Pilot Limitation under load and stress

[Crump]

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

 

 

Your experience is reflected in the data.  That was the thing that struck me.  It is not the average "rested" tolerances which so often become the point of focus.  It is the effect of typical combat stressor's on that tolerance levels and the dramatic lowering of them. 

[DD_bongodriver]

So all we have to do is work out an average estimated combat stress effect and apply it to a set of average combat stressors and apply it to the average estimated physiological limit and we should end up with a very average experience in game, simple really

[Grifter]

So all we have to do is work out an average estimated combat stress effect and apply it to a set of average combat stressors and apply it to the average estimated physiological limit and we should end up with a very average experience in game, simple really

 

Cheeky, but accurate it seems.

[Crump]

If the data actually ever gets read by some of the participants, you will find that is the point of some these studies.  So the data is already there to be used.

[DD_bongodriver]

They did all that research in order to make combat flight simulation extremely bland?

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

Last week I went in for recurrent simulator training.  Our first leg was out of Denver on a blustery, snowy night.  While taxing out, the sim would sporatically respond to my tiller inputs and when the steering "caught" the sim would bang about on its hydraulic jacks.  I thought the thing was broken (they do break alot).  When this happened again leaving the deicing pad I realized that the simulator was simulating the way the nosewheel skids on a slick surface.  In hindsight it was an obvious thing but it was presented to us in a way that was very counter to our experience actually flying in these conditions.  Of course the designers have to implement skidding on a wintery day so that pilots learn to use extra caution in the real world.  And they did it they best they could.  But it was unrecognizable to an experienced crew.  Simulating skidding would seem so simple a thing to do yet our sim's reaction and visuals lacked that j'n c'est quoi found when really taxiing on snow and ice. This is a latest generation $15 million 737-800 sim.  It occupies a 3 story 2000 sq/ft bay and requires the constant care of two full-time engineers.  With it, you can get a type rating on the real airplane whout even knowing what one looks like.  Even so, it often shows us is that there are limits to what can be convincingly simulated.

Edited November 23, 2013 by SmokinHole

[MiloMorai]

They did all that research in order to make combat flight simulation games extremely bland?

 

Fixed.

[Chill31]

Your experience is reflected in the data.  That was the thing that struck me.  It is not the average "rested" tolerances which so often become the point of focus.  It is the effect of typical combat stressor's on that tolerance levels and the dramatic lowering of them.

 

Combat increases your pulse rate and blood pressure, both of which reduce the bodies response time to increase increasing G.

 

Physiological aspects I would like to see in a combat flight sim are variable pilot blackout/redout G tolerances, the inability for the pilot to swivel his head 180 degrees, and a penalty for using negative G gun jinks (in real life, the push pull effect on Gtolerance says that pilots who go from negative G to positiveG will blackout/Gloc at a much lower G load. iMO, that would be an appropriate penalty)

[Grifter]

So, if I had to sum up eight pages of this exercise:

 

1. In the real world, pilots under combat conditions deal with limitations due to gravitational forces inherent in flying high performance aircraft. Therefore, it would be more realistic to have our simulation game take this into account because it is missing in a meaningful manner currently. This is a capability combat flight sims should embrace.
2. But due to the effectively random capabilities of a particular pilot, we can only approximate what the flight simulation should do to constrain the capabilities of any one particular pilot by applying an agreed upon average set of limitations to be applied as best we can figure out.
3. How exactly these limitations are applied is difficult to determine at this time, possibly some alternative to blackout or redout, perhaps a period of control loss until the pilot recovers, or some other solution as yet unknown.
4. This average "across the board" solution should be good enough because our goal is to make the end user's experience as real as possible within the context of a PC combat flight simulation.

 

I have some serious reservations endorsing such an effort in IL2: BoS while there must certainly be other more pressing issues or customer value-added modes of play 777 Studios could be working on compared to what so far appears to be a grasp at realism for realism-sake. A noble goal, no doubt gentlemen, but short of getting an answer from 777 on its feasibility, do we really think this is very high up on all of our "wishlists"?

