Jump to content
KB-Kriechbaum

Effects of Inertia on pilots head

Recommended Posts

Good day dear development team and virtual pilots, 

 

 

This post is about how the physiology of pilots limits performance of the system "combat aircraft" and why it should be part of Il2 Sturmovik.

 

My observation:

 

The head of the pilot (= the camera) is not affected by aircraft movent nor by the boundaries of a pilots body.

 

My suggestion:

 

1. Implement tighter boundaries to camera position in the cockpit.

2. Implement forced (slight) camera movement within the cockpit depending on aircraft movement.

 

Why do i suggest this?

 

When reading about real stories of real pilots, you often come across statements like "I exclusively attacked aircraft in level flight" or "never get involved in turn fights", or that pilots would disengage when their foe was aware of their approach. 

 

Also real gun cam footage often displays situations that would result in a very easy kill in il2. 

 

The point is, it seems like it was way harder to score hits when a high amount of lead was necessary or a lot of crazy turns were involved compared how to it is in the game.

So we have a magnificent flight model in il2, the planes are modelled with incredible detail and the implemented physics create an amazing variety of outcomes in combat.

 

In short: The dog fights look very real from the standpoint of physics, but kind of super-man like from the standpoint of the pilots abilities. I suspect that it has a lot to do with the ability of the virtual pilots to "stay on target" no matter how aggresive they fly. At the moment, everybody can fly at the very limits of the plane, because there are almost no limits to the virtual human body inside it (exept for red- and black out).

 

First, a real pilot has a neck and a body that will limit his ability to move around in the cockpit, especially his ability to turn around and look over his shoulder. So maybe some boundaries in that area could create a more realistic feel, like not being able to fully look back or to raise your head all the way up to look over your hood.

 

And second, just the forced movement of the head of the pilot must have severely hampered his ability to actually use his sights effectively. Inverted flight should move your "camera" a bit towards the canope, rolling left should move the camera to the right, etc.

 

I think of the famous videos of Svetlana Kapanina during her Sochi performance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQONtYjDlMw

 

Possible outcome after implementation:

 

1. The virtual combat experience would resemble a more real picture, where pilots would have a more realistically limited situational awareness.

 

2. Pilots would have to also take into consideration the effects of their maneuvers on the pilot, not just the aircraft. It would create more "realistic gun solutions" (gun solutions that are executable in the real world by real pilots) which could make the overall picture look more real.

 

I imagine the forced camera movement like force feedback on a joystick. A bit of movement, but always returning to zero. Kind of like a spring. And with the help of variables, it could be more or less severe and more or less smooth etc. 

 

(Not sure if something like this is already existing in another flight sim. I would compare it very  (!) losely to the typical shaking sniper sights in shooters that are more on the realism side.)

 

What do you think about it?

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this would be a very good thing. I am just not very sure it is possible to get right without a lot of back and forth between too little and too much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KBKriechbaum said:

What do you think about it?

It is a very difficult thing to do and very subjective. You cannot directly transfer actual head movement to a camera position, as in real life, your brain will filter out shifts and stutters and produce a more steady "view". The effect then between actual and percieved movement is significant and only grounds for argument in such a competitive environment as a combat sim. It costs money to develop, but the ones who notice it most are probably the ones that will raise hell in places like this over it.

 

Also, you should be weary or comparing actual combat film footage with what you have in the game. In the game, player are usually FAR better at what they are doing. Most combat flm show pilots shot dead that never saw it coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a PC sim, Vision is the only feedback we get. In real life all the head movement doesn’t affect your perception of reality as much since you have other sensory feedback and also your real vision doesn’t shake like a GoPro camera. So excessive head movement like for example DCS has just interferes with your control of the plane in a very odd way. It’s best switched off

IL-2 does model head movement but it’s slight. 

Forced head movement in VR can make players sick. 

IL-2 does model stick forces. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

So excessive head movement like for example DCS has just interferes with your control of the plane in a very odd way. It’s best switched off

Well, nobody suggests "excessive" has movement. But pulling out of a 700km/h dive in a rather sharp manner like for instance in a yak should limit your ability to lean forward towards the sights. 

 

Of course turning such things off is better from a performance standpoint. It is like turning off the motion blur in some games or turning off the suns effect of blinding you etc. Turning off force feedback on the joystick, because shaking makes aming harder. But that's a gamer vs Sim-enthusiast discussion. 

