Pilot Limitation under load and stress

[Sternjaeger]

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...

 

the short answer is that you can't in an accurate manner. 

 

This is a flight simulator, not a flight and pilot simulator. The basic effects that we have at the moment should suffice, and people won't be yanking their aircraft all over the place anymore now because we have more realistic damage and flight models. 

 

If we want to simulate the pilot as well, then we should take into account the individuality of each pilot, since having an "average pilot model" would defy the whole point of simulating something in the first place. Some pilots were indeed better and in better shape than others, how are we gonna simulate that?

 

And even If we go down this road, how would you render the virtual version of yourself and where do you draw boundaries? Would you represent yourself as your real alter-ego? 

Edited November 19, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[Crump]

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

 

N=500

 

Of particular interest, is page 28.

 

 

Exactly....

 

One the best reports I have seen for detailing onset rate as a function of incapacitation.   The range for incapacitation goes from 2.3G to 9G with a mean of 7.2G.  It highlights the importance of onset rate, length of exposure, and maximum Ghz.

 

This will give some good data for the developers.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Crump

[Sternjaeger]

oh yeah, they were just waiting for your seal of approval   

Edited November 20, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[Crump]

 

SmokinHole says:

 

Are going to compare one pilot's flying environment to another's and draw different conclusions to the same physics?

 

 

Absolutely, read the factual data from physiological studies on fighter pilots.  Sure the physics is the same buy the physiology is not. 

 

 

 The Pitts will be able to indefinately sustain 4G at best. The typical WWII fighter is about the same if not a bit less.          

 

 

Able to sustain less than a Pitts?  I would run the math on this.

 

 

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.          

 

Like the Scientific studies on fighter pilot G tolerances from the Air Forces of the world who spent millions of dollars gathering that data?

 

We should not believe that but rather take the word of a few pilots who play a game and do some loops on the weekend??

 

That does not sound logical to me at all.

[Crump]

 

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.. 

 

 

That is actually pretty easy to account for in the math Sternjager.  It is in the study data as well.

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

So what do you want Crump? Should 777 randomize virtual pilot physiology so that on one day when you dial up IL2 you begin to grey out at 3 Gs and the next day 7? Not every variable can be nor should be modeled. One thing that a good developer must consider is the frustration the player might endure as new variables affect gameplay. Personally I look at everything through the prism of online play. I would no more want variable physiology than I would variable reliability. Imagine planning a mission with your squad for half an hour, only to have one of you blow a rod on takeoff. ("Honey! I guess I can watch House of Cards with you after all."). Realistic? Maybe. Fun? Not to me. Same would be true if the game decided that my virtual pilot drank too much vodka at breakfast.

 

Now as for the population used in the studies cited here; they were not all "fighter" pilots. They probably were all military personel. Maybe all were pilots of some fashion but there is no way that the individual who g-loc'd at 3G made it to the fighter ranks.

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

We should not believe that but rather take the word of a few pilots who play a game and do some loops on the weekend?.

Charming Crump. You have no idea what the pilots on this forum do.

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

?..Able to sustain less than a Pitts?  I would run the math on this...

Please do.

[Crump]

Complete side topic so let's get off it.  If you have any questions on this please let's take to PM and I will be glad to walk you thru the math.

 

SmokinHole says:

 

Please do.

 

Your cut and paste snippet from the RAE report is for a minimum radius turn which is not the same as Maximum Sustainable Load factor.

 

Here is the Pitts S2B maximum sustained load factor at take off weight = 2.9G's

 

 

Here is the Bf-109 and Spitfire Mk I both in the vicinity of ~3.3 G's....not quite a full half a G sustainable over the S2B.

 

 

Of course as thrust increases in development over the course of the war, so doesn't the sustained G....

 

 

Here is the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+18) sustaining 3.6G's at Gmax sustained...almost a full G over the Pitts.

 

So I agree with you that some Pitts might come close or even match some WWII fighters but I cannot agree with a generalization of a Pitts can sustain more G than a typical World War II fighter.  It is just not truthful.