When if we are being honest with ourselves, the disconnect between what we are attempting to achieve and how it is implemented with the end user appears to be so great?

Can it be done well one day? Absolutely. Has that day arrived? In my opinion, NO.

 

As the saying goes- "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should".

[Venturi]

Just because some are too timid, does not mean you shouldn't.

[Grifter]

Just because some are too timid, does not mean you shouldn't.

 

And others would say appearing timid has little to do with it when you have limited money, manpower and time to accomplish your goals. It's not popular, but someone somewhere has to determine what goals are reasonable and achievable within the framework of an organization.

 

Furthermore, I never said it simply shouldn't be done period. I am making the point that now is not the best use of their time for such a poor return on investment in my (and apparently others) opinions. Granted, we could all be surprised and the team has made strides in this area and already has a plan in place. Fine. Otherwise I would maintain it's not an efficient use considering the difficulty in implementing with our current technology.

[Tomsk]

One thing I noticed in the dev videos is how easily the pilot can look at his tail.  In real life, it is NOT that easy.  Most real pilots will losen their sholder straps so they can twist their whole body in the cockpit just to be able to see the 5:30/6:30 position.  It is practically impossible to simply turn around like an owl and see out the back of the airplane.

 

I think they should limit the pilot's head rotation to 170 degrees.  At 155 Degrees, the view should begin to shake to simulate the difficulty in keeping a visual track when checking six. 

 

This video shows the kind of difficulty involved in looking behind and how much pilots can really move to see (watch at 3:00 and 7:00): http://vimeo.com/40935850

 

This is absolutely true cranking your head round is hard in real life ... but on the other hand the real life pilot can do things a virtual pilot can't. For example, when I look behind me I also move my eyes to help me look a bit further. I can also use my peripheral vision to detect movement. Neither of these things are possible for the virtual pilot ... so instead we are allowed to turn our head further than is realistic. Which is not to say that the current settings aren't too generous, simply that it's more complicated than "IRL I can only turn my head x degrees, so that should be it in game as well."

 

On the general question of limiting the pilot more. I think it was very interesting that when Eric Brown reviewed IL2:FB he found that all the control axes were much too strong. He came up with some new joystick settings that he felt more realistically reflected the way people actually flew. His recommended joystick settings only allowed about 33% of max roll rate, 17% of max pitch rate, and 16% of max yaw rate. In other words, he felt the planes in game were too sensitive by a factor of between 3 and 6. Quite an eye opener! Of course, what I don't know was whether we was trying to replicate the behaviour of the plane itself, or the response of the plane to control inputs. A computer joystick has a lot less travel than a real flight stick, and so would seem vastly too sensitive.

 

Do we have any real pilots of high performance propeller planes lying around here that can comment on this?

Edited November 24, 2013 by Tomsk

[Venturi]

It sure is kind of you to take the weight of these decisions from their shoulders. Taking the next step in accessible fidelity has always seemed the highest priority of true sim builders, thankfully we can now accept less knowing it was a necessary sacrifice.

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

...

On the general question of limiting the pilot more. I think it was very interesting that when Eric Brown reviewed IL2:FB he found that all the control axes were much too strong. He came up with some new joystick settings that he felt more realistically reflected the way people actually flew. His recommended joystick settings only allowed about 33% of max roll rate, 17% of max pitch rate, and 16% of max yaw rate. In other words, he felt the planes in game were too sensitive by a factor of between 3 and 6. Quite an eye opener! Of course, what I don't know was whether we was trying to replicate the behaviour of the plane itself, or the response of the plane to control inputs. A computer joystick has a lot less travel than a real flight stick, and so would seem vastly too sensitive.

 

Do we have any real pilots of high performance propeller planes lying around here that can comment on this?...