 

What I suggest is that the game should consider the human body as a not too stable platform in some of the extreme situations in dog fights. 

 

When discussing this human factor with a friend, we came across the idea of "endurance" or stamina. 

So that a pilot would have say 100% of endurance/stamina, whereas 100% would limit the amount of forced head movement to the minimum, which we have in the game now, and maximize the boundaries of its voluntary movement (leaning forward etc) also how it is now. 

These 100% of "stamina" would decrease over the duration of higher g, heavy maneuvering etc. and replenish themselves in calm flight. 

 

In short : the longer you stay in the dogfight, the more your pilot will be affected by the effects suggested in the first post as he is less capable of countering them over the duration of a fight. 

This would also model the fact that pilots were normal people, not supermen. 

 

I compare this to shooters, where your soldier can run 20km/h forever vs. The ones that model exhaustion, thus forcing people to use their "maximum running speed" more wisely.

 

It would be another interesting constraint (like engine management etc) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KBKriechbaum said:

In short : the longer you stay in the dogfight, the more your pilot will be affected by the effects suggested in the first post as he is less capable of countering them over the duration of a fight. 

I don't see much purpose in that, other than an artificial way to introduce another difficulty in playing the game.

 

In real aircraft when maneuvering around, you're stuck more and more into the seat and generally, I'd say you move less then initially. Also when you are at the controls yourself, you are instinctively prepared for the occuring accellerations and you work against them. You should move more if you unhooked your shoulder straps, but also that would be little effect as most accellerations will be in the direction of just you being pushed more into the seat. Fatigue will be more clearly shown in your enthusiasm in turning around checking your six. Depending on your belts and your clothes, this can be some work.

 

For the purpose of the dogfight I don't see it of much use in a way other than we have it now. For civilian flight sims, you can slightly overdo this (some publishers do and I am rather find of it), as it gives you another cue about how the aicraft feels in flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this could be defeated by changing the curve on TrackIR (or other headtracker of choice), which I would be doing straight away if this were introduced. And I can’t be bothered messing around with my TIR profile because it’s set the way I like it already.

 

Its an interesting idea for sure and I understand where you’re coming from, but in practice in the game environment it likely won’t work, and will probably just annoy people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just came across this video. Pretty relevant. This sort of stress is rather difficult to replicate in a PC game though. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 1:07 PM, KBKriechbaum said:

 

1. The virtual combat experience would resemble a more real picture, where pilots would have a more realistically limited situational awareness.

 

2. Pilots would have to also take into consideration the effects of their maneuvers on the pilot, not just the aircraft. It would create more "realistic gun solutions" (gun solutions that are executable in the real world by real pilots) which could make the overall picture look more real.

 

 

I've made a similar request here....

 

 

Currently, the pilot in IL-2 can keep looking down the gun-sight - no matter how violent the manoeuvre, no matter what G-forces he's experiencing.

 

 

It's totally un-realistic - real people have necks & their bodies are squishy.

 

I don't have Flying Circus but I suspect the pilot (wearing only a lap-belt to keep him from falling out) will still be able to fly inverted and maintain perfect sighting. And so the dogfights will inevitably be unrealistic because there's no appreciable difference to the player between aiming while flying straight & level, and aiming while hanging upside down, or during a rolling scissors, or pulling 5 G's etc.

Here's some examples of what is possible. Compare these effects to what we have now in IL-2 .

 

C5ikXwO.gif

 

P8WUbC2.gif

 

bsDUr2s.gif

 

Here's the full vid (I think it's a plug-in for FSX)

 

 

 

But there is hope....look at the fantastic, fluid motion you get with the tanks!

 

oZRkoLc.gif

 

So why not the aircraft?

 

 

Edited by Valis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 3:16 AM, SharpeXB said:

Just came across this video. Pretty relevant. This sort of stress is rather difficult to replicate in a PC game though.

 

Notice the pain of pulling Gs in the video... It's impossible to replicate in a PC game and that's a pro not a con. It sucks and from in the sim experience the more I maneuver the less likely is survival. Even if I win a dog-fighting engagement I'm very vulnerable for while because it takes time to accelerate and to regenerate awareness.

