WOW on Physiology

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

At my age.. just throwing my leg over the edge of the bed and sitting up in the morning causes enough g force to create slight dizziness.  ?

[Panzerlang]

Very weird, I can't get even close to blacking out doing the same roll. A touch of red, zero grey. I had to dive and pull out very hard at 500kmh to get a black out and it took it's time even then (in a G14).

Maybe I'm fitter. ?

[KG200_Achilleus]

2 minutes ago, J3Hetzer said:

Very weird, I can't get even close to blacking out doing the same roll. A touch of red, zero grey. I had to dive and pull out very hard at 500kmh to get a black out and it took it's time even then (in a G14).

Maybe I'm fitter. ?

try harder until you complete a barrel roll at 4-6 seconds and not a simple roll..;)

[Panzerlang]

Just now, KG200_Achilleus said:

try harder until you complete a barrel roll at 4-6 seconds and not a simple roll..;)

I'm happy the UFOs have been nerfed, so no complaints from me.

[Gambit21]

11 minutes ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

try harder until you complete a barrel roll at 4-6 seconds and not a simple roll..;)

 

A barrel roll can be a 1G maneuvere..thus Faucon and others doing their best to point out certain things to you..:to no avail.

[Darkmouse]

3 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

A barrel roll can be a 1G maneuvere

It can't - any acceleration away from straight and level flight would put you over 1g.  Other than that your point stands, and this whole barrel roll business is a red herring as there are many variables that affect the amount of g required to complete a barrel roll, meaning they can either be fairly benign or a 'high g manoeuvre.' 

 

It would actually be interesting to have F/JG300_Faucon talk through the physics of barrel roll. As a world aerobatic champion and aerobatic FI I would expect him to have a deep and instinctive understanding of the forces involved.   

Edited October 8, 2019 by Darkmouse

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, Darkmouse said:

It can't - your point stands though. 

 

Sure about that? I was always told that it could be - perhaps I was misinformed.

In any case I’d submit to your expertise on the matter.

 

...although it makes sense thinking about the bottom of the roll.

So what would be minimum G’s then?

 

[KG200_Achilleus]

11 minutes ago, Darkmouse said:

It would actually be interesting to have F/JG300_Faucon talk through the physics of barrel roll. As a world aerobatic champion and aerobatic FI I would expect him to have a deep and instinctive understanding of the forces involved.   

So we conclude that either he is a champion with a pigeons brain, or he is not a pilot at all..:)

lol

just a joke;)

[Darkmouse]

Yep, I'm sure - minimum g would be as the aircraft comes over the top of the vertical, much like a loop - and much like a loop, how low that g gets would depend upon how tight it was - either way, the minimum would be greater than 0, typically 0.5 in a well flown and accurate barrel roll (unlike the examples posted!). I' happy to type a more thorough explanation if necessary, but a barrel roll is initiated with a pitch up, and finished with a pitch from below the horizon back to the horizon, which will require more than 1g. 

 

 

 

         

3 minutes ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

So we conclude that either he is a champion with a pigeons brain, or he is not a pilot at all..:)

lol

just a joke;)

That is not what I meant at all, and certainly not helpful in having a meaningful and enlightening discussion about a fascinating topic.  

[KG200_Achilleus]

8 minutes ago, Darkmouse said:

Yep, I'm sure - minimum g would be as the aircraft comes over the top of the vertical, much like a loop - and much like a loop, how low that g gets would depend upon how tight it was - either way, the minimum would be greater than 0, typically 0.5 in a well flown and accurate barrel roll (unlike the examples posted!). I' happy to type a more thorough explanation if necessary, but a barrel roll is initiated with a pitch up, and finished with a pitch from below the horizon back to the horizon, which will require more than 1g. 

 

 

 

         

That is not what I meant at all, and certainly not helpful in having a meaningful and enlightening discussion about a fascinating topic.  

a barrel roll in this game is mostly be done for defensing situation when you have a hard six and you don't want to give a clear shot,

not for aerobatic situations so someone tells if it is good or not..

with all respect.. 

as for the joke,this word is simple enough, dont make it dramatic..

[SCG_motoadve]

11 minutes ago, Darkmouse said:

It can't - any acceleration away from straight and level flight would put you over 1g.  Other than that your point stands, and this whole barrel roll business is a red herring as there are many variables that affect the amount of g required to complete a barrel roll, meaning they can either be fairly benign or a 'high g manoeuvre.' 

 

It would actually be interesting to have F/JG300_Faucon talk through the physics of barrel roll. As a world aerobatic champion and aerobatic FI I would expect him to have a deep and instinctive understanding of the forces involved.   

Thiis video shows a roll and has a G meter.