 

SmokinHole says:

 

Realistic? Maybe. Fun? Not to me

 

 

I agree that attempting to add more realism may not be everyone cup of tea.  By all means, it should be scalable so that those who want more arcadish styles of gameplay can have their fun too.  I support that 100%!!

 

SmokinHole says:

 

Now as for the population used in the studies cited here; they were not all "fighter" pilots.

 

 

Depends on the study.  Some where aircrew and some where fighter pilots, some studies used mixed populations while others just used the fighter pilots.  Interesting thing is there is not any measureable difference according to the data.

 

Read the studies, you will find it very interesting and you might learn something.

 

Here is what the physics says about acceleration and the human body:

 

 

"If gravity on earth suddenly became three times greater (i.e., g ~ 30m/s²), blood would only rise about 43 cm above the heart and it would not reach the brain of a standing person. This situation can be produced artificially by accelerating the body at a = 3 g in a head first direction (Fig. 8.8b)."

 

 

Cameron, John R.; James G. Skofronick & Roderick M. Grant. Physics of the Body. Second Edition. Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing, 1999: 182.

 

 

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/PhillipAndriyevsky.shtml

 

Most of the Military Studies agree that a trained pilot without a G suit or AGSM falls into the 4-6G range for only a few seconds without visual and cognitive impairment.

 

That is 1.3 to 2 times the average person already.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Crump

[Sternjaeger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eda2LTRA1UU

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuPTi4rcCV0

 

so much for the averages... 

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

Crump, you are quoting me inaccurately. I said:

...The Pitts will be able to indefinately sustain 4G at best. The typical WWII fighter is about the same if not a bit less....

I own a S1S, not an S2B. Weight is everything in a competition airplane and mine weighs in at just 760 pounds. I think she is pretty amazing but then I am not impartial. Compared to an Extra 330 or MXS, even a good Pitts is a lumbering dinasaur. But compared to just about anything from the War, any modern competition aerobat is far more maneuverable. They are built to +/- 10 G or even better. They have at least twice the roll rate of ANY WWII model. Because of their much lower inertia they achieve their commanded G far faster, placing the pilot (if he is wishing to push it) under much more stress than a 40s era fighter. They do all this because it is all they are designed to do. They don't fight. They rarely go over 200mph. And they don't carry anything but a single pilot and 30 minutes of fuel. But as I have said, it doesn't matter. Pilot perspective and Googled stats mean little to a developer that wishes to build the most enjoyable sim possible. Taking any advice from this thread, including both mine and yours, would lead to a swamp of random playability.

[DD_bongodriver]

Not only can you turn your head at high g but you can do it while chewing gum and shouting 'awesome'

[Crump]

 

They are built to +/- 10 G or even better

 

Instantaneous and NOT sustainable performance.

[Crump]

Here is my favorite.  This Navy pilot gets pissed when the Blue Angels puts him out twice, LOL.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4laCspgsIbk

[DD_bongodriver]

Maybe he is a Navy helo pilot, or Grumman tracker, or ........

 

Either way he wasn't very happy at the below par performance he gave,

Edited November 20, 2013 by DD_bongodriver

[Crump]

 

Weight is everything in a competition airplane and mine weighs in at just 760 pounds.

 

 

 I am still only getting about 3 G's depending on your power.  What is under the cowl?

 

 

placing the pilot (if he is wishing to push it) under much more stress than a 40s era fighter.

 

Well the data does not reflect this at all.  Huge difference between doing a set routine you are mentally and physically prepared for and combat. 

 

Sure both competition and practice induce a measure of stress, it is completely different from the stressor's found in combat. 

 

Read the reports, those stresses can significantly lower a pilots G tolerances. 

 

There is absolutely no need for a "swamp of random playability" either in implementing this feature. 

 

The data has found good plausible averages for the effects of acceleration.  We just need a little more detail of the subtle incapacitation effects and for those average limitations to be enacted.   The model can be generic to all pilots just as long as the fidelity eliminates the unrealistic and undesirable behaviors at the upper levels of the games realism settings. 