I don't think I qualify exactly. What I do in my real flying (if I combine different types) is experience the speeds and forces that pilots of WWII fighter types experienced. But I have never flown a single engine airplane that was anywhere near that heavy or powerful. I feel that I have filled in a lot of gaps in my experience with pilots who have flown those types (P-51, Spitfire V, Bearcat). Since we currently fly the same aerobatic machines we can compare notes on the differences. Is that anywhere near the same as saying I have flown a Spitfire? No. The plane that I have been learning since spring is less stable, has far more sensitive controls, better roll rate, and similar or better thrust to weight. You know from published data that it takes a certain period of time to roll a certain amount with full aileron application. If the sim roughly matches that rate of roll under the same conditions then you know that the developers probably got it right--at least in roll. But there is no way to get our sticks to match the controls in the plane. Some argue that we can get full deflection faster because of the shorter throw. That may be true when measured down to tents of a second. I feel that I can get full stick faster in my plane than I can on my desktop. I have access to my full strength, plus two hands, in the real thing. The PC joystick is an input device. The stick in the plane is the merger of human, machine and the wind. I just don't see how software, limits or curves can make one like the other.

[Crump]

 

On the general question of limiting the pilot more. I think it was very interesting that when Eric Brown reviewed IL2:FB he found that all the control axes were much too strong. He came up with some new joystick settings that he felt more realistically reflected the way people actually flew. His recommended joystick settings only allowed about 33% of max roll rate, 17% of max pitch rate, and 16% of max yaw rate. In other words, he felt the planes in game were too sensitive by a factor of between 3 and 6. Quite an eye opener! Of course, what I don't know was whether we was trying to replicate the behaviour of the plane itself, or the response of the plane to control inputs. A computer joystick has a lot less travel than a real flight stick, and so would seem vastly too sensitive.

 

Do we have any real pilots of high performance propeller planes lying around here that can comment on this?

 

 

 

Stability and control is the other arena that makes WWII aircraft outstanding.  Search the forum, there are several threads already discussing the implementation of a good, reason, and realistic stability and control models.

 

Combat increases your pulse rate and blood pressure, both of which reduce the bodies response time to increase increasing G.

 

Physiological aspects I would like to see in a combat flight sim are variable pilot blackout/redout G tolerances, the inability for the pilot to swivel his head 180 degrees, and a penalty for using negative G gun jinks (in real life, the push pull effect on Gtolerance says that pilots who go from negative G to positiveG will blackout/Gloc at a much lower G load. iMO, that would be an appropriate penalty)

 

Good suggestions.  Many players have issue with the idea of variable tolerances.  My thoughts are online all tolerance levels should be the same.

 

If you mean variable tolerance levels based on the aircraft, absolutely.  It is pretty easy to realistically adjust the Ghz level based on pilot seating position in the aircraft.

The plane that I have been learning since spring is less stable

 

 

 

A PItts is not less stable than some of the WWII aircraft.  Might seem that way but it is not.  It is a very stable airplane.  My professor in college owned one and used it to demonstrate various stability and control characteristics.  He filmed it and showed the aircraft's behavior in class.

[Sternjaeger]

Good suggestions.  Many players have issue with the idea of variable tolerances.  My thoughts are online all tolerance levels should be the same.

 

..and how's that different from what we have now?

[DD_bongodriver]

..and how's that different from what we have now?

 

Exactly, everyone blacksout/redsout at the same g levels.

[Crump]

http://daytonabeach.erau.edu/coe/aerospace-engineering/faculty/richard-anderson.html

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

...A PItts is not less stable than some of the WWII aircraft. Might seem that way but it is not. It is a very stable airplane. My professor in college owned one and used it to demonstrate various stability and control characteristics. He filmed it and showed the aircraft's behavior in class...

