Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
II./JG77_motoadve

First account Pilot physiology, The Big show

Recommended Posts

The Big Show by Pierre Clostermann , has to be one of the most detailed first account WWII aerial combat book I have read.

Highly recommended.

Read about tiredness, fatigue, G forces and blackouts in combat, its well described, this was a very important part of aerial combat, I am glad developers will simulate this and wont be a bank and yank with superhuman maneuvers anymore, big time game changer.

 

 

  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

😘A really exciting read too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

True, though I would not use it as the basis for any kind of scientific effort.

 

This whole area is very subjective and difficult to quantify: personally I am a little dubious of the outcome, despite the team’s excellent record.

Edited by EAF19_Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

True, though I would not use it as the basis for any kind of scientific effort.

 

This whole area is very subjective and difficult to quantify: personally I am a little dubious of the outcome, despite the team’s excellent record.

You can always turn it off if you dont like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you play on multiplayer servers, surely this would be a server side setting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Animal_Mother said:

If you play on multiplayer servers, surely this would be a server side setting?

 

Yes definitely. I'm certain that this was mentioned in DD 227

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect any of the "realistic" servers to have the realistic physical effects implemented. More casual servers like WOL likely won't. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

You can always turn it off if you dont like it.

 

This is an odd response: ‘you’ -individual user - can possibly (TBC) ‘turn it off’, but what does that mean for SP or MP? If it can be disabled, will it be worth the effort?

 

The wider point I was highlighting was about team effort. There is no - absolutely no - consistent and scientific way to enact this. You become less able to manoeuvre after time? There is a ‘cool off’ period? Someone late to a dog-fight has more energy? What about adrenaline? What about fear? What about the comfort of being close to home that emboldens the defender? 

 

To me this appears a can of worms that would be better addressed through a little tweaking of black- / red-out effects.

 

And - again - man-hours sunk into this are removed from other aspects. Like the ‘engine timer’ issue that needs addressing.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:

I would expect any of the "realistic" servers to have the realistic physical effects implemented. More casual servers like WOL likely won't. 

 

 

I hope that the pilot physiology update will be done as best as it can be right out of the gate.  

 

If it is the case that WoL doesn't enable it, I will probably abandon it 90% of the time. 

 

I've already been practicing flying with minimal pilot workload and G-load and have been finding that I stay alive longer and actually fly faster.  

 

It's obvious to tell which opponent pilots are doing the same. 

They DON'T wank the stick like they have one eye on a second monitor running a Twitch thot stream, but are even harder to hit than those that do. 

My salute to those who use and understand real defensive flying - not the dead fish flopping that others think is the correct interpretation of "when the enemy was on your tail, you did everything you could to break him off or force him to overshoot". 

20 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 What about adrenaline? What about fear? What about the comfort of being close to home that emboldens the defender? 

 

What about the sheer arrogance of believing one is part of the champion army of a superior race? 

Edited by =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

What about the sheer arrogance of believing one is part of the champion army of a superior race? 

 

Errr, what?

 

Can of worms. Likely to please no-one. Probably to be abandoned by many servers. Team opportunity cost.

 

Happy to be proven incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Errr, what?

 

Can of worms. Likely to please no-one. Probably to be abandoned by many servers. Team opportunity cost.

 

Happy to be proven incorrect.

I admit, I was being a smartass with that comment.  

 

I do see your point that there are many non-quantifiable factors.  I am curious to see what the end result of this addition will be.  I am hopeful that it will be done well.  If it is, in fact, done well (in my subjective opinion, of course) I will be giving preference to MP servers that also share my opinion, and leave the option on. 

Edited by =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

factors.  I am curious to see what the end result of this addition will be.  I am hopeful that it will be done well.  I

 

I totally share your view, but I wonder if it can be executed to the wider benefit of the user group.

 

 I hope it can, but - IMHO - there are existing issues (flaps / engine modelling) that are of greater priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

I totally share your view, but I wonder if it can be executed to the wider benefit of the user group.

 

 I hope it can, but - IMHO - there are existing issues (flaps / engine modelling) that are of greater priority.

