Jump to content
AnPetrovich

Developer Diary 228 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

September can't get here soon enough, even though this game has already provided countless hours of pleasure! You guys are doing an incredible job! The attention to every detail is amazing; the quality of the designs, maps and all around gameplay is extraordinary. When I was a kid, we thought Pong was pretty high tech, this has certainly taken me into a second childhood. Keep up the outstanding work!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/17/2019 at 9:00 AM, NO_SQDeriku777 said:

I would ask you to consider the age of most of your player base.  I would guess that many of us are over 50 and don't have 20/20 vision anymore.  Flight sims are my last entertainment refuge.  I can no longer endure the trash talk from 12 year olds in FPS shooters because my reflexes have slowed down.  Now I have to be at a competitive disadvantage because of my relatively weak eye-site.  Won't someone think of the geezers!

I am 20 years old, but cant see anything in the circle, I promise you. It's fair:lol:

Edited by 8./JG5_seaflanker819
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

That isn't exactly data, and I'm pretty sure we'll get the physiology of an average pilot.

 

I didn't claim that was data nor have I made an effort to track it down, but clearly some data existed at some point to back up that claim. I also don't know what data the devs already have, it might actually cover this info.
The diary clearly states they're averaging their pilot physiology data. My question/hope was whether they are modifying that average at all based on plane types, since planes like the stuka have different G requirements for operation than, say, transport planes, and may even historically have had a different average for their pilot corps. Thats a reasonable consideration, no?
This is a comment on a dev diary for clarification on an unreleased feature, not a new feature request requiring data, as it's not clear what data they already have or what they have or have not considered.

Edited by von_Michelstamm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, von_Michelstamm said:

I didn't claim that was data nor have I made an effort to track it down, but clearly some data existed at some point to back up that claim. I also don't know what data the devs already have, it might actually cover this info.
The diary clearly states they're averaging their pilot physiology data. My question/hope was whether they are modifying that average at all based on plane types, since planes like the stuka have different G requirements for operation than, say, transport planes, and may even historically have had a different average for their pilot corps. Thats a reasonable consideration, no?
This is a comment on a dev diary for clarification on an unreleased feature, not a new feature request requiring data, as it's not clear what data they already have or what they have or have not considered.

 

G-force tolerances individual planes only make sense if certain plane types have specific modifications to make the average pilot tolerate more acceleration. This is done in case of g-suits. That is where it makes sense. The idea that pilots for certain aircraft are naturally more stress tolerant would be ludicrous.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

G-force tolerances individual planes only make sense if certain plane types have specific modifications to make the average pilot tolerate more acceleration. This is done in case of g-suits. That is where it makes sense. The idea that pilots for certain aircraft are naturally more stress tolerant would be ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous if historically pilots for certain specialty aircraft (dive bombers) were selected (including washouts due to the rigors of training) for having higher than average G tolerance, which is the question.

 

Edited by von_Michelstamm
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'are not in a role playing game. If you open that door, be sure that many will whine because they read that x pilot can support x G. For me it's a waste of time which could be usefull for other features.

 

Having G effect is fine, if they have to do something different, it should be if pilot wear anti G suit or not, but not on the physical aspect of our pilot.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The german female pilot Melitta Schenk Gräfin von Stauffenberg (she married the brother of the later Hitler assasin) was heavily involved in the improvement of target devices for divebombing during WWII and was testing a lot herself flying Ju87s and 88s. IIRC she sometimes did more than twenty dives a day, to test new development. So if a woman can do twenty dives a day, it doesn't need decathletes for divebombing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, von_Michelstamm said:

It's not ludicrous if historically pilots for certain specialty aircraft (dive bombers) were selected (including washouts due to the rigors of training) for having higher than average G tolerance, which is the question.

