synergy that might just make you not enjoy the software without being able to exactly point out what you don't like.
  • Simple blackout/redout with no further consequences: if you panic and ground isn't too close, you just don't care for a few seconds of blindness.
  • Perfectly reproducable mechanics: in real life, even the same person would have a good day or a not so good day. Some level of randomization should be included to limit predictability. Someone suggested a similar thing for the planes (a very good suggestion imho): if a slight variation of performance is true for machines of the same make, it must be doubly true for humans. In a simulated dogfight, you should never be able to predict the mechanics like in "he's done that for 8 seconds now, if he keeps it up for two more he'll be out for five, yay me!"
  • Pilot activity limitation with insufficient feedback: just remember anthropomorphic controls in CoD. If you hit buttons and, without a trace of an explanation, nothing happens it just feels broken, simple as that. Silently ignoring user input is a great way to remind the player that he is just pressing a few buttons instead of flying an aircraft, in other words: immersion killer.

But still, in my eyes, pilot limitation is still the way to go, sufficient feedback is the key.

 

Example: penalty/limitation by limiting the speed of stick position change. I'm not suggesting that this is realistic (it might be or not, i honestly do not know), just saying that it might work well with good feedback. Without feedback, it would be terrible: you yank the stick halfway (no speed limit on the physical stick), "virtual stick" reacts with reduced speed, you instinctly try to compensate by yanking more and once the slowed down virtual stick has caught up you are totally oversteering and don't know why. Enter feedback (no, a rendered stick in the virtual cockpit that either moves as fast as the stick in front of the monitor or not is not what i'd consider sufficient feedback): as soon as the virtual stick starts lagging behind the screen goes 30% dark and the player knows something is wrong. By the third time this happens the player will have learnt that sudden darkening while doing hectic maneuvers means go easy on the stick and will soon train himself to avoid limitation-induced oversteer and move sharp on the edge of the virtual pilots current abilities, no matter how limited or unconstrained they are at any given moment. As a bonus, the amount of "wiggle space" available will be a a very subtle, "more belly than brains" way of telling the player what the current state of his pilot is. Yay immersion. Friends of headshake feedback might even like to see another variant of feedback added: excess movement of the real stick over the allowed maximum speed of the virtual stick could be converted to head movement, with the head returning to normal with the virtual stick catching up: feedback would be direct, the directional nature would add another level of intuitivity and the extra head movement would lack that randomness that makes conventional headshake so annoying. Would it be good? I don't know, things like this have to be experienced to get a qualified opinion. I honestly envy the people at 777 who can probably try out schemes like this with only a few lines of code changed.

 

PS: all this still does not answer how fatigue level should be measured, but i think the exact mechanism of determining current load is a question completely orthogonal to the question of what to do with that number. In terms of gameplay, some kind of dynamic stress level would be the more interesting addition than an advanced system for modelling pilot injury: while a pilot might slowly recover from stress during plain old level flight, adding another small subtlety to the tactical dimension, injury would just be yet another damagable subsystem that can only move south after takeoff, like all the other damagable subsystems. Having n+1 instead of n damagable subsystems might be nice for sim bragging rights, but the gameplay impact is exactly zero.

 

(yes, i openly admit: gameplay is important to me and no, it's not a zero-sum game where gameplay and sim are mutually exclusive and you always have either the one or the other: you can very well mess up simulation without adding gameplay and you can easily mess up gameplay without improving the simulation, so why should it not be possible to improve the one without sacrificing the other? I'm very confident that the combined maximum has not yet been reached!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Negative Gs are uncomfortable as hell.  But you don't see red--at least I don't.  I do experience a tunneling of my vision and lots of little stars flying around like the debris of the Death Star after Luke got his lucky shot.  Getting to my current acceptance of G loading (meager as it is) took the whole summer.  I can now manage the +6 and -3 that my airplane was designed for.  The 3 seconds quoted above is pure BS.  Competitive acro pilots fly far more violently and yet stay injury free excepting occasional bad headaches or burst blood vessels that look much worse than they are and very rarely have any lasting effects.