 

This will eliminate the "twitch and shoot" type players from the servers wanting to enjoy more realistic gameplay.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Crump

[Crump]

SmokinHole says:

Crump, you are quoting me inaccurately. I said:

The Pitts will be able to indefinately sustain 4G at best. The typical WWII fighter is about the same if not a bit less....

 

I did not quote you at all.  I must have been confusing, sorry.

 

I said:

 

 

So I agree with you that some Pitts might come close or even match some WWII fighters but I cannot agree with a generalization of a Pitts can sustain more G than a typical World War II fighter.  It is just not truthful.

[Caudron431]

the short answer is that you can't in an accurate manner. 

 

This is a flight simulator, not a flight and pilot simulator. The basic effects that we have at the moment should suffice, and people won't be yanking their aircraft all over the place anymore now because we have more realistic damage and flight models. 

 

If we want to simulate the pilot as well, then we should take into account the individuality of each pilot, since having an "average pilot model" would defy the whole point of simulating something in the first place. Some pilots were indeed better and in better shape than others, how are we gonna simulate that?

 

And even If we go down this road, how would you render the virtual version of yourself and where do you draw boundaries? Would you represent yourself as your real alter-ego? 

I hear what you say but using the very same logic one could easily say: the damage and flight models don't need averages either, some aircraft of a same type would break at x number of G and another one at Y (slightly different from X) number of G, i mean if we made empirical study about aircraft resilience to damage due to high G we wouldn't find the exact same fatal damage at the exact same number of Gs Some would certainly break at one point when other ones would not and take a bit more before fatal damage, so how do you model that, why not being bothered about that? Some aircraft were also in better shape or had better performance (same type) than others still we have averages and it doesn't bother anyone.  At some point everything in the world is just different, even the most standardized item on the market (think about performance differences from one CPU to a similar one for instance).

 

The pilot limits could be modelled just exactly like in the past: one model for all, but a complex model based on the limitations studied in documents provided. Or even better we could have random model with pilots each time marginally different (from a realistic average) for all so that we would have, just like a real pilot, to know ones limits of the moment. After all resilience to G can vary greatly from one day to another. This would be far more realistic than what we used to have imho. After all piloting is about being able to feel and react properly to informations and sensations, it is a very dynamic activity, where one must not take things for granted, where habits can kill.

 

"This is a flight simulator, not a flight and pilot simulator."

 

Again i understand your point, but  by neglecting the pilot model aren't we making a WW2 sim look like a drone sim?

Edited November 20, 2013 by RegRag1977

[NZTyphoon]

I hear what you say but using the very same logic one could easily say: the damage and flight models don't need averages either, some aircraft of a same type would break at x number of G and another one at Y (slightly different from X) number of G, i mean if we made empirical study about aircraft resilience to damage due to high G we wouldn't find the exact same fatal damage at the exact same number of Gs Some would certainly break at one point when other ones would not and take a bit more before fatal damage, so how do you model that, why not being bothered about that? Some aircraft were also in better shape or had better performance (same type) than others still we have averages and it doesn't bother anyone.  At some point everything in the world is just different, even the most standardized item on the market (think about performance differences from one CPU to a similar one for instance).

 

The pilot limits could be modelled just exactly like in the past: one model for all, but a complex model based on the limitations studied in documents provided. Or even better we could have random model with pilots each time marginally different (from a realistic average) for all so that we would have, just like a real pilot, to know ones limits of the moment. After all resilience to G can vary greatly from one day to another. This would be far more realistic than what we used to have imho. After all piloting is about being able to feel and react properly to informations and sensations, it is a very dynamic activity, where one must not take things for granted, where habits can kill.

 

"This is a flight simulator, not a flight and pilot simulator."

 

Again i understand your point, but  by neglecting the pilot model aren't we making a WW2 sim look like a drone sim?