 

Many like d-fights but really... they should be avoided whenever possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree is not realistic, I fly a real warbird and 2 days ago while doing loops, rolls, immelmans, spins and splits S.

Was thinking exactly this, would be nice if this was modeled and  make it more realistic.

Technology is there but you will hear complaints to no end, like right now some people who fly VR complain that they cannot check six and are asking for some sort of implementation.

I fly in VR , and Checking six in VR is very realistic, this is exactly how it is in real life, even a bit easier since you are not strapped to your seat.

Only hardcore simulator fans will enjoy this, but the gamers wont,and they will whine.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my Opinion it's not really a good idea to shake the camera around if someone plays in VR. And if it's only implemented for 2D Players they will complain that VR Players have too much of an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I've flown a couple of flight sims that do this and the impact is that you become totally disconnected from the plane unless you are flying staring at your instruments. In some cases I was able to get 30 degrees into a roll before it even registered that the plane was rolling.

 

If you have Warthunder, you can see this by test flying the US Captured Fw-190A-8 with realistic head movement set to full, no-VR, and trying the rolling scissors. You will very quickly be miles behind what the plane is doing. 

 

Without the hard physical connection to the plane, all we have is the visual feedback, so decoupling that from what the plane is actually doing just causes problems. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Voyager said:

Without the hard physical connection to the plane, all we have is the visual feedback, so decoupling that from what the plane is actually doing just causes problems. 

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also love to have this feature implemented. In my opinion it's stupid that one can have his face glued to the gunsight through any kind of manouvers, as well as not being punished for flying inefficiently.

 

For all the naysayers, best way would be to just implement it as a realism option - you want it? Tick the box. Are you a scrub at video games? Keep your game the way it is.

Edited by 4./JG26_Onebad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

I would also love to have this feature implemented. In my opinion it's stupid that one can have his face glued to the gunsight through any kind of manouvers, as well as not being punished for flying inefficiently.

 

For all the naysayers, best way would be to just implement it as a realism option - you want it? Tick the box. Are you a scrub at video games? Keep your game the way it is.

 

Have you tried it yet? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Voyager said:

 

Have you tried it yet? 

 

I tried it in DCS and Cliffs of Dover, and the first time I ever played BoX all those years ago it was one of the first things that I noticed to be missing.

I found it to be really important in those other games, primarily because it makes it extremely hard to shoot accurately while doing high G manouvers, which seems realistic and challenging.

I see why some wouldn't like it so why not just implemented partially as a server sided setting/realism setting for the SP crowd.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019 at 2:48 PM, Voyager said:

Without the hard physical connection to the plane, all we have is the visual feedback, so decoupling that from what the plane is actually doing just causes problems. 

 

It doesn't cause me any problems.

 

How about Tank Crew?

 

oZRkoLc.gif

 

Has anyone complained about the view being 'decoupled' from the tank? Has anyone complained about motion sickness? Does anyone think Tank Crew would be improved if the player's view was instead rigidly attached to the tank's hull?

Edited by Valis
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument against implementing this kind of feature seems to be not that it's unrealistic, but that it would increase the difficulty.

 

OK.

 

But if that's the criteria then complex engine management should never have been added, or blackouts, or turbulence, or limited ammunition....etc.

 

A huge proportion of players of the original IL-2 flew the entire time with the cockpit switched off, and I've no doubt the move from flying a transparent plane to being confined in a claustrophobic metal tub was a difficult and stressful one. But people adapt - and quickly.

 

A realistic implementation of inertia on our virtual pilot's head and body will increase the difficulty, yes. It will require adjustment, yes. Those amazing snap-shots at 4G inverted will likely be a thing of the past, yes. But if we want to realistically simulate WW2 air combat then it's a necessary feature.

 

And you can always turn it off in the options if you don't like it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Valis said:

The argument against implementing this kind of feature seems to be not that it's unrealistic, but that it would increase the difficulty.

 

OK.

 

But if that's the criteria then complex engine management should never have been added, or blackouts, or turbulence, or limited ammunition....etc.

 

A huge proportion of players of the original IL-2 flew the entire time with the cockpit switched off, and I've no doubt the move from flying a transparent plane to being confined in a claustrophobic metal tub was a difficult and stressful one. But people adapt - and quickly.