Crump,

 

This is where either you or your education has taken a hard swing for the weeds. I did not say that a Pitts is unstable. It is, along with the Extra, Laser, Sbach, MXS, Sukoi, a single purpose airplane. They were all designed for short sessions in an 1000 m/sq box and 5 minute shows. A lack of strong positive roll stability is essential to do what they do. None of them are unstable. All of them to some degree exhibit positive static and dynamic stability in pitch. They'd have to or they would be deathtraps. None of them are hard to fly once off the ground. But fly more than two hours and you are pretty well shot. Any disturbance IN ROLL and the plane stays in its desturbed state. That's a feature in the box. It's a bear on a cross country. A fighter on the other hand needs enough stability to carry its pilot through long missions. They were designed to be very easy to fly. This is especially true for long range escorts like the P-51 and P-47. They fly very nicely hands-off. The stability isn't a problem because extreme manueverability isn't as important as a stable gun platform. Power, speed, endurance and stabitlity with some degree of nibleness is what makes a fighter great. Flickability is not.

Edited November 24, 2013 by SmokinHole

[Chill31]

With regard to blackout and G-loc, I would like to see variable G limits per sortie for individual pilots in online play. Not sure sure about your G tolerance today? Do do a G ex like real pilots do...

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

Oh and I said that the aerobats I listed all demonstrated positive static stability. This is not really correct. The Sukoi Su-26 and Su-31 are nearly neutral.

 

Quoting Alan Cassidy:

...The design philosophy for the Su-26 was vastly different.

It was built very close to neutral pitch stability. It has immense pitch sensitivity and responsiveness. This enables fantastic corners and very rapid onset of very high g forces.

It is not unusual for a first-timer, especially an S2B driver, to hit 10 or 11g on their very first pull of the elevator - if they have enough airspeed - otherwise the plane usually starts to flick by the time they get to 45 degrees nose up!...

[Crump]

 

The stability isn't a problem because extreme manueverability isn't as important as a stable gun platform

 

 

That is just it SmokinHole.  If you know the history and development of aircraft engineering, Stability and Control as a science was not very well developed at the beginning of World War II.  Although designers where aware of it, a system of quantifying behaviors and characteristics did not really exist  except on limited scale as part of design company trade secrets or individual company standards.  Most of these standards were extremely subjective and quantitative.

 

Only two nations even adopted quantitative standards by the end of the war.

 

Although the stability and control characteristics of many WWI designs were atrocious by todays standards, it was not until World War II that the speed and power of airplanes increased to the point stability and control became a necessity so those subjective standards served many designers well.  Many of the WWII designs have serious issues in the stability and control department when subjected to a quantitative stability and control standard.   It is the largest area of variation in performance found in that design era.

 

You guys sound like a couple of dudes comparing notes on what a formula car drives like, based on your latest drive in a BMW M3 and watching Rush.          

 

 

it is not quite that bad is it??

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

You guys sound like a couple of dudes comparing notes on what a formula car drives like, based on your latest drive in a BMW M3 and watching Rush.

So what do you have to offer Venturi? The man asked if any high performance pilots had an opinion about in-game control inputs. I stated that I didn't qualify but that I could offer something based on what experience I do have, limited though it may be. (Then I got sidetracked :-). Here is where your analogy misses the mark: If this thread was about what it feels like to fly Yak with a 109 on your six then, yes, no one here has the experience to do more than guess. But this thread is about what a pilot feels and what he as able to accomplish under violent maneuvering. There are more than a few sim enthusiasts who experience these forces to even a greater degree than those experienced by the average WWII fighter pilot. We feel that we have something better to offer than studies on G tolerance.

[Crump]

 

With regard to blackout and G-loc, I would like to see variable G limits per sortie for individual pilots in online play. Not sure sure about your G tolerance today? Do do a G ex like real pilots do

 

 

MMMMMM, I like it.  I would also like to see a AGSM control so the player can apply strain maneuvers to temporarily increase tolerance at the cost of increased fatigue. 