Pilots are not lab rats that you can select for such qualities just like that. Exercise, health etc. (all of wich was miserable besides the good decision  to eat lightly before diving) will play a far greater effect than whatever individual trait there can be. Keep in mind, you're selecting among the healthiest cohort of all adolescents. Within them, you will not find a meaningful "innate" variation of g-tolerance, regardless of some personal impressions. Also, supposed they would have been interested to do such a selection, how did they assess "innate g-tolerance"? Did they centrifuge them 100 times and see who got the highest average? Certainly not. ("After centrifuging private Fred 398 times, he came out on top of his class by beating them in g-tolerance by 0.452.") In the mid-thirties, there was probably a more stringent selection for joining the Stuka pilots, but after that, you became Stuka pilot if you didn't qualify enough to be a fighter pilot. Just because they saw some trend in g-tolerance doesn't mean they actively followed up on it, much less that such a venture would be a reasonable thing to do in whatsoever way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 8:05 PM, Jason_Williams said:

 

Nah not yet because its WIP and we're still tweaking so I don't want you guys nit picking everything until we're fully happy with it. This was just a tease to show that we have the tech after years of complaints about 10km limit. It's not all that easy to spot them, but eagle eye players will see them. When they are in motion and not in a screenshot it is a bit easier and the lighting and the weather etc. has an effect. And don't expect to zoom in and see stuff way out there. Zoom doesn't really help you on this. Real pilots did not have zoom. Zoom still has an effect when you are closer to help with IDing bogies. Just develop your long range eyeballs guys.   

 

Here are the answers. One has some contrails of bandits circling at Nine O'clock and some others are just below the contrail limit that are a bit closer. The second has some bogeys down low in the ground clutter milling about since I was not a threat. I just set up a QMB and ran away from them at high speed then turned around and tried to spot. Took a few seconds. Not sure of the exact distance, but somewhere between 15-25km. Just no way of telling with how I set this up. Wasn't a scientific test. But it is a ways beyond 10km because I watched the icon turn off at 10km then I kept flying for a little while.

 

Jason

 

Spoiler

Contacts_1.thumb.jpg.3d9c7e1731567a5b145ac9a2857b664f.jpg

Contacts_2.thumb.jpg.825474d1632c52948baaf4c7add0d943.jpg

 

 

to be honest painting red circles not sure of the exact distance, but somewhere between 15-25km but beyond 10km because I watched the icon turn off at 10km or "Can you spot the far-off planes? We’re still tweaking the feature" is child play!  As every here know here this game has markers/icon that show how far that plane is and where. Tell me why it is so difficult to post two same screenshots with marker/icon and without????

 

Do your team plan to fix the render issue that are resolution or LoD related? I mean to accurately render correctly the objects at every distance? For planes turn too fast to 2D Sprites look what looks odd makes them much harder to differentiate compared how each single trees or other objects look from far far away much larger distance?

  • Confused 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

So if a woman can do twenty dives a day, it doesn't need decathletes for divebombing. 

That's probably when the dudes decided to mount big-a** cannons under the wings to appear more manly again.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This means that every pilot’s maneuver performed with a large g-load is no longer in vain, and the more actively a pilot maneuvers, the worse he and his crew will suffer further g-loads. If the pilot is already pretty worn out by maneuvering combat, be aware that a new opponent who entered the battle will have a significant advantage, and maybe you should get out of the dogfight and catch your breath.

 

Wow, just wow! I've been silently hoping for this in any flight sim ever since I'm simming (20+ years), this being (IMHO) one of the major factors that would make air combat maneouvering closer to real life. There simply is no way you could yank the stick around pulling 5g turns for 10 minutes straight in real aircraft, like you can in sims, IL-2 included. And not only high-G fatigue counts here, but also muscular fatigue in arms and upper body from simply moving the stick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Pilots are not lab rats that you can select for such qualities just like that. Exercise, health etc. (all of wich was miserable besides the good decision  to eat lightly before diving) will play a far greater effect than whatever individual trait there can be. Keep in mind, you're selecting among the healthiest cohort of all adolescents. Within them, you will not find a meaningful "innate" variation of g-tolerance, regardless of some personal impressions. Also, supposed they would have been interested to do such a selection, how did they assess "innate g-tolerance"? Did they centrifuge them 100 times and see who got the highest average? Certainly not. ("After centrifuging private Fred 398 times, he came out on top of his class by beating them in g-tolerance by 0.452.") In the mid-thirties, there was probably a more stringent selection for joining the Stuka pilots, but after that, you became Stuka pilot if you didn't qualify enough to be a fighter pilot. Just because they saw some trend in g-tolerance doesn't mean they actively followed up on it, much less that such a venture would be a reasonable thing to do in whatsoever way.

 you're right about standards lowering later, but you're overthinking the selection bit.
1. At some point they determined the ideal body type (short, stocky) and age (older) for the role. Did they actively select or push for it when deciding who served where? That's an open question.