 

And how much bandwidth and RAM will such a program need? How much more development time will be required? How much more money? How many bugs will be introduced? You're talking as though the developers can absorb the required material, both physiological and psychological, then devise the required coding and make it work at the drop of a hat.

 

How about we ask the developers to get all of the basic things right before loading yet more expectations onto them?

[Venturi]

Let's let them make that determination

[FuriousMeow]

Saburo Sakai, twenty minutes avoiding attacks by 12 to 15 Hellcats. Returned to base without damage. He had one eye.

 

I don't think he kept looking down at his stamina bar to ensure he could keep manuevering out of the way.

Edited November 20, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Caudron431]

Hi Furious Meow,

 

Following your logic I want to be able to jump out of my plane without deploying my parachute  above a forest from 18 000 ft and survive everytime, after all Nicholas Alkemade managed to survive it once (what is more possibly without the ROF blur and blood drops effects!), just make it the general rule and just let us allow sim pilots to survive it too.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade

 

Ivan Chisov: 230000 ft  wait! no chute, no trees! I want to survive that too! It must be made a general rule....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Chisov

 

 

Good thing for soviet female pilots: girls can do it too!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_Koepcke

 

After all these examples i still cannot figure out why the hell pilots had parachutes with them ? You "easily" can survive falling from a plane as i proved. There's no point in chutes at all!

 

Come one, 1CGS please build us a luck simulator!

[DD_bongodriver]

I can see why these guys are pushing for a simulation of fatigue, it's because they are masters of wearing you down and are hoping to exploit this in game, they just won't give up until you drop.

[ATAG_Slipstream]

Well I highly doubt the BoS developers will programme it in so its all moot really.

[Grifter]

Well I highly doubt the BoS developers will programme it in so its all moot really.

 

My earlier point exactly Oster.

 

Where do you stop with all this extra "stuff" that gets tacked onto the basic flight model? With the caliber of flight sim we have in 2013, it is hard enough to put everyone on equal enough footing so that it is a sim pilot's skill in manipulating the plane that determines who is better, not some random accumulation of back room server "stuff" that konks out widget alpha at the most inopportune time or that determines that your pilot is 20% worse off tonight compared to last night or 10% worse than the opposing pilots in G-force handling. If your side loses that evening, would you feel just a little bit cheated that the odds were tipped away from you?

 

Yes, I am being a bit facetious here, but really... once you jump on the total realism bandwagon, where does it end? To reiterate, I am not opposed to the ultimate goal here guys, I just doubt that 2013 technologies and level of sophistication are good enough to make it work in a manner that is both implementable from 777's perspective and believable from the player's perspective. It still needs to be fun enough that you don't risk driving potential customers away.

 

To quote a line from "The Right Stuff":

"You know what makes this bird go up?! Funding makes this bird go up. No bucks, no Buck Rogers!"

 

Limiting the audience of a niche market flight simulation doesn't sound like a very viable growth strategy.

Just sayin'.

[Crump]

 

Limiting the audience of a niche market flight simulation doesn't sound like a very viable growth strategy.

Just sayin'.

 

 

I agree, it should be scalable to lower the learning curve.  This way the game appeals to the largest customer base possible.  Those that enjoy the twitch and shoot behaviors such as flopping around from negative to positive G in order to escape can also enjoy their fun.

 

Those that want something more challenging can also enjoy a generic physiology model that eliminates such unrealistic behaviors while keeping a level playing field for online play. 

 

For those who want even more realism, then offer a generic fatigue model and some AGSM which is also scalable. 

 

Uncheck the features you don't like and enjoy your game!

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

But what if one "flops" from negative to positive G in real life within the structual limits of his plane?  From the perspective of that person, limiting him by making someone else's idea of Physiology Limits a multiplayer option would ruin otherwise "Full Real" servers.  We all know that it is no fun having a player on your solid 12 ruin a good gun solution by violently manuevering.  But just because its is a frustrating experience for the shooter does not make it unrealistic.  Not all players just sit there and allow themselves to get killed.  Not all pilots did either.  Some used a variation of Erich Hartmann's last-ditch technique and throw the stick into one corner and the rudder to the opposite and hope for the best. These players are often easy to kill because their energy state drops dramatically after just a second or two.  Mere physics will limit such behavior.  No monkeying necessary.