 

 

 

The Sukoi Su-26 and Su-31 are nearly neutral.

 

 

 

Actually I think your first assessment was correct.  Nearly Neutral is still positive stability, might be weak positive stability but positive stability all the same. 

 

If you look at the Spitfires measurements for example, it was neutral to unstable at normal to rear CG under quantifiable and measured results.

 

We feel that we have something better to offer than studies on G tolerance.          

 

 

But the facts are we don't have something better to offer than studies on G tolerance. 

 

Those studies were done under controlled circumstances with the purpose of answering specific physiological questions about G tolerance and limitations.  Us going out on a sunny afternoon cannot answer any of those questions outside of our own very limited perception.

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

Well Crump I just don't want to use a pocket protector when I boot up a sim for my playing pleasure. I live in a world of pilots and planes. The paper may claim that a particular variant of the Spit was unstable in a particular configuration. But the two people I know who have flown it say it was easy and sweet (but required a lot of aileron force and so lacked harmony). I want a sim to match both what I know and what I've heard from people I know and trust. I want it to capture the beauty of flight without getting bogged down in minutiae that only serve to remind me that what I am doing isn't real--not even close. I know enough Russian pilots to know that most dismiss the lab coat stuff and approach flying as an art. Having enjoyed Rise of Flight more than any other sim I am confident that Russian game designers fortunately have the same approach.

 

...so that the player can apply strain maneuvers to increase tolerance...

Really? I know how to strain and breathe under stress. So do you. After some practice it has become natural. Now you are suggesting that I push the "strain" button to stay conscious? Shouldn't we just assume that the virtual pilot is experienced enough to manage the basics on his own. Next are we going to need to bring virtual condoms to virtually pee into on long flights? (That was a trick an old friend who was a bombardier on a B-17 told me.) Edited November 24, 2013 by SmokinHole

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

I think I am done with this thread. (Your Welcome) ;-) This is no longer healthy or helpful. The developers will certainly see the pitfalls of variable physiology and give it a pass. The game looks like it is going to be great and for that I am happy. I will see you all in the next controversial discussion or, better yet, over the cold Russian plains. Salute!

[DD_bongodriver]

Well it's a shame when people who know what they are talking about get persuaded to leave discussions like this, it's a rare treat when Crump doesn't get them locked.

[Venturi]

The point is, indeed, what Crump said, that the hard data is the only authoritative material we got, at least in until someone with authoritative experience steps in. You try to sound like you KNOW, but until you have flown a 1200hp ww2 era fighter class airframe in acrobatic maneuvering, any comparisons you make to your modern, light weight, slow speed acrobatic aircraft and concomitant physical stresses, etc, are just conjectures and second hand hearsay. It's silly to compare the two except in general terms. You may be able to tell us authoritatively what pulling 4gs feels like, but you cannot tell us how many gs a lagg3 pulls to successfully complete a 400kph+ initiation of rolling scissors followed by split s, or how many are routinely pulled in a high speed combat turn reversal at 450kph, how being startled and panicked lowers your g tolerance, or how far you can actually look behind you, or what things limit a pilot in general in this airframe. Etc. So I think my comparison is quite apt. Kindly label facts as facts, and opinions as opinions, and I'll say nothing more.

 

Crump, I have to say that the idea of hitting a button or having a meter is the wrong way to go about it. Not intuitive enough. I'm with Chill as far as suggestions go, but I am sure that the devs will find a way to make it happen with the correct "feel".

[Crump]

 

Crump, I have to say that the idea of hitting a button or having a meter is the wrong way to go about it. Not intuitive enough. I'm with Chill as far as suggestions go, but I am sure that the devs will find a way to make it happen with the correct "feel".          

 

I am not set on any specific feature or function.  It was just a suggestion.  I know I have looked over at the accelerometer in my aircraft a few times as I felt my butt being pushed farther into the seat and thought, "tighten up some more".