 

The best a game can do is to honestly convey how a real head on a strong neck reacts to the extreme forces the pilot is experiencing.  The other thing the game can do is restrict the player's vision as he continues to pull or push despite the warnings he is given.  But a pilot who is still conscious loses no ability to push or pull so limiting the conscious virtual pilot's ability to continue or increase G is unrealistic. GLOC shouldn't even be simulated.  Let the airplane sustain real structural damage, especially in negative loading, but keep the pilot conscious.  I really think that is the only fair way to do it.  Trying to accumulate fatigue or G tolerance will just make the game arbitrary and frustrating and will add nothing to the strive for reality. 

Edited by SmokinHole
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not related to this topic but to AS' post above:  Zoom view needs to go.  It's use has made the best players.  It's loss will generate the greatest outrage.  But the near universal adoption of TrackIR means that it is time for it to be buried as an artifact of early PC gaming.  There is just one FOV and it is surprisingly close to the gunsight.  WYSIWYG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Negative Gs are uncomfortable as hell.  But you don't see red--at least I don't.  I do experience a tunneling of my vision and lots of little stars flying around like the debris of the Death Star after Luke got his lucky shot.  Getting to my current acceptance of G loading (meager as it is) took the whole summer.  I can now manage the +6 and -3 that my airplane was designed for.  The 3 seconds quoted above is pure BS.  Competitive acro pilots fly far more violently and yet stay injury free excepting occasional bad headaches or burst blood vessels that look much worse than they are and very rarely have any lasting effects.

 

The best a game can do is to honestly convey how a real head on a strong neck reacts to the extreme forces the pilot is experiencing.  The other thing the game can do is restrict the player's vision as he continues to pull or push despite the warnings he is given.  But a pilot who is still conscious loses no ability to push or pull so limiting the conscious virtual pilot's ability to continue or increase G is unrealistic. GLOC shouldn't even be simulated.  Let the airplane sustain real structural damage, especially in negative loading, but keep the pilot conscious.  I really think that is the only fair way to do it.  Trying to accumulate fatigue or G tolerance will just make the game arbitrary and frustrating and will add nothing to the strive for reality. 

 

 

Hi Smokin Hole,

 

Good post but some very important points to remember.

 

First of all everyone is different.  That is why the Air Forces of the world have strived to gather data to determine averages.  That data is readily available to all of us.

 

Secondly, the Air Forces of WWII were not that sophisticated in their knowledge of the physiology under acceleration.  Therefore those averages are even more applicable.

 

The amount of disability for the average pilot under Ghz loads is well documented.  While you might feel very disabled, the reality is you are a poor judge of the extent of your disability.  It is a very subjective opinion.  The scientific reports are objective relying upon measurement instead of feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Smokin Hole,

 

Good post but some very important points to remember.

 

First of all everyone is different.  That is why the Air Forces of the world have strived to gather data to determine averages.  That data is readily available to all of us.

 

Secondly, the Air Forces of WWII were not that sophisticated in their knowledge of the physiology under acceleration.  Therefore those averages are even more applicable.

 

The amount of disability for the average pilot under Ghz loads is well documented.  While you might feel very disabled, the reality is you are a poor judge of the extent of your disability.  It is a very subjective opinion.  The scientific reports are objective relying upon measurement instead of feeling.

 

Crump,

 

My competition aerobatic experience is limited to just one event.  So in my case you are correct that my ability to judge myself is poor--extremely so.  However, far more experienced competition pilots are judged over every tiny detail during an Unlimited 4 minute routine where loads as high as +10 to -5 (and often more) are experienced.  I'd say that these pilots are more aware of their performance under stress than any pilot alive.  I was a Judge's recorder during an Unlimited competition where my job was to list on the score sheet the dozens of grades, critiques and comments voiced by the judge during each pilot's turn in the box.  One performer was flying a top-of-the-line monoplane.  His 2nd to last figure was an outside rolling 360.  However he finished his previous figure with too much E and struggled to stay within the confines of the box during the 360.  All three judges (all competitive pilots) moaned in empathy as this guy pushed what must have been -5 on the push segments of the roller.  But he stayed in, flew beautifully and scored well.  Negatve G has never been a common factor in air combat.  Most airplanes lacked long duration inverted oil systems so negative loads were limited to just a few seconds.  More importantly, both plane and pilot could handle far more stress under positive loading.  So in reality, pushing hard was done primarily to throw off the other guy's shot with little practical value otherwise.  Once jets entered the arena there was even less need to ever push in combat.  I have talked to fighter pilots who have never pushed more than -1.  My only point in commenting about this is that any attempt to simulate a pilot's physical degredation will backfire.  If you wish to limit a pilot's abililty to "game" the physics, let the airplane break, not the pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you wish to limit a pilot's abililty to "game" the physics, let the airplane break, not the pilot.