 

That's kind of why I'm willing to support the future work on the project buying campaigns and individual planes for a while after the BoBp full release if prior work is revisited and refined.  It's my opinion that after the BoBp module is completed, the devs should take some vacation time, then review what they already have made before starting another module. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

That's kind of why I'm willing to support the future work on the project buying campaigns and individual planes for a while after the BoBp full release if prior work is revisited and refined

 

Totally with you. I bought all early access for just this reason. The whole pilot physiology thingy, though, strikes me as an effort with little reward. I cite both the vague nature of the subject and the original CLoD effort as reasons why not.

 

Just my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been many magnitudes more research done on the effects of g-forces on the human body than there has been on, say the flight characteristics of a Bf-190 G2. The amount of public data available is more than enough to provide a highly accurate simulation of an average person.
The performance of aircraft in the game, on the other hand, often comes from only a single source as such data is rare and often not collected under the best circumstances and conditions.
I have no doubt that any serious attempt to simulate g effects on a pilot will produce much more accurate results than an attempt to simulate certian aircraft ever could.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently reading "Thunderbolt!", very interesting read. Makes me really want a Channel map for BOX.

 

Im hoping to tackle The Big Show next.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

There has been many magnitudes more research done on the effects of g-forces on the human body than there has been on, say the flight characteristics of a Bf-190 G2. The amount of public data available is more than enough to provide a highly accurate simulation of an average person.
The performance of aircraft in the game, on the other hand, often comes from only a single source as such data is rare and often not collected under the best circumstances and conditions.
I have no doubt that any serious attempt to simulate g effects on a pilot will produce much more accurate results than an attempt to simulate certian aircraft ever could.

 

I seriously doubt that being able to drop flaps, throw on full power and keep flying at ~50kph lower than a plane's accepted stall speed requires more real world sources to warrant a serious look into that aspect of the FM.

Edited by =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

 

I seriously doubt that being able to drop flaps, throw on full power and keep flying at ~50kph lower than a plane's accepted stall speed requires more real world sources to warrant a serious look into that aspect of the FM.

 

What does that have to do with Pilot physiology?

Share this post


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

 

This is an odd response: ‘you’ -individual user - can possibly (TBC) ‘turn it off’, but what does that mean for SP or MP? If it can be disabled, will it be worth the effort?

 

The wider point I was highlighting was about team effort. There is no - absolutely no - consistent and scientific way to enact this. You become less able to manoeuvre after time? There is a ‘cool off’ period? Someone late to a dog-fight has more energy? What about adrenaline? What about fear? What about the comfort of being close to home that emboldens the defender? 

 

To me this appears a can of worms that would be better addressed through a little tweaking of black- / red-out effects.

 

And - again - man-hours sunk into this are removed from other aspects. Like the ‘engine timer’ issue that needs addressing.

I agree!

Problem with MP is that there is no organized group flights representing historical accuracy or in short it's a "Wild Bill's" game where you spawn in a plane and take off alone or with somebody and join never ending combat over some objective, you being fresh against exausted enemy.

There is no two group flights clashing one against other like it was back then.

Also every new line of code take it's share on game performance (VR important), so i would just do it as you said "tweak a bit red/blackout" and invest resources in something more meaningful like engine timers, 150octane fuel or even better game engine improvements so it can sustain larger battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

What does that have to do with Pilot physiology?

 

I must have misunderstood your comment.  Myself and EAF19_Marsh were commenting that while we were very interested to see how the physiology update will work out, there are issues with the FM that we would like to see worked on as well - one of them being the ability to drop flaps, throw on full power and keep flying at lower than real world flaps-on stall speed.  

I thought that your comment that there was extensive research on G-effects vs. preserved test records for some planes was a response to our mini-conversation about the value of invested time modeling G-effects vs. looking into FM issues such as the aforementioned "flaps".   That's all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

I agree!

Problem with MP is that there is no organized group flights representing historical accuracy or in short it's a "Wild Bill's" game where you spawn in a plane and take off alone or with somebody and join never ending combat over some objective, you being fresh against exausted enemy.

There is no two group flights clashing one against other like it was back then.