 

From my experience at 4G's it would add a some tactical choice to the game sort of like the use of limited over boost systems for additional engine power.

 

 I want it to capture the beauty of flight without getting bogged down in minutiae that only serve to remind me that what I am doing isn't real--not even close. 

 

 

If the game is supposed to be an aerial combat simulator then I think at realistic levels, the thought process of a combat pilot should be required.  In World War II, this was manage the airplane systems and maneuver within your limitations to get guns on target.

 

If we are not going to replicate the airplane systems or apply the same limitations to maneuvering, what are we doing with this then?

[Venturi]

Yeah, exactly Crump, I think in general that is a good idea, but maybe the presentation of it should simply be, "I know that the more cumulative gs I pull, the more I fatigue, and the less Gs I can pull for a period of time, so I ought to keep it reasonable until I need to". The way 1st person shooters have done this presentation of fatigue is with breathing noises. This would also be a good way to present it in the sim. Obviously, grunting.

[Chill31]

You try to sound like you KNOW, but until you have flown a 1200hp ww2 era fighter class airframe in acrobatic maneuvering, any comparisons you make to your modern, light weight, slow speed acrobatic aircraft and concomitant physical stresses, etc, are just conjectures and second hand hearsay. It's silly to compare the two except in general terms. You may be able to tell us authoritatively what pulling 4gs feels like, but you cannot tell us how many gs a lagg3 pulls to successfully complete a 400kph+ initiation of rolling scissors followed by split s, or how many are routinely pulled in a high speed combat turn reversal at 450kph, how being startled and panicked lowers your g tolerance, or how far you can actually look behind you, or what things limit a pilot in general in this airframe. Etc. So I think my comparison is quite apt.

I realize this want directed at me specifically, but I thought I'd let the follwers of this thread know that I do fly 1200 hp wwii era aircraft through combat maneuvers and have won the rolling scissors on many occasions

[Venturi]

indeed, chill

[Chill31]

You try to sound like you KNOW, but until you have flown a 1200hp ww2 era fighter class airframe in acrobatic maneuvering, any comparisons you make to your modern, light weight, slow speed acrobatic aircraft and concomitant physical stresses, etc, are just conjectures and second hand hearsay. It's silly to compare the two except in general terms. You may be able to tell us authoritatively what pulling 4gs feels like, but you cannot tell us how many gs a lagg3 pulls to successfully complete a 400kph+ initiation of rolling scissors followed by split s, or how many are routinely pulled in a high speed combat turn reversal at 450kph, how being startled and panicked lowers your g tolerance, or how far you can actually look behind you, or what things limit a pilot in general in this airframe. Etc. So I think my comparison is quite apt.

I realize this wasn't directed at me specifically, but I thought I'd let the follwers of this thread know that I do fly 1200 hp wwii era aircraft through combat maneuvers and have won the rolling scissors on many occasions I do feel like I have a reliable basis for discussing air combat as it relates to pilot performance.

 

Fatigue can be a factor but I dont think it would be worth while to model in this sim. Ive done 30 minute fights with multiple resets for both offensive, defensive, and neutral fights. It leaves you sweaty and breathing heavy, but the fatigue hasnt noticeably impacted my ability to fly, plan, and fight.

 

That being said, I flew with a guy who wasnt up to speed with his straining, or air combat in general, and he was spent after the first 2 sets...but he was a regular guy, bot accustomed to the situation in which he found himself.

[Venturi]

You do agree that it can be a factor, you just don't want it in the game.

[DD_bongodriver]

Everybody agrees it is a factor in real life, only a select few want it in game.

[Sternjaeger]

Chill has a point, but it still remains that how do we decide to assign our "G skills"? What would it be based on? Hours spent on the sim? How would that be fair to the occasional flier?

 

Besides there are SO many variables affecting your fitness, especially when flying a ww2 aircraft.. Do you really want the devs to use precious time to develop a "pilot FM" different than what we have now? I mean what's wrong with it?