2. Signing up for an MOS wasn't a guarantee you'd make it through school and end up in that role, or stay there. Part of that is simply not being cut out for the job. In a high G job like dive bombing, there's some natural selection to be expected, no?
If you were to take all ju52 pilots in the LW, magically measure and average their G tolerance, and then do the same for all the ju87 pilots, would you expect to end up with the same number? Which would be higher and why? Does simply averaging all human G tolerance destroy any difference there that might exist, at the cost of historical accuracy? That is also an open question.
Again, I'm curious what the dev's take on this was in their research and modeling. They may very well have considered and rejected this for any number of reasons. But it's by no means a 'ludicrous' consideration.

Edited by von_Michelstamm

Share this post


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

It's not ludicrous if historically pilots for certain specialty aircraft (dive bombers) were selected (including washouts due to the rigors of training) for having higher than average G tolerance, which is the question.

 

 

They were not: they were selected on skill, aircraft management, navigation, leadership and a whole host of various attributes. ‘G tolerance’ was not a criterion of 1940 pilot selection or training.

 

I still think that this is a Pandora’s box best left shut. It does not add much to a sim and will cause endless arguments. CLoD offered a control- limitation mode to reflect the actuation of 1940s aircraft which - IIRC - was widely ignored on servers.

 

Sitting in a chair at 1g you lack the input and nuance to work with acceleration and the impact that this has. At best it will likely prove unpopular.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, von_Michelstamm said:

but you're overthinking the selection bit.

Probably you are right; this most likely due to déformation professionelle. I can tell you it is very, very hard to assess, quantify and categorize such physiological properties in a (pilot) cohort. But you will surely be able to prove your expectation bias for fact. At least to the layperson or anyone not able to read statistics (read: most people).

 

Just know that people can adjust pretty well to (new physical) requirements, usually to a higher degree than whatever might be their „basal“ (whatever that might be in random people) differences. It would simply be scietifically wrong to assume different tolerances in pilots flying different aircraft types.

 

What pilots could do however is cut smoking (no, they didn‘t), eat their veggies (try that if you live out of cans of corned beef) and exercise. Marseille actually did do the latter, while the rest mostly preferred having some drinks on what might well be the last couple of days of their lives before Flak kills them regardless of their fitness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't like the feature turn it off or play on a server with it off. Simple.

 

Jason

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hopefully, when finalized, there will be an explanation as to if and how the physiology module will affect AI pilots/gunners.

Edited by Dagwoodyt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Two things that would be good to have now that physiological limits are going to being modeled:

 

1) Sure hope that AI will be similarly limited as human players and modeled accordingly. Otherwise I guess many (including me) will most likely not activate the feature.

 

2) Introduce a visual g-load bar: IRL you are very much aware of your g-load but this is currently missing in the sim and if g-loading your pilot now will have more serious implications, we need other feedback than the current greying or blacking out which comes to late.

 

I'm sure some "purists" will argue that IRL a pilot did not have a visual g-load bar which is true. However IRL you have the "seat of the pants" feedback which is very much present so actually, a g-load bar would not detract but actually add realism. So if we in the next release need to be more careful for how long and to what extent we are exposed to g-loads, we need a feedback channel.

 

For example: You do a steep dive and then do a pullout: IRL you would move the stick to do maybe 3-4 g's in the pullout and hold it there. IRL you would do it by feel but how would you do that in the sim without a g-load bar? The reason not to do to many g's is also not only physiological: Avoiding excessive g's also conserves energy. Currently I have no idea when I BnZ in the sim: Am I pulling 2, 3, 4 or 5 g in the pullout? IRL it is quite easy to do it by feel. Maybe not to pull exactly 2.1 or 5.4 g's etc but to pull an appropriate g-load for the situation.

 

Ergo, hope there will be a g-load bar. Make it optional under realism so the "purists" can fly without it but give us the option to have visual feedback as a substitute for the seat of the pants feedback you have IRL.

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are ways to do this without a G-load bar. I detest unnecessary HUD clutter.

One way would be to have the camera sink sight under G-Load (although this is not possible in VR). Another way might be to add audio cues as the pilot strains against the G.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, I think some kind of feedback would be necessary. Not only about actual G-load but mainly about overall pilot fitness.

