Pilot Limitation under load and stress

[Sternjaeger]

guys please. Let's try and and find some points to start from together and see where we agree and where we disagree, cos this has turned into yet another bar fight where we pick on each other's point and we tear it apart just for the sake of argument.

 

Pilot's limitations under load and stress was the original topic, right? 

 

Provided we can use an average for the blackouts/redouts etc... how do we simulate "stress"? 

 

Why would i want to have a "panic" effect like Call of Duty, when perhaps I've already seen the enemy planes and I'm deliberately flying straight? I think we should rely more on gamer's stress, not on the pilot's one. 

 

Do we agree at least on this?

[Sternjaeger]

Bongo make sure you don't turn your head whilst you're pulling Gs, apparently somewhere in the world a kitten dies when you do it 

[DD_bongodriver]

it's ok, it will be done in the name of art.

[Sternjaeger]

guys, joking aside, we could have a version of the simulator the way you envisage it to be in your head, or we could have a version that is based on real pilots' account of what it is like to deal with g-load and stress.

 

There's plenty of literature on the matter, both scientific (thanks Crump!) and anecdotal, the problem is that with anything physiologic, there's not a rule that applies to all (and no Crump, your averages are not an individual rule, they're averages).

The real matter here is where do we draw the line and what sort of implementation we can use that would make things more realistic without affecting playability. 

Edited November 14, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[Dakpilot]

"tomorrow I'm going to play in a DH Chipmunk"

 

cool you will enjoy it, they are very nice

 

also make sure not to read the manual that's only for sissies  ​ and do a few unauthorized performance mods, a good experienced pilot always knows better  

 

LoL dont take that too seriously 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[DD_bongodriver]

Well I have flown a Tiger moth with a chipmunk's engine, same engine but more powerful version.

[Sternjaeger]

Well I have flown a Tiger moth with a chipmunk's engine, same engine but more powerful version.

 

crumbs, didn't it come apart?! 

[DD_bongodriver]

Nope, sweet as a nut, flew at about 100mph, was a Canadian mod with tailwheel and brakes and no slats.

[Sternjaeger]

and canopy too? I have a special bond with the Tiggie because it's the first vintage aircraft I flew with, but it's like the mobility scooter of the skies ;-)

[DD_bongodriver]

no, regular open cockpit.....tiggers are wonderfull things.

[Sternjaeger]

yeah,

"They're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy

Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun!"   

[Caudron431]

I asked first, it was your idea.

 

 

If an aerobatic pilot pulls a 4 g loop is it different to a combat pilot puilling a 4 g loop?........because it is 'artistic'?

 

 

'ALL' flying requires situational awareness, even a student on his first solo needs to be situationally aware.........I hope you are not a pilot.

 

enough of this garbage.

Please try to quote the exact part in my post  and you'll see it is your own elaboration! You came with this, not me, everybody can see this lol   You rock, my friend! Take credit for your masterpiece, don't be shy!

 

 

When a pilot pulls 4G, and another one pulls 4G, it has the same effect on their bodies (if the two pilots are in the same, or similar plane, with similar gear (no G suit same body position...). They experience the same forces on their bodies. There is nothing like your artistic G concept. It is so easy to understand that i really don't see where the problem is??? Or maybe when it is you yourself then there should be nothing because you are "artistically better" than other sim pilots? lol Seems so!

 

What you don't get, because you really seem to have troubles to understand what exactly are the tasks of an actual WW2 fighter pilot is that the situational awareness you need for sundays aerobatic sorties has absolutely nothing in common with what actual fighter pilots call that when they use the phrase "situational awareness". Of course they mean combat situational awareness (to help you the important word here is combat), there is a huge qualitative difference: they don't need to focus on the basic rules of flight like students or sunday aerobatic pilots! By pulling or pushin Gs one could stay able to perform ones planned and secured one man show, but incapacitated when it comes to performing an actual fighter pilots task.