 

 

So you are saying to use the average limitations found in the data but break the airplane to define those limits instead of simulating the pilots sensory degradation.

 

I think that is not a bad idea. 

 

My personal preference is to see it work similar to suppression in first person shooters like Red Orchestra or Battlefield 3.  It is just more realistic to me to approach it from the POV of the pilot.  It is a physiological effect after all.

 

It should be somewhat scalable allowing the player to turn it off if less realism is desired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not related to this topic but to AS' post above:  Zoom view needs to go.  It's use has made the best players.  It's loss will generate the greatest outrage.  But the near universal adoption of TrackIR means that it is time for it to be buried as an artifact of early PC gaming.  There is just one FOV and it is surprisingly close to the gunsight.  WYSIWYG.

 

 

I don't think is feasible to remove the zoom. We see the game on a computer screen and the size of that screen can make the difference between being able to identify a plane/target from many miles away and not being able to read the gauges. The zoom is what lets people with a smaller screen enjoy the game. They still have to work harder and adjust zoom all the time to understand what's going on in the game.

 

Removing the zoom means the bigger the screen the bigger advantage you have. Compare then a guy with a 17 inch screen, with someone playing on the 50 inch TV . Very big difference in what you can see.

Edited by Jaws2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be somewhat scalable allowing the player to turn it off if less realism is desired.

 

Bingo. Define the threshold of "realism" in a simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bingo. Define the threshold of "realism" in a simulator.

 

 

 

 

You are more correctly imitating real life with physiological consequences for pulling excessive load factors than you are in ignoring it.

 

Pretty simple, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what exactly is wrong with the basic blackout/redout effect featured in most sims? beyond that I find any attempt at other physiological effects worthless, there is still huge debates raging around the levels of immersion a casual entertaining simulator should have, generally people argue against the full fat study sim, but here we are suggesting that we should have fatigue limits imposed on the virtual pilot.....not much fun if you want to have a marathon session.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the thread Bongo and your question will be answered.

 

 

I have, my question still stands........pull too much +g =blackout, push too much -g =redout, take a bullet in the knee it hurts, take one in the face it ends you, why does it need to be more complicated than that? it's certainly not 'ignoring' physiological effects as you just suggested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever flown over 1000ft? The cold is numbing, sitting in a small cockpit, exposed to UV light, is tiring.. how are we gonna simulate that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever flown over 1000ft? The cold is numbing, sitting in a small cockpit, exposed to UV light, is tiring.. how are we gonna simulate that? 

 

I think you've missed out a zero in there, Sternjaeger.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol it was a sarcastic remark mate, but it gets cold very quick as you climb (well at least I do, but I'm always cold!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well I think no matter how "realistic" we make things, we'll always have those "pilots" who will panic and push some silly manoeuvres just to avoid being shot. 

I fly the sim in what you'd probably define a more "realistic" way, because that's how I learned to fly and think, but I can't expect that all the people with little or no real flying experience understand things like situation awareness, energy management etc... yes, a lot of sim pilots are truly good, but in a way they've learned to fly "the way the sim is", not in a realistic way, and so you see even the "experten" pulling manoeuvres that make you wonder whether they actually understand how an aircraft works.. 

 

That's why I'm looking forward to this product: if it's half as good as ROF, it'd still be a major leap from the old IL-2..