 

A realistic implementation of inertia on our virtual pilot's head and body will increase the difficulty, yes. It will require adjustment, yes. Those amazing snap-shots at 4G inverted will likely be a thing of the past, yes. But if we want to realistically simulate WW2 air combat then it's a necessary feature.

 

And you can always turn it off in the options if you don't like it.

 

The main problem is new people coming into the game, they want to be quickly in the air, not having to learn too much stuff, or they would be tuned off, and not use it anymore.

Even the way it is now its happening, I got 3 new guys into BOX, and all 3 of them left because they said was too challenging.

This are gamers that kind of like aviation , thats all.

 

But if the new guy is passionate about WWII aviation, they will go to the process of learning it and would love it, and stay in the game for a long time.

 

If you go to Berloga and compare the maneuvers you see there to real combat footage, its totally unrealistic, more of game, not simulation.

Good practice for being competitive in MP but not realistic at all. AI looks more realistic in that respect, but we have the advantage there, since G forces dont affect the human pilot  too much, prior to blacking out or Neg ones.

 

It would be a whole new sim, much more fun, realistic and challenging, not as easy to get kills as it is now.

If  this is implemented if the combat against AI would be a lot more fun and challenging too.

 

 

Edited by II./JG77_motoadve
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The realism of such a feature is debatable.

 

Real pilots did have to deal with the inertia of their head, but they were not encumbered by the limitations of a monitor. That's why we have to make compromises between direct replication of the real world and playability sometimes. The zoom feature is a great example.

 

One major concern is that it would be impossible to fight the head movement, except perhaps by countering it with an opposing head tracking input. Certainly that's not realistic. There is also the fact that we can perceive a steady image despite small oscillations in real life because our brains filter out these movements. Additionally, there is the problem of VR motion sickness, which is made worse by decoupling camera movement from head movement.

 

There would be no reason to complain if it were implemented as an optional feature, however. Server admins would have to carefully consider its consequences before enabling it (assuming that it would be tied to difficulty features and not a setting that everyone can change freely).

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Valis said:

The argument against implementing this kind of feature seems to be not that it's unrealistic, but that it would increase the difficulty.

 

OK.

 

But if that's the criteria then complex engine management should never have been added, or blackouts, or turbulence, or limited ammunition....etc.

 

A huge proportion of players of the original IL-2 flew the entire time with the cockpit switched off, and I've no doubt the move from flying a transparent plane to being confined in a claustrophobic metal tub was a difficult and stressful one. But people adapt - and quickly.

 

A realistic implementation of inertia on our virtual pilot's head and body will increase the difficulty, yes. It will require adjustment, yes. Those amazing snap-shots at 4G inverted will likely be a thing of the past, yes. But if we want to realistically simulate WW2 air combat then it's a necessary feature.

 

And you can always turn it off in the options if you don't like it.

 

 

That is not the argument. The argument is that it breaks the interaction with the plane in a way that is extremely immersion breaking for most people, and the only way to counter that disconnect is to fly in an intensely unrealistic manner, by keeping your visual center on the cockpit framng, rather than on the outside world. 

 

We are here to fly the plane, not to run a meat puppet flying a plane. 

This, to me, is just a repeat of the "two buttons" debate from Cliffs of Dover, and I don't recall the results of that feature being greater flying either. More wth are the buttons broken? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Voyager said:

The argument is that it breaks the interaction with the plane in a way that is extremely immersion breaking for most people, and the only way to counter that disconnect is to fly in an intensely unrealistic manner, by keeping your visual center on the cockpit framng, rather than on the outside world. 

 

I fly DCS with the head movement option enabled, and my 'visual centre' is focused exactly where I want it. There's nothing about realistic inertia that prevents you tracking objects in the air and on the ground while manoeuvring. I do not fly in any way 'un-realistically'.

 

25 minutes ago, Voyager said:

We are here to fly the plane, not to run a meat puppet flying a plane. 

 

Then turn blackouts off. Switch off sun glare. Switch off oil/water from obscuring your visor. Switch off getting wounded. Remove all inconveniences.

 

26 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

One major concern is that it would be impossible to fight the head movement

 

It should be, at times, impossible to counter the head/body movement - particularly during violent manoeuvring. That would be realistic. 

 

What isn't realistic is being able to maintain a perfect view through the gun-sight no matter what - which is what we have now.

 

pvv7aud.gif

 

Edited by Valis
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...