 

Performing artistic aerobatics, you can ignore almost everything that define air combat, you don't mind if you are incapacitated as long as you can perform the planned aerobatics, you don't have to track fast moving bogey, to check, to identify, to report location of enemy aircraft above unknown territory, you don't have to match the enemy's performance and skills, you don't have to aim precisely... In such a asepticized environment you can pay the price of high G because you are not in a combat situation, you don't have to perform an actual fighter pilot's tasks, you don't have to defeat or to survive, you don't need [this kind of combat] situational awareness, everything is predictable. Your only challenge is to go as planned, by heart.

 

A fighter pilot cannot afford to waste his combat potential like that.

 

BTW If you really think that what a liner pilot, a sunday pilot or a even a student call situational awareness is the same a what fighter pilots call it, then I really hope you are not a fighter pilot!

 

You said:

"enough of this garbage"

 

Do as you wish, you made my day already.

Edited November 14, 2013 by RegRag1977

[Caudron431]

Too many people are acting like jerks in this thread and it is getting really, really tired.

 

 

 

RegRag made no mention of artistic g-forces. His first post was perfectly clear to me, and his clarification doubly so.

His point was that the demands of reacting under G-forces are significantly different between a modern and highly experienced pilot doing a planned aerobatics display, and someone who is engaged in real aerial combat with all the attendant physical, psychological and mental stresses and demands.

No one is saying that aerobatic flying does not require situational awareness.

Thanks FlatSpinMan, you got the meaning of what i was trying to say . Maybe i should have been more precise though, anyway it is cool to know someone can actually understand what i wrote. (english is not my first language as you may have noticed).

 

.

Edited November 14, 2013 by RegRag1977

[von_Tom]

 

 

Driving home today I kept my shoulders against the seat and turned as much as I could. The limit of my peripheral vision reached directly behind. Leaning slightly every which way just meant that directly behind wasn't quite at the edge of the peripheral vision.

 

Factor in tight straps, a helmet and goggles and it'd get harder. Then add aircraft in formation or turning in a fight and it'd be even worse.

 

Anyway, despite my regard for the OP don't limit pilot limitation at all I'd say. It won't make anyone better or worse but it might frustration at playing a game. A simulator, yes, but it's still a game.

 

Hood

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

(((  This forum software is awful!  )))

 

Quoting someone else:

 

Performing artistic aerobatics, you can ignore almost everything that define air combat, you don't mind if you are incapacitated as long as you can perform the planned aerobatics, you don't have to track fast moving bogey, to check, to identify, to report location of enemy aircraft above unknown territory, you don't have to match the enemy's performance and skills, you don't have to aim precisely... In such a asepticized environment you can pay the price of high G because you are not in a combat situation, you don't have to perform an actual fighter pilot's tasks, you don't have to defeat or to survive, you don't need [this kind of combat] situational awareness, everything is predictable. Your only challenge is to go as planned, by heart.

 

Is this really where this thread needs to go?  Are going to compare one pilot's flying environment to another's and draw different conclusions to the same physics?  I really don't know where the debate is.  And regardless it is immaterial.  There are things that simply cannot be simulated. And when you attempt to simulate those things you only remind the player that his suspension of reality has been terminated. 

Edited November 14, 2013 by SmokinHole

[Grifter]

At the end of the day I doubt all the discussion, angst and contentiousness are worth it.

 

Any talk of implementing a physiological model for a combat flight simulation is fraught with BIG problems, not the least of which is agreeing on what is important and what is not. We haven't even scratched the surface of how to implement the damn thing yet! Worse than herding cats.

 

I find it all a bit too subjective and the translation to computer-based flight simulation just doesn't fit very well. I think we should all relax in the knowledge that certain areas of combat flying and maneuvers will never be optimal. I am not a closed mind type of person in the least, but it's going to take a herculean effort to convince me that this will be a good thing for IL-2:BoS.

 

Oh, and I have a hunch that 777 Studios can come up with a way to discourage the bunting behavior in play through the airframe stress factors, damage, etc. They're smart fellas, I think they are on top of it.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Grifter

[Venturi]

DD_Bongodriver, the reason it is relevant is that it we can see the Gs being pulled when even a moderate, tightly controlled, and preplanned turn is being executed AT COMBAT SPEEDS OFTEN SEEN IN WW2. In other words, increases in speed = increases in G per deg/sec delta. Try doing a diving scissors with another guy at 300-400mph and I think that you may not be as macho as you think you are. When your head is canted, turned, craned around frantically trying to find the guy directly in your blind 6 to counter-roll him, you may have a hell of a neck ache, if you live through the encounter.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Venturi

[DD_bongodriver]

Ok I understand, the internet has shown me the light.