 

This happens often in MP. I've linked up with a squad on comms, set up all in the same aircraft, loadout, fuel load, got a designated flight number "Stork 3", then flown in formation to a target where the leader attacked first then directed further attacks. Then we all formed up again and headed home. Another couple guys on channel flew air cover for us the entire time. On other occasions I've formed up in flights like this and been attacked by what was very clearly 4 guys operating as part of a squad in a coordinated fashion (i.e. flight vs. flight combat). It doesnt happen all the time but it absolutely does happen.
 

 

3 minutes ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

 

I must have misunderstood your comment.  Myself and EAF19_Marsh were commenting that while we were very interested to see how the physiology update will work out, there are issues with the FM that we would like to see worked on as well - one of them being the ability to drop flaps, throw on full power and keep flying at lower than real world flaps-on stall speed.  

I thought that your comment that there was extensive research on G-effects vs. preserved test records for some planes was a response to our mini-conversation about the value of invested time modeling G-effects vs. looking into FM issues such as the aforementioned "flaps".   That's all.  

I suspect that since they're still working on FMs for the remaining Bodenplatte planes they won't be doing major tweaks until after release. They probably have a gap in the schedule for some staff due to how the P-51 and Tempest development has gone and had time to tackle pilot phys but not enough time to do the kind of global FM overhaul the flaps issue will require (and it is, IMO, a global issue, it just becomes glaring with a couple aircraft models). It all depends on who is free and who is not, and I suspect the person or people you really need for a FM overhaul are fully consumed working on the FMs for the unfinished planes.

My (uneducated) expectation is that we'll see a global FM update and plane engine update within the next year or so, either at BoBP final release OR in the time following it. There's been enough talk on the forums (esp the russian side) that we know they are at least considering overhauling the engine modeling.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all good.  I've said it before:  Devs have consistently delivered on regularly putting out quality work.  

 

I'm sure that if they do decide to allocate time to this it will happen.  I am completely fine with not putting a deadline on my patience if they take time to do it.  I don't think I'll be turning away from the series either if they decide not to further tweak it, but I certainly do hope they will. 

This is pretty much the ONLY dev team that I feel has done everything in their power to truly earn the fanbase's trust, especially considering that they are delivering good work on something that is far more complex than just a 6DoF simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

There is no - absolutely no - consistent and scientific way to enact this.

 

If by "this" you mean the entirety of possible reactions and factors that are a part of an individual's g tolerance...you're correct IMO. But if you take an arithmetic mean g tolerance from a  population of x number of test subjects...you have a scientific starting point.

 

7 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

You become less able to manoeuvre after time?

 

Absolutely, the effects of tiredness on g tolerance are documented. IRL after prolonged high g maneuvering we would often rejoin to tactical formation and repeat our "g awareness" or "g warmup" maneuver from line abreast.

 

7 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Someone late to a dog-fight has more energy?

 

Has the new comer been flying around at 1 g, while you've been pulling on the pole? Then the science says she/he more than likely has a higher g tolerance. 

 

7 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

What about adrenaline? What about fear? What about the comfort of being close to home that emboldens the defender? 

 

So are you suggesting since there is no scientific data that accounts for the entire universe of unknown variables, this whole physiology effort is a waste of time? 

 

7 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Can of worms. Likely to please no-one. Probably to be abandoned by many servers.

 

Perhaps a more accurate statement might be, "Likely to please many, but not everyone." It certainly won't improve my lousy gunnery, but as a skeptic with RL experience pulling 9 g, I'm hoping to finding myself on the tail of a 1GCCFP that has "gone to sleep" about 200 meters in front of me. ;)

 

 

Edited by busdriver
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

 

 

 

So are you suggesting since there is no scientific data that accounts for the entire universe of unknown variables, this whole physiology effort is a waste of time? 

 

 

 

 

It's not a waste of time, but as I've said before re: adrenaline - If a pilot is too fatigued to pull 5Gs, but a 5G pull out is what it takes to keep from hitting the ground, chances are pretty good the strength to pull 5Gs will be found.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

...as I've said before re: adrenaline - If a pilot is too fatigued to pull 5Gs, but a 5G pull out is what it takes to keep from hitting the ground, chances are pretty good the strength to pull 5Gs will be found.  