 

I say let's stick of what we have, it might be a bit simplistic, but we gotta draw a line somewhere with realism, and let the devs concentrate on more important matters than this.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[Tomsk]

I realize this wasn't directed at me specifically, but I thought I'd let the follwers of this thread know that I do fly 1200 hp wwii era aircraft through combat maneuvers and have won the rolling scissors on many occasions I do feel like I have a reliable basis for discussing air combat as it relates to pilot performance.

 

Firstly, I have epic envy, that must be awesome  

 

My interest in this is less about stamina and such like, but more whether sim-pilots can fly in a way in game that simply would not be practical in real life combat. That is the interesting question for me: if a WWII pilot looked at our sim combat, would he think "Yes, this is how it looked" or would he think "Blimey! No one would ever have done that!".

 

Clearly the pilot is an important limiting factor, not just what the plane can take but also the pilot. Almost everyone agrees that G-limits on the pilot should be simulated, e.g. blackouts and redouts. Most people also think pilot strength should be simulated, apart from anything else if it isn't it's far too easy to rip the wings off your plane at high speed (see WarThunder for examples of that). Are there other important things that we are not simulating, but reasonably could, in order to get our sim experience closer to that of actual WWII combat? That's my interest in this ...

 

So, Chill, what's your take on this? You've actually flown these things in aerobatic maneuvers, so you're far better qualified than me to answer these kinds of questions.

[Gort]

Chill has a point, but it still remains that how do we decide to assign our "G skills"? What would it be based on? Hours spent on the sim? How would that be fair to the occasional flier?

 

Besides there are SO many variables affecting your fitness, especially when flying a ww2 aircraft.. Do you really want the devs to use precious time to develop a "pilot FM" different than what we have now? I mean what's wrong with it?

 

I say let's stick of what we have, it might be a bit simplistic, but we gotta draw a line somewhere with realism, and let the devs concentrate on more important matters than this.

 

Don't forget the effects of a hangover. Of all things, flying ACM after a long night's furball with the ladies seemed to have the biggest detriment. Looking back with a twisted spine and neck was bad, but a hangover requiring oxygen for an early go was the worst.

 

I hope Embry Riddle has data compiled from real fighter pilots on that, because I'm sure that no pilot there ever got laid in the wee hours before a morning fight .  

[NZTyphoon]

Don't forget the effects of a hangover. Of all things, flying ACM after a long night's furball with the ladies seemed to have the biggest detriment. Looking back with a twisted spine and neck was bad, but a hangover requiring oxygen for an early go was the worst.

 

I hope Embry Riddle has data compiled from real fighter pilots on that, because I'm sure that no pilot there ever got laid in the wee hours before a morning fight .  

Here we have an example of two pilots who were virgins, but they still apparently suffered from fatigue...

 

Two virgin pilots suffered from severe fatigue on flight into UK but regulator admits they were NOT both asleep

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436232/Two-Virgin-Atlantic-pilots-suffered-severe-fatigue-flight-NOT-asleep.html

 

sorry Virgin-Atlantic pilots...totally misunderstood the headline...

[Gort]

Here we have an example of two pilots who were virgins, but they still apparently suffered from fatigue...

 

Two virgin pilots suffered from severe fatigue on flight into UK but regulator admits they were NOT both asleep

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436232/Two-Virgin-Atlantic-pilots-suffered-severe-fatigue-flight-NOT-asleep.html

 

sorry Virgin-Atlantic pilots...totally misunderstood the headline...

 

Ha! No question that more research needs to be accomplished in the G tolerance vs hangover realm. Any volunteers?

 

Guess Crump is saying that he was a 1st Group Spec Ops/Ranger now, that is something one had better be able to back up. A very good friend served in the unpleasantness in SEA, and hates posers to say the least. You wanna rephrase that? Perhaps you were kidding?