 

 

I remember being at a lecture with Chuck Yeager, Gunther Rall, and Walter Shuck (sip) and remember Yeager saying that if a German was behind him he would just pull G's until he blacked out because he figured the German was blacking out too.

 

On WoP one day I got a really good deflection shot on a 109 in my P 51B, then closing in for the kill he stalled right in front of me. If I'd had the presence of mind I could have got him right there, but I was soo surprised that all I did was misss running into him. Still got him in the end but my being startled cost me an easy shot.

 

BTW, Gunther Rall was a GREAT comedian, he was just that funny !!

Edited by thx1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yes, high-G manoeuvres can save your butt, but it's the yanking around all over the place that many do that is not something you could do that easily in real life without breaking the whole thing apart probably.

 

That must have been fun indeed! I have Rall's signed bio, but I still haven't managed to read it :-/ I heard before he was quite the comedy guy though :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have some experience "dog fighting" and I dont find it to be overly fatiguing.  WW2 fighters dont really have the power to hold more than 4-5 Gs in a sustained turn.  You can hit some peak Gs at 7-9, but those will be short duration with most of your "dog fighting" being around 4 Gs.  I can fight all day at 4 Gs with spikes into 7+. 

 

For the average guy who isn't accustomed to Gs, you'll probably be spent after a couple of minutes.  As for WW2 pilots, I imagine they were fairly well accustomed to it.  Guys who live by the sword are probably pretty flipping good at it afterall, right?  In my opinion, fatigue modelling isnt a huge player here. 

 

I would suggest modeling random G tolerance around some average value for players when they spawn in.  But even after a brief rest at 3-4 Gs, I'm ready to crank it up again to something higher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess we should put it in a different context though: fatigue is not just because of Gs (in fact once you're used to it, Gs play a minor part in it IMHO), but mainly because of stress, temperature, length of mission, UV light etc.. 

We go up on our aircraft today ready to do some tumbles and have some fun, those chaps went out to shoot at each other, and there was always a fair chance that the one they were flying could be their last mission.. that's the sort of "psychological fatigue" I'd look more into.. 

 

I think that the best surrogate to "simulate" it would be loooong re-spawns, but then again you paid for something you want to use..

 

It might be good to have a week-long re-spawn in online campaigns, so that people would fly and behave in a more "life preserving" way?

Edited by Sternjaeger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess we should put it in a different context though: fatigue is not just because of Gs (in fact once you're used to it, Gs play a minor part in it IMHO), but mainly because of stress, temperature, length of mission, UV light etc.. 

We go up on our aircraft today ready to do some tumbles and have some fun, those chaps went out to shoot at each other, and there was always a fair chance that the one they were flying could be their last mission.. that's the sort of "psychological fatigue" I'd look more into.. 

 

I think that the best surrogate to "simulate" it would be loooong re-spawns, but then again you paid for something you want to use..

 

It might be good to have a week-long re-spawn in online campaigns, so that people would fly and behave in a more "life preserving" way?

 

Call Of Duty United Offensive had/has search and destroy MP, that lasted about 15 minutes. Once you got killed you were dead and had to wait it out till the next one started. All of a sudden people played a whole different way !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with modeling pilot physiology is that every pilot was different. There were some who would do calisthenics and lift weights regularly and some who would go out and party .. even fly hung over... If pilot physiology is something that is scalable you can bet everyone will pick the most fit pilot profile.. but it would be a good idea to have I guess a more accurate pilot physiology modeled.. but it would most likely be something generic and the same for all pilots..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Call Of Duty United Offensive had/has search and destroy MP, that lasted about 15 minutes. Once you got killed you were dead and had to wait it out till the next one started. All of a sudden people played a whole different way !

 

 

Huh!

 

You remind me another very important feature which is in CoD line.

 

Auto team balance!!!

 

Its a serious problem for all casual dgf servers. Some people stick to one side or can play only 1 plane and because of that we sometimes have unfair situations ;/

Flying 5 vs 20 is not funny. Sometimes you even cant take off ;/

 

I think that dedicated servers should have such option.