 

Not if he's asleep...but your point is understood. And just to be clear, I was quoting @EAF19_Marsh not to insult anyone, simply to emphasize that perfection is an unobtainable standard. I personally think he will appreciate this new aspect of air combat simulation. If not...disable it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with it as they've explained it, not fine with any fake stick force limiting that goes with it, AKA training wheels.  Hope they fully remove the stick limits and let the wankers pay the full fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

I'm fine with it as they've explained it, not fine with any fake stick force limiting that goes with it, AKA training wheels.  Hope they fully remove the stick limits and let the wankers pay the full fee.

 

What fake stick forces or stick limits are you referring to? Am I missing something? Honest questions, no snark or animus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how pointing to that other things need worked on too detracts from the G-model being a very good change. We are all well aware that modeling the G forces correctly is only one of many steps needed to stop a yak from cranking a 13G turn at the merge, dropping his flaps and hanging on his prop at 60 knots while hit pulls the nose up past critical A0A  with complete control for a split second so he can shoot his recoil-less doom cannon at you and snipe your engine from 1000m back.

 

It doesnt matter that its an average model. Sims have ad G forces as standard for literally ages. Adding them to this game is a big deal that will make the game MUCH better.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you read the DD 228 carefully its only taking about G load impacting visuals and hearing loss and loss of consciousness , there is nothing about modelling reduced stick movements. It discusses fatigue being modelled in that these effects apply sooner , and some sort of recovery time. So pilots can have different fatigue levels depending on previous G load exposure and time periods or recovery.

Quote

I have mentioned a “loss of consciousness” several times already. Yes, now we are simulating this state, too. A pilot can lose consciousness at large positive or negative g-loads if the threshold of their physiological tolerance is exceeded (taking into account the duration of g-loads, the pace of their creation and accumulated fatigue). A harbinger of the loss of consciousness at the positive g-load is a blackout, although even having completely lost his eyesight, the pilot is still able to control his aircraft for some time. At the negative g-load loss of consciousness occurs more unexpectedly, and the only way to determine it in time is by a sharp deterioration in visual acuity. Studies have established that, depending on a number of factors, a usual period of a G-lock can be as long as 10 to 15 seconds, and during this time the aircraft will remain uncontrollable. Keep in mind that each subsequent loss of consciousness will cost you even greater loss of time and energy. WWII fighter pilots were very human, not Superman and they did experience pretty high G-loads even in piston planes.

 

also this

 

Quote

In conclusion, I would like to mention that we also limited the pilot’s ability to bail out at the airspeed of more than 400 km/h, or under the influence of positive g-load of more than +3G (which is the physiological limit in terms of the ability of a person to get out of the seat). These numbers refer to a healthy pilot; in case of injury getting out of the cockpit will be even more difficult for a crew.

 

I think some are reading what is not there. Prob a good idea to wait and see how its implemented before we jump the gun.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been done before in previous versions of IL-2, and than reworked.  If you've been around long enough you see the wheel has a tendency to be reinvented quite regularly within this series.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

😂 this topic really sums up why one never can please all in a sim community. 

 

I think it is a fair try to add realism. And I think they will add this effect in such degree that we all can at least say it is fair but not crippling 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you really, really need to just wait and see how this feature looks before panning it. :) I mean c'mon, it's still a feature in progress and some of you are already saying it's not going to be worth it. Not exactly good encouragement for the team, is it? 

2 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

Prob a good idea to wait and see how its implemented before we jump the gun.

 

Amen

 

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

I'm fine with it as they've explained it, not fine with any fake stick force limiting that goes with it, AKA training wheels.  Hope they fully remove the stick limits and let the wankers pay the full fee.

You mean like in DCS where you can pull stick on any speed like Superman?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, busdriver said:

 

Not if he's asleep...but your point is understood. And just to be clear, I was quoting @EAF19_Marsh not to insult anyone, simply to emphasize that perfection is an unobtainable standard. I personally think he will appreciate this new aspect of air combat simulation. If not...disable it.

 

No insult taken.  

I'm looking forward to seeing how it all works out too.   I hope it is exactly as intended too - better.