Edited November 22, 2013 by SmokinHole

[DD_bongodriver]

Exactly, if you want an easy kill just do it like they did in real life an take the other guy by surprise, there is a reason the phrase was coined 'it's the one you don't see that kills you'  just because the guy is in front of you it does not take away his right to do whatever he can to survive if he is aware of you, it is also historically documented fact that some dogfights were won by out flying the other guy and making him kill himself, it didn't always end in satisfying flashes of bullet strikes.

Edited November 22, 2013 by DD_bongodriver

[Crump]

If frogs had pockets, would they carry pistols and shoot snakes??

 

If it within tolerances noted by the reports then allow it.  I really don't see how it is going to be of much help given realistic limitations.

[Grifter]

I agree, it should be scalable to lower the learning curve.  This way the game appeals to the largest customer base possible.  Those that enjoy the twitch and shoot behaviors such as flopping around from negative to positive G in order to escape can also enjoy their fun.

 

Those that want something more challenging can also enjoy a generic physiology model that eliminates such unrealistic behaviors while keeping a level playing field for online play. 

 

For those who want even more realism, then offer a generic fatigue model and some AGSM which is also scalable. 

 

Uncheck the features you don't like and enjoy your game!

 

To play devils advocate here Crump, I would say that is a pretty stout list of challenges to put in front of the 777 team when you consider the payoff vs. cost angle. Multiple modes and modules to cater to up to three different audience types if I counted correctly. Love the coolness factor, not so much the "bang-for-the-buck" factor though. I would also say that your bolded text smacks somewhat close to trying to be all things to all people (pilots), which in my experience at least, rarely leads to anything more than a bunch of unsatisfied people (pilots).

 

I am a believer in stump sessions like this one, and I agree with your original sentiment that the breakthrough in FPS titles was a game-changer that just took some time for people to adjust to liking. I guess I tend to see the challenges and shortcomings of what is to be gained by implementation of a pilot limitation model.

Also, I wonder that most pilots out there wouldn't rather see 777's time spent in creating a new and rare or different plane to fly... something concrete one can point to and say that it was definitely worth the time spent in creating it.

 

It isn't that our discussion ideas don't have merit, it's that those "fruit" are located very high in the tree and are difficult to reach.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Grifter

[Crump]

 

It isn't that our discussion ideas don't have merit, it's that those "fruit" are located very high in the tree and are difficult to reach.

 

 

It is much less complicated that an aircraft FM.  Like I said, the FPS shooters had the same issue with suppression modeling.  It is now the norm.  Aerial combat games need a high fidelity pilot physiological model.  The pilot was the largest performance limiting factor in the World War II aerial combat arena, seems silly not to model those same constraints.  It is not much of simulation without it.

 

 

Multiple modes and modules to cater to up to three different audience types if I counted correctly.

 

 

Online, Offline, and arcade....

 

ROF has that now, right, doesn't it?

[Grifter]

It is much less complicated that an aircraft FM.  Like I said, the FPS shooters had the same issue with suppression modeling.  It is now the norm.  Aerial combat games need a high fidelity pilot physiological model.  The pilot was the largest performance limiting factor in the World War II aerial combat arena, seems silly not to model those same constraints.  It is not much of simulation without it.

 

How can a simulation of human pilots be less complicated than approximating a flight model for a piece of metal machinery that has blueprints and performance parameters? This was my point earlier with the "subjective" term I used. I am not an Engineer, but I find it hard to believe anything relating to homo sapiens is less complicated than a piece of machinery which he invented. Maybe I am looking at it the wrong way?

 

OK, so modelling constraints.  So... maybe we could give 777 Studios our basic physical metrics when we were say, twenty years old? I was 6'2"/178. How do you go from there? I mean, we end up chasing our collective tails unless at some point we give in to the law of averages and start lumping pilots into groups, no? That document of yours seems like a good one, but at its core, isn't it merely a highly-focused study that uses statistics and tests to approximate pilot behavior?