 

How can we know how much our avatar pilot is tired? We certainly need some info for our decisions i.e. seeing new contacts I have to make a decision: shall I enter the next combat or not? If I am tired after the last engagement I probably won't but if I am fresh I can go on... 

 

May be some kind of decent (i.e low visible colour) progress bar positioned near the low edge of screen?

 

As for the VR on the other hand, some kind of audio feedback (i.e. pilot start breathing more heavily) probably would be better to not spoil the overall immersion.

Edited by Tapi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely prefer Browning's way, the camera slipping down under G-load was already in 1946 and pilot's heavy breathing against the G-load was IIRC implemented by HSFX to 1946. That you hear your breathing is not absolutely realistic, as you don't hear anything as long as you don't send on your radio, but it is definitely better than having a G-load bar all the time.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No load bar please, or pilot’s tiredness bar will look super arcade!

This is being implemented to make the sim more realistic.

It will look like a FPS.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would personally also prefer not to have graphic feedback aka "progress bar" mainly due to VR where progress bar would look very distracting (similar to chat messages in MP) but  IMHO some feedback would be absolutely necessary. I can't say if camera slipping or audio would give us enough info comparable to the overall body state the pilot feels...

Share this post


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

I would personally also prefer not to have graphic feedback aka "progress bar" mainly due to VR where progress bar would look very distracting (similar to chat messages in MP) but  IMHO some feedback would be absolutely necessary. I can't say if camera slipping or audio would give us enough info comparable to the overall body state the pilot feels...

Something in the form of how the injured pilot controls the plane currently?

Not exactly the same but you know what I mean.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

No load bar please, or pilot’s tiredness bar will look super arcade!

This is being implemented to make the sim more realistic.

It will look like a FPS.

 

Don't agree: A g-load bar will not be unrealistic: It's simply a visual representation of the g-load feedback you get IRL but which you can't currently perceive in the sim. The feedback you get this way is very much available and useful IRL flying and currently we don't have it in the sim so unless it's implemented we will be missing an important component now with the physiological modeling being introduced. In addition, I don't think subtle visual cues like line-of sight drops etc are enough: IRL I think most can by feel do 2, 3, 4 or 5 g pretty accurately and I don't see that a visual cue can provide that while a g-bar can. In addition, IMO it should not only show positive but also a minus scale. In addition to the pullout scenario I mentioned above, it could be useful to avoid going into negative g's when leveling out from a zoom for example: Today I have no idea in the sim if I'm doing -1, 0.5 or 0 g's pushing the stick forward. IRL it's easy to do by feel though......

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Tapi said:

I can't say if camera slipping or audio would give us enough info comparable to the overall body state the pilot feels...

Heavy breathing = tired. It's not really that hard, best and simplest solution. The faster and deeper breathing is, the more tired pilot is. Stamina bar would be worst choice possible, tho for sure it will be there in normal setting just like ammo counter bars.

 

Spoiler

 

In the end of video you can hear that he was pretty tired. So this would be good way to show player how tired his avatar is.

Edited by InProgress
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Grey or red periphery vision, that eventually consumes center vision, has already been discussed in the DD as visual cues for black and red-outs. The quicker or more forcefully you enter the condition, the quicker or more-saturated the visual representation of possitive or negative Gs will be displayed. I don't think that there will be any issue with us identifying what condition the pilot is entering, or how quickly or forcefully the event is occurring.

 

Degradation of the audio senses was also mentioned. 

Edited by WWDubya
Added anothe sentence.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

They were not: they were selected on skill, aircraft management, navigation, leadership and a whole host of various attributes. ‘G tolerance’ was not a criterion of 1940 pilot selection or training.

 

I still think that this is a Pandora’s box best left shut. It does not add much to a sim and will cause endless arguments. CLoD offered a control- limitation mode to reflect the actuation of 1940s aircraft which - IIRC - was widely ignored on servers.

 

Sitting in a chair at 1g you lack the input and nuance to work with acceleration and the impact that this has. At best it will likely prove unpopular.

Well flying online and seeing players maneuver aircraft like they are UFO's is a huge immersion breaker for me.  If this system tones that down to something more realistic (how people would fly if they were really in an airplane fighting for their lives but suffering from physical limitations of G-forces) then I'm all in.

 

Then again I play this for historical immersion not for "competitive score card" gaming.  We are talking of a generation of young men and in some cases women who had not even driven a car - quickly coming to terms with mechanised flight and fighting to the death in these machines that were almost 30 years before - unheard of.