Edited by =LG=Blakhart
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh!

 

You remind me another very important feature which is in CoD line.

 

Auto team balance!!!

 

Its a serious problem for all casual dgf servers. Some people stick to one side or can play only 1 plane and because of that we sometimes have unfair situations ;/

Flying 5 vs 20 is not funny. Sometimes you even cant take off ;/

 

I think that dedicated servers should have such option.

 

 

Yeah forgot about that COD feature. I still play there rarely on the BA servers. (I'm BAnecron99)

 

I also get the feeling that VVS pilots are going to be outnumbered if only because sooo many like the 109 and 190 and think they were the greatest fighters in the sky.

 

 

BTW, you should use the photo of you at 9000m as your avatar. Cool pic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem I have with modeling pilot physiology is that every pilot was different. There were some who would do calisthenics and lift weights regularly and some who would go out and party .. even fly hung over... If pilot physiology is something that is scalable you can bet everyone will pick the most fit pilot profile.. but it would be a good idea to have I guess a more accurate pilot physiology modeled.. but it would most likely be something generic and the same for all pilots..

 

 

A good average profile for everyone should be sufficient to eliminate the "twitch and shoot" behavior found in most games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see both sides here. Ultimate realism is cool but can be a fun killer. No consequences can be fun bug its a realism killer.

 

As bongo stated we already have mechanisms in place to represent red out,black out, injury.

 

If they did go one step further. I could see possibly making a prolonged white or black and white fade that increased with a dog fight (and made controls slightly less responsive) and as you egressed a fight it would return to full color. Indicating you are ready to go at it again. But this time those that effect would happen slightly quicker.

 

I would reset those effects just as an injury effect is reset upon refly. To simulate new plane, new day.

 

Anything past that i fear will get to entrenched in "pilot fitness" wars on the forums.

Edited by Hooves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As bongo stated we already have mechanisms in place to represent red out,black out

 

 

Issue is the gamer retains good control of the "aircraft" and situational awareness throughout with the current "realistic" pilot physiology models.  That makes it not realistic as changing the color of the monitor does absolutely nothing.

 

In a real aircraft, despite the claims made in this thread, most fighter pilots are mental midgets under acceleration which is what the data says.   

 

It is like teaching spins, in the students mind, they are "Iceman" the fighter pilot.  They don't hear themselves moaning into the microphone or see themselves staring hollow eyed and slack jawed at the instrument panel as the aircraft drops into the spin.

 

It is like that guy in the altitude chamber who when off oxygen, gets mad at everyone for laughing at him because in his mind, he is answering all the questions as well as working all the problems without impairment.  Those of us on oxygen see him drooling and unable to complete a single task.

Edited by Crump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is like that guy in the altitude chamber who when off oxygen, gets mad at everyone for laughing at him because in his mind, he is answering all the questions as well as working all the problems without impairment.  Those of us on oxygen see him drooling and unable to complete a single task.

I finally understand you!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...  :scratch_one-s_head:
 
What physiology stuff can be reasonably accomplished in IL-2: BoS? I am no pilot in RL and have been away from the flight sim scene a while now, but while keeping a open mind these are a few thoughts I have:

 

I don't think anyone would argue that as a starting point, physiology should approximate what a WW2-era pilot of average age and physical capability should be able to both accomplish and withstand while flying maneuvers.

  • First, that's who our "Virtual Pilot" is representing, barring some flight hour-scaled threshold, which seems a daunting task for 777, at least for now.
  • If there is to be a solution, it needs to work for everyone who plays BoS without being more than an achievable skill, i.e., it can't be such an irritant to become a barrier to entry for new players or we have essentially cut off our nose to spite our face as it were. The solution must be explainable and repeatable so that it becomes accepted as the norm in BoS, otherwise we are not making good use of 777 Studios time for the whole BoS community.
  • Moving into the future and past the starting point average pilot we mentioned above could come about through different means and I am glad this topic was started to explore just what those should look like given we are in a simulation that cannot represent gravitational forces directly.
  • How do you balance player ability in physiology? Granted, we can say the same regarding advantages such as IR Tracker and better quality gear (sticks, pedals, throttle, etc.) but regardless it is a slippery slope.