[Sternjaeger]

DD_Bongodriver, the reason it is relevant is that it we can see the Gs being pulled when even a moderate, tightly controlled, and preplanned turn is being executed AT COMBAT SPEEDS OFTEN SEEN IN WW2. In other words, increases in speed = increases in G per deg/sec delta. Try doing a diving scissors with another guy at 300-400mph and I think that you may not be as macho as you think you are. When your head is canted, turned, craned around frantically trying to find the guy directly in your blind 6 to counter-roll him, you may have a hell of a neck ache, if you live through the encounter.

 

Venturi, have you regularly performed aerobatics in a propeller aircraft in real life?

 

Are you guys really trying to teach a real life pilot with aerobatic experience what the physics and physiology of flying aerobatic manoeuvres are like? 

 

As I said before, I'm gobsmacked.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[DD_bongodriver]

It's Ok stern, what he said is all true, doing rolling scissors and diving scissors and kitchen scissors is all very difficult at massive combat speeds of 300 kts plus, not sure what it has to do with the OP's initial concerns about rapid onset g forces likely to be experienced by the 'twitch and shoot' mob, I personally thought the gloc modelled in most flight sims handled sustained g fairly accurately, clearly I am wrong and the internet is here to save us.

[Crump]

 

Any talk of implementing a physiological model for a combat flight simulation is fraught with BIG problems, not the least of which is agreeing on what is important and what is not. We haven't even scratched the surface of how to implement the damn thing yet! Worse than herding cats.

 

This is the exact same sentiment the FPS gamers said about suppressive fire.  In the end, gamers have some high fidelity models that do well the simulate the effects and enhance gameplay.

 

I am sure flight simmer are at least as intelligent.

 

 

Aerobatic flying is a beautiful coordination of pilot and aircraft. It requires a well engineered aircraft and a highly skilled pilot. Many pilots believe the restricting factors in aerobatics to be the load limits of the aircraft. For the exceptional pilot this may be so, but for some it is the ability of the pilot to withstand the accelerations of the maneuvers. The truly skilled pilot will know his or her limitations, will train to extend them, and will avoid conditions that lower tolerance and jeopardize safety.

 

http://avstop.com/ac/ac91-61.html

 

http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/Acceleration.pdf

Edited November 15, 2013 by Rama

[Rama]

To All.

Please stop private discussions in this topic.

Arguments are ok, but all the discussions and disputes about the behavior/attitudes/skills/whatever of other posters are off topic, brings nothing to the discussion, gives no informations to readers, and are just flooding the thread.

If you feel you have absolutly to react to someone post... then don't. Wait, take a breath, reread, think if your reaction is really needed and if you have something really informative to add.

 

I have enough editing and hiding posts, so if it continues, I'll prepare vacation tickets to those using this thread as a rethorical arena.

[FlatSpinMan]

Agreed.

[ACG_Dickie]

How very disappointing, yet typical, that my original thread has descended into a personal ego fight rather than to get a basic point across about the wild and arcadian activity which all CFS games exhibit right now, one that imho is a bit of a ruination.  The good news is that those who want to improve the game and take it further from the arcade rather than their own internet pecking status seemed to have grasped the point and agreed with support without the need to nit-pick whilst telling us all about their own life irrelevances which nobody cares about.

 

I thought I made my point quite clear tbh and really it was actually aimed at the development team - hopefully they read it and understood it and ignored the rest.  I'd really like to see some groundbreaking change which encourage more realistic behaviour in CFS sims,  the next era of realism which is as yet untackled.  Essentially this is no different to those combat FPS games where you fall off a building into the street and die rather than surviving the fall and continuing the fight - do you think FPS players started a debate on how high someone could fall from a building before they were killed following the first time this was implemented?  I suspect it didn't matter, only that you couldn't make ridiculous jumps from 5 storeys up to escape the enemy is what matters.  In perspective, that's how simple it is and how stupid some of these arguments are.  Seriously people, you are ruining it.