What am I missing here Crump?

[Chill31]

If you look at the G loc report posted, it shows the average resting G tolerance at about 3.7 Gs with G loc at about 6.7. Plus or minus the standard deviation would be a good way of randomizing it in my opinion. Day to day, your G tolerance varies depending on hydration and other factors.

 

Personally, I can sustain 4.5 Gs with no strain at all and carry on a a conversation. But somedays when im dehydrated, I'll start to gray at 3 to 4 Gs with no strain Just depends.

 

I find that over a 15 to 20 maneuvering session against another aircraft, I dont notice the fatigue until about 5 to 10 minutes after we finish. During the fight,your body compensates and you press right on through

[Sternjaeger]

If you look at the G loc report posted, it shows the average resting G tolerance at about 3.7 Gs with G loc at about 6.7. Plus or minus the standard deviation would be a good way of randomizing it in my opinion. Day to day, your G tolerance varies depending on hydration and other factors.

 

Personally, I can sustain 4.5 Gs with no strain at all and carry on a a conversation. But somedays when im dehydrated, I'll start to gray at 3 to 4 Gs with no strain Just depends.

 

I find that over a 15 to 20 maneuvering session against another aircraft, I dont notice the fatigue until about 5 to 10 minutes after we finish. During the fight,your body compensates and you press right on through

 

exactly, there are far too many variables to take into account: other than your daily fitness, there are things like height, blood pressure, sitting position, compensation.. I think it's a waste of time, and surely is not realistic, because the only "full real" would be to submit your body to that stress.

[Grifter]

Not sure I would count it as worth the time to implement it in IL2: BoS with all the subjectivity involved. I think it would be viewed by the majority as 'randomness that is irritating because as a pilot I have no control over it. Therefore, I don't want anything to do with it.' At least that would be my take on the IL2 community reaction.

 

We live in a world that revolves around convenience. Stripping that away and substituting an irritant is not going to garner any accolades I would bet. Even if it is for the sake of a "better" flight simulation.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Grifter

[Chill31]

I think the devs should consider some some penalty for pilots who use high negative G gun jinks. Pilots using loose seat straps in order to have better visibility who be be thrown out of their seats and find it difficult to maintain control of their aircraft.

[Venturi]

There are many ways to simulate what the hard data and common sense says are universal human limitations. There are almost an endless number of ways, from the ridiculous to the subtle. It is for the devs to interpret and implement.

 

An increase in realism will always be welcomed by those who fly this kind of sim - the realistic kind of sim. The rest will stick to Warpoop or it's ilk. The ones who love realism will come here, and stay here. Some of them may b*tch and moan about implementing any new and visionary things beforehand, but they will brag about being an early adopter afterwards.

[DD_bongodriver]

Sure they will come here and brag, if they want to be complete kill whores they will naturally come to the sim where all the targets stand still for you.

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

Venturi et al,

 

If this were about realism it would be worth consideration. But it is not about realism. It is about a mistaken perception of what is realistic. I agree a little with Chill31 (a very experienced pilot) that approaching maneuvering from the perspective of having ones body tossed about in the straps is a better approach. But that's another thread...

[Grifter]

There are many ways to simulate what the hard data and common sense says are universal human limitations. There are almost an endless number of ways, from the ridiculous to the subtle. It is for the devs to interpret and implement.

 

An increase in realism will always be welcomed by those who fly this kind of sim - the realistic kind of sim. The rest will stick to Warpoop or it's ilk. The ones who love realism will come here, and stay here. Some of them may b*tch and moan about implementing any new and visionary things beforehand, but they will brag about being an early adopter afterwards.

 

Point taken.

I do have to say that thus far, 777's team seems to have the moxie to pull this kind of stuff off with better than average results- given time. Perhaps this coming spring will arrive with a few surprises for us, eh?