 

The current "accepted norm" for flight sims is the familiar Blackout and Redout effects of reduced vision from gravitational forces.

  • Obviously the designers have some formula they use to determine when and where and for whom the above is triggered and alleviated. A whole bunch of questions come to mind. What exactly is this "G-forces effect" tied to? The pilot's controls input only? The plane type being flown and its state at one moment in time? I would imagine all the above is the correct answer, but only 777 can say for sure.
  • Members are calling for a more sophisticated cause and effect and circumstances concerning these Blackouts and Redouts. Fine, but I wonder about the Elephant in the room, Balance. I suppose "we won't know for sure until we try" applies in this case, but I can't shake the feeling this could be a real can of worms and not worth the costs involved to 777 in both time and possible players lost due to personal disconnects in the cause and effects displayed.
  • Again as above, if we can't make it logically explainable and repeatable to all BoS players, I believe it ends up a inefficient use of 777 Studio's time. Don't get me wrong, I like the goal, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around how to get there. Thankfully 777 has a bunch of guys a lot smarter than me!

 

How far can you push the envelope with "Realism" and still keep a thriving community, continued sales to new customers and play from existing owners? How much is too much? Too little? To whom? What exactly is at stake?

  • Knowing your audience and their idiosyncrasies is important for 777. It appears they have a pretty good handle on this so far, albeit based on subjective observation.
  • How much faith do you put into drawing new players to BoS from War Thunder and other existing flight simulations?
  • My feeling is 777 will straddle the fence in the beginning and only implement advanced elements of combat flying when and if they prove compatible and sustainable.

 

A great discussion guys. Here is hoping this topic will help to hammer out some of the possibilities for the future of BoS.

Edited by Grifter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Issue is the gamer retains good control of the "aircraft" and situational awareness throughout with the current "realistic" pilot physiology models.  That makes it not realistic as changing the color of the monitor does absolutely nothing.

Then disable the controls temporarily until the screen restores, not sure how useful controls are anyway when the screen is blank (red/black

 

In a real aircraft, despite the claims made in this thread, most fighter pilots are mental midgets under acceleration which is what the data says.

Who made those claims?

 

It is like that guy in the altitude chamber who when off oxygen, gets mad at everyone for laughing at him because in his mind, he is answering all the questions as well as working all the problems without impairment.  Those of us on oxygen see him drooling and unable to complete a single task.

Yes, I think I finally understand you too....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Members are calling for a more sophisticated cause and effect and circumstances concerning these Blackouts and Redouts. Fine, but I wonder about the Elephant in the room, Balance. I suppose "we won't know for sure until we try" applies in this case, but I can't shake the feeling this could be a real can of worms and not worth the costs involved to 777 in both time and possible players lost due to personal disconnects in the cause and effects displayed.

 

 

Good post.  I think it will be like the suppression models found in many current FPS games.  I found out in researching how to answer some of the questions in this thread that suppression models where hotly debated a few years ago in those games. 

 

Company customer bases were deeply divided.  Eventually someone took the plunge and came up with a suppression model and now they are the norm in high end FPS combat games.

 

Somebody will do that with Flight Combat games eventually breaking that ground.  I agree that when they do, much of the silly airplane performance whines will be replaced with "my pilot" whines.  Since physiology was the largest limiting factor.....at least they will have that right so nobody can argue about it not being a step closer in realism! :)

 

Players will also have a new learning curve in fighting their favorite game aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I also get the feeling that VVS pilots are going to be outnumbered if only because sooo many like the 109 and 190 and think they were the greatest fighters in the sky.

 

 

BTW, you should use the photo of you at 9000m as your avatar. Cool pic.

 

 

Negative. You forgot about russian community ???

 

I can only afraid about all those western pilots who finally come to OstFront...

 

p.s.

Thx man :) Maybe when I will have more than 2000 hrs in the air I will start to feel like a such guy from that pic :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who made those claims?

 

 

 

The air forces conducting the research..... :dry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...