9 hours ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

I'm not sure how pointing to that other things need worked on too detracts from the G-model being a very good change. We are all well aware that modeling the G forces correctly is only one of many steps needed to stop a yak from cranking a 13G turn at the merge, dropping his flaps and hanging on his prop at 60 knots while hit pulls the nose up past critical A0A  with complete control for a split second so he can shoot his recoil-less doom cannon at you and snipe your engine from 1000m back.

 

It doesnt matter that its an average model. Sims have ad G forces as standard for literally ages. Adding them to this game is a big deal that will make the game MUCH better.

 

Lol someone who apparently has 0 hours and 0 minutes flying any Yak model.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, like in IL-2 BOX where it's currently impossible to black out in a 109 under any condition using stick.  Training wheels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2019 at 2:50 AM, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

What about the sheer arrogance of believing one is part of the champion army of a superior race? 

 

Übermensch

+100 stamina

+50% chance of moving to Argentina

  • Haha 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 11:06 PM, busdriver said:

Absolutely, the effects of tiredness on g tolerance are documented. IRL after prolonged high g maneuvering we would often rejoin to tactical formation and repeat our "g awareness" or "g warmup" maneuver from line abreast.

 

I appreciate that: it was a rhetorical question. But by 'how much' was my point of contention. I am not going to argue with your experience on this, but anyone who has done some GA aerobatics or some hard driving on a race track will appreciate that the fatigue is not constant based on time or effort, and will vary with impetus to effort.

 

Quote

Has the new comer been flying around at 1 g, while you've been pulling on the pole? Then the science says she/he more than likely has a higher g tolerance. 

 

Of course, but by how much?

 

Quote


So are you suggesting since there is no scientific data that accounts for the entire universe of unknown variables, this whole physiology effort is a waste of time? 

 

 

A 'waste'? Perhaps not, but a very tricky subject. Were you pulling harder when you knew that 'Fight's off' was 20 seconds away or when you felt that your honour was on the table? I am not sure how this could best be addressed.

 

Quote

Perhaps a more accurate statement might be, "Likely to please many, but not everyone." It certainly won't improve my lousy gunnery, but as a skeptic with RL experience pulling 9 g, I'm hoping to finding myself on the tail of a 1GCCFP that has "gone to sleep" about 200 meters in front of me.

 

People already do! One downside of VR is that you literally become tired of looking behind (vs TrackIR) and get lazy. My position remains that - despite the team's excellent efforts - this is a very tricky one and retarding a sim pilot's ability to manouvre because he or she previously 'pulled' some 'g' (that was not felt or absorbed) strikes me as a difficult effect to model without causing severe reaction among armchair enthusiasts.

 

On 8/27/2019 at 2:36 AM, busdriver said:

Not if he's asleep...but your point is understood. And just to be clear, I was quoting @EAF19_Marsh not to insult anyone, simply to emphasize that perfection is an unobtainable standard. I personally think he will appreciate this new aspect of air combat simulation. If not...disable it.

 

Sure. But CLoD tried it with limited control input and most people found it annoying, it was removed from servers and I doubt - without having any evidence - that many enjoyed it in SP (the AI did not seem to obey the idea). So - again - return on team investment?

 

Quote

I mean c'mon, it's still a feature in progress and some of you are already saying it's not going to be worth it. Not exactly good encouragement for the team, is it? 

 

I bought early access to everything that the team has provided. But I retain the right to voice concerns over s subject which may prove tricky in terms of implementation.

Share this post


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

But I retain the right to voice concerns over s subject which may prove tricky in terms of implementation.

 

No one said you don't have that right. What I don't like seeing, however, is this writing off of certain features before the public has even seen them. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

No one said you don't have that right. What I don't like seeing, however, is this writing off of certain features before the public has even seen them. 

 

Not ‘writing off’, by any means as I thought I had made clear. But it is a tricky subject when a sim pilot - lacking all of the sensory inputs derived from actual flight - has to cope with increasing inability to perform functions because of a fatigue mechanic.

 

Meanwhile, there remain some pertinent questions regarding engine management and flap dynamics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding some visuals to the conversation=Some photos from my very old Ballentine pocketbook ( it cost $.50 back when I got it...)copy of the aforementioned BIG SHOW:

0_c5.jpg

c2.jpg

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...