 

For us today the equivalent might be controlling drone swarms in combat with VR headsets and motion capture hand controls.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, WWDubya said:

Grey or red periphery vision, that eventually consumes center vision, has already been discussed in the DD as visual cues for black and red-outs. The quicker or more forcefully you enter the condition, the quicker or more-saturated the visual representation of possitive or negative Gs will be displayed. I don't think that there will be any issue with us identifying what condition the pilot is entering, or how quickly or forcefully the event is occurring.

 

Degradation of the audio senses was also mentioned. 

 

And that sounds fine to me. For sure the physiological effect on the pilot is a sort of integration of the g-load and exposure time: A prolonged lower load or short high load should have effects but my point is that the seat of the pants g-load feedback you get IRL is an important part in flying your plane to the optimum which in our case in many cases involves conserving energy and doing sensible pullouts and transitions from zooms into level flight. A g-load bar would allow you to do that (mimic the seat of the pants feedback) in addition to avoiding getting into the physiological effects you mention above. I'm not arguing for one or the other. I think both are needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, blitze said:

Well flying online and seeing players maneuver aircraft like they are UFO's is a huge immersion breaker for me.  If this system tones that down to something more realistic (how people would fly if they were really in an airplane fighting for their lives but suffering from physical limitations of G-forces) then I'm all in.

 

My perspective / suggestion is that it will not: it will merely cause frustration to participants that feel (having limited knowledge of what was occurring in the other cockpit) that the system is 'against them' (like lag is always 'against you'). Given no-one actually feels any strain, the most practiced will likely find ways around it.

 

Harsher regime for black-out / grey-out I totally understand, but since it is impossible to simulate the physiological elements of maneuvering then I doubt that a very complicated system is the best use of team resources. When you pull 'g' you know that you are pulling 'g' and balance accordingly. In a chair, you lack the myriad sensory feedback and so I worry that this will simply feel clunky.

 

Only my opinion, but I would rather effort were focused on other aspects.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I was getting at is that the speed and/or intesity of the perphery effects, as it progresses across your field of vision, could serve the same purpose as a status bar strategically placed horizontally toward the bottom of the screen (or perhaps vertically to one side?).

 

But, hey, until we see the implementation in action, who knows, eh? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

There are ways to do this without a G-load bar. I detest unnecessary HUD clutter.

 

Very much agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see novice AI being easier to lure into a maneuver that forces them into some blackouts and maybe even crashing, while Ace pilots will avoid such maneuvers and play more wisely. 

Im not a huge fan of how it's implemented in "other" sims at the moment.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

I would love to see novice AI being easier to lure into a maneuver that forces them into some blackouts and maybe even crashing, while Ace pilots will avoid such maneuvers and play more wisely. 

Im not a huge fan of how it's implemented in "other" sims at the moment.

 

I'd have imagined that novice pilots might be unwilling to pull high g at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No matter how the physiology module finalizes I hope there will be explicit developer' accounting of whether and how it will apply to the AI. If, for example, Tacview shows that I am less able to pull high G's partway thru a prolonged 1v1 QM battle, would Tacview show a corresponding degradation of AI G tolerance?

Edited by Dagwoodyt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

I would love to see novice AI being easier to lure into a maneuver that forces them into some blackouts and maybe even crashing, while Ace pilots will avoid such maneuvers and play more wisely. 

Im not a huge fan of how it's implemented in "other" sims at the moment.

 

Yes, I have played such sims and the forces 'imposed' upon the player just tended to annoy me and took away from the fun.

 

Perhaps if this function is selectable.

Edited by Thad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

Any measured impact on FPS considering this view distance increase ??? 

 

We will have to wait and see. With any significant game additions or updates, there will probably be problems to be fixed or improved upon. :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, InProgress said:

Heavy breathing = tired. It's not really that hard, best and simplest solution. The faster and deeper breathing is, the more tired pilot is. Stamina bar would be worst choice possible, tho for sure it will be there in normal setting just like ammo counter bars.

 

  Hide contents

 

 

An unsteady vision would be good for fatigue.   The wavering cinematic camera view that we have on externals would be useful if applied to the pilot.  It would make it difficult to keep an eye on the gunsight and would simulate a difficulty to concentrate.  A more extreme version could also be used to represent hypoxia. 

  • 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...