 

Thanks

[Sternjaeger]

Hi Osprey, to be honest I think the devs already kept this into consideration, especially after having seen what they implemented in ROF. The debate surely got out of hand, but the truth is that this is still uncharted territory (at least for sims!).. I'd say let's wait and see what the devs propose us as "pilot model" and we'll go from there :-)

Edited November 18, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[DD_bongodriver]

Actually Osprey it was on several occasions that most of us tried to directly address your concerns, it was illustrated how a real life pilot could easily take the rapid onset g forces from all the bunting an pulling to evade gunfire, and the main reason this behaviour is not seen in gun cam footage is because the victims were most often unaware of the attack until too late, gun cams really weren't that great for capturing actual manoeuvring dogfights because they have such a small fov, at best we sometimes see deflection shots in steady turns, anybody actually making successful evasive manoeuvres is unlikely to be on gun cam, I personally find the whole notion of implementing a pilot limitation model to be the real killer of realism as it sounds like an excuse to prevent people making attempts to survive, everyone will just end up booming an zooming and barely ever making a turn for fear of killing their own pilot, you may not care for anybody's life stories but if I want to discuss realism in a simulator then give me people with real life experience over internet experts anyday.

[ACG_Dickie]

TBH bongo on this occasion I think you're talking rubbish.  The gun cam fired when the guns fired and stopped when they stopped,  miss or not.  You are also implying a context to name which I have not applied - it's very clear what I wrote, don't paint it as something different thanks.  What I see from you old boy is no humility, that you are still right and now I'm wrong, because you don't like me pointing out to you that you are arguing about the survival height for a soldier falling from a building.

 

 

I'll go back to listening to Biffy Clyro,  Simon Neil might be abstract but he talks some common sense.

[DD_bongodriver]

TBH bongo on this occasion I think you're talking rubbish. The gun cam fired when the guns fired and stopped when they stopped

 

Yes, but with such a small fov the target being fired at could be out of frame if in a high deflection shot, a non manoeuvring target is in the centre of the frame, I have seen gun cam footage showing exactly what I describe.

it's very clear what I wrote, don't paint it as something different thanks.

 

I didn't, I simply gave my opinion on your perceived problems.

 

because you don't like me pointing out to you that you are arguing about the survival height for a soldier falling from a building.

I don't recall sharing any opinion on soldiers falling off roofs.

 

I'll go back to listening to Biffy Clyro, Simon Neil might be abstract but he talks some common sense.

OK, not my area of interest so I assume you know what you are talking about, enjoy.

[Crump]

 

everyone will just end up booming an zooming

 

 

Realistic physiology will do nothing of the sort.  It will eliminate much of the gamey unrealistic behaviors from all air combat scenarios.

 

 

Problem with WWII air combat games is the fact the aircraft outperforms the man in it.  Aviation Physiology was in its infancy just like stability and control engineering. 

 

So in these games we see silly behaviors in all aspects of the aerial combat due to poor physiological modeling of the pilot.

 

You have the twitchy negative G dance to escape....no need to address...it is just plain stupid.  It ruins the game for many folks.  It is like watching my daughters "call of duty" online dancing like pieces of popcorn machine-gunning everything in sight.

 

The 20 second (or more) 3 plus G turn fights......6 seconds is about average to feel adverse effects of GOR.  15 seconds at 3 G GOR and many folks are in GLOC.  Those that are not are about as intellectually keen as a Chimpanzee.  Their body is in baroreceptor reflex and fighting to keep enough blood flowing to sustain itself.

 

Then you have the "boom and zoom" crowd swooping in at Vne to pull 10 (+) G's to make a high deflection snap shot.  7G/s onset rate gives you between .5 and 1 second of consciousness before GLOC.   The disorientation makes it silly to think the average pilot could even track a target to even point his finger at it much less fly a gun sight onto target.

 

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.

 

 

Osprey started a great thread on an issue that one of the defining aspects of World War II dogfighting.  The capability of the machines outstripped the capability of the men to realize their maneuvering potential. 

[DD_bongodriver]

Realistic physiology will do nothing of the sort. It will eliminate much of the gamey unrealistic behaviors from all air combat scenarios

 

 

Apparently he has me on ignore....spooky.

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

Quoting below:

 

>>>. The 20 second (or more) 3 plus G turn fights......6 seconds is about average to feel adverse effects of GOR. 15 seconds at 3 G GOR and many folks are in GLOC. Those that are not are about as intellectually keen as a Chimpanzee. Their body is in baroreceptor reflex and fighting to keep enough blood flowing to sustain itself.<<<

 

^^^^^^

 

Really!? Where is this coming from? There are pilots on this thread who fly like this regularly. We are simply asserting that much that is out there is nonsense. Your grandmother might lose consciousness after 15 seconds at 3 sustained Gs but no one under 40 and in moderate condition will. Don't believe everything you read.

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

Apparently he has me on ignore....spooky.

Fortunately the devs are smart enough to ignore all of this. They will stick with what is simple and proven a la RoF. Before this thread I would argue that that is just not good enough. But some of the assertions and suggestions have scared me to conservatism. Don't change a thing 777!

[Venturi]

Mark Twain once said, "It is wiser to find out than to suppose". 

 

N=500

 

Of particular interest, is page 28.

g.pdf

Edited November 19, 2013 by Venturi

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

It's Ok stern, what he said is all true, doing rolling scissors and diving scissors and kitchen scissors is all very difficult at massive combat speeds of 300 kts plus, not sure what it has to do with the OP's initial concerns about rapid onset g forces likely to be experienced by the 'twitch and shoot' mob, I personally thought the gloc modelled in most flight sims handled sustained g fairly accurately, clearly I am wrong and the internet is here to save us.

I think maybe not everyone gets the sarcasm expressed in this post. Bongodriver knows this but others may not: Speed has nothing to do with the physiology experienced during maneuvering. A pilot throwing around a chipmunk, an Extra or a Pitts is experiencing precisely the same forces as a pilot in an F-22 assuming the F-22 pilot is willing to push and pull within the maneuvering envelope of the plane. Where speed (and thrust) of the fighter matters is the ability to sustain G. The F-22 (without a pilot) can sustain a very high G indefinitely until it runs out of fuel. The Pitts will be able to indefinately sustain 4G at best. The typical WWII fighter is about the same if not a bit less.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

I can smell the scent of Godwin's law.....

[DD_bongodriver]

What on earth would that have to do with anything?

[von_Tom]

I can smell the scent of Godwin's law.....

 

 

Must... not.... mention... Nazis.....

 

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

 

Hood

[FuriousMeow]

So how do you monitor pilot fatigure? Do we have some fatigue bar, and when it reaches maximum we have to fly straight and level for it to recharge?

 

Saburo Sakai fought off 12 to 15 Hellcats with one eye for more than 20 minutes before being able to return to base. So about those pilot limitations...

[Sternjaeger]

right, can I throw in another variable which you're gonna love.. The seating position in the FW190 was more slanted and with legs extended, which helped the pilot withstanding and recovering from high-G maneuvering more easily.. 

Edited November 19, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[DD_bongodriver]

Spitfire pilots also had the option to put their feet on the top of the peddals to elevate their legs for the same reason.

Interesting centrifuge videos showing various rates of acceleration and all of the subjects are not using g breathing techniques or wearing anti g garments.

 

This guy is shot up to about 8 g in as many seconds

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI012OetxTg

 

This guy is taken to 4 g to sustain and is totally unprepared but has no problem apart from slight grey out initially but swiftly settles down.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm-AnukXS8o

 

this guy just gets taken up to about 6.6 g 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY7Id7TpfgU

 

Young USN ensign going through the works, still a resting tollerance of high 6, love the rest of the video, intense and you feel like straining with him.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QlMD9qfRoc

 

Just some interesting stuff to consider, 4 g is easy.

Edited November 19, 2013 by DD_bongodriver