Go to minute 4:33 you see the plane rolling and the G meter indicating one G, pulling nose up its 3 G to start the roll, but the actual roll is 1 G.

The G meter shows that , its the instrument on the right side, to the left side of the fuel gauge ( looks like the fuel gauge in the Mig 3.)

 

[Darkmouse]

3 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Thiis video shows a roll and has a G meter.

Go to minute 4:33 you see the plane rolling and the G meter indicating one G, pulling nose up its 3 G to start the roll, but the actual roll is 1 G.

The G meter shows that , its the instrument on the right side, to the left side of the fuel gauge ( looks like the fuel gauge in the Mig 3.)

 

Sure -  a traditional aileron roll. Not a barrel roll. No one is disputing that an aileron roll can be flown at or damn close to 1g after the initial pull up. 

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Darkmouse

[Darkmouse]

Having had nothing to do all day other than play IL2 and engage in semi lively debate on here, I must say, my comments regarding the g's notwithstanding, IL2 really is the most glorious sim to have ever graced PC's. I genuinely think my enjoyment has  almost doubled with the update. 

 

Also,  II./JG77_motoadve if you read my previous comment, I apologise. I was feeling cantankerous. That is a lovely machine you have and a breathtaking part of the world in which to fly it. Don't forget the lookout though ;-). 

[Lusekofte]

I have been knocked unconscious twice by flak and slammed into ground. 

So-called survivable hits before have now been deadly. I am not too pleased with the continuous steady aim of aa but I cant say it did not feel realistic.  

[ZachariasX]

The constant lawndarting on Berloga is fun to watch. Eventually, people will learn that split S at 1000 m AGL going 500 km/h is not a good idea. The goofing around with full stick deflection at whatever speed is also a thing of the past, it made shooting of planes very unlike it was in reality. Some say that the effects come in too soon. But from what I see, they come at 5+ G and I think that is reasonable. Especially in upright position sitting on the chute, I'm sure I could never take 7+ G just like that. In a far reclined position, I clearly notice onset of those effects as soon as I passed 6 G in quick maneuvers. Even 5 G sustained for more than 10 seconds I find utterly unpleasant. Never took any precicse measurements about how much I could take, as I generally prefer to avoid the unpleasant stuff. I find no joy in hurting myself. There might be some fine tuning to that mechanism in the game, but man, this is really a game changer. Just WOW.

Edited October 9, 2019 by ZachariasX

[[DBS]Browning]

Anyone wanting to make an argument one way or another for the validity of the g effects has available a vast amount of data from NASA and other research bodies on the effects of g forces on humans in all manner of conditions.

I am certain in the Devs have used such data and so I am happy to completely ignore any argument against the Dev's model that does not make explicit use of the statistics available.

Edited October 9, 2019 by [DBS]Browning

[Blackhawk_FR]

15 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Anyone wanting to make an argument one way or another for the validity of the g effects has available a vast amount of data from NASA and other research bodies on the effects of g forces on humans in all manner of conditions.

I am certain in the Devs have used such data and so I am happy to completely ignore any argument against the Dev's model that does not make explicit use of the statistics available.

 

Some people tend more to believe in their feelings than in a very large amount of factual data. 

As soon as you ask them arguments, numbers, facts, proofs, etc... they accuse you of being close minded. 

Whatever...

[KG200_Achilleus]

26 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Anyone wanting to make an argument one way or another for the validity of the g effects has available a vast amount of data from NASA and other research bodies on the effects of g forces on humans in all manner of conditions.

I am certain in the Devs have used such data and so I am happy to completely ignore any argument against the Dev's model that does not make explicit use of the statistics available.

To say that this model is perfect and it is made a great job,really doesn't helps this game.This game must and can be better and better in any way we all can.

To see that some details are not ok(blackout just in 2 sec at only 3-5Gs),

and pretend that all is ok and perfect, well it doesn't helps the game at all, neither the developers..

The game looks now more realistic indeed,

maybe our consciousness see that as a comparison with modern combat sims which they have similar sensitive G limits, and maybe not.

The thing is that we want the best sim possible we could have,the best from the reality aspect and not only from our wills..

 

p.s. “(blackout just in 2 sec at only 3-5Gs)

we saw that in the second barrel roll video which is smooth enough and still the blackout was there..

Edited October 9, 2019 by KG200_Achilleus

[Blackhawk_FR]

1 minute ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

To say that this model is perfect and it is made a great job,really doesn't helps this game.This game must and can be better and better in any way we all can.

 

I think most people who wrote a message here (if it's not all) never said it was PERFECT and that nothing has to change. 

 

3 minutes ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

To see that some details are not ok(blackout just in 2 sec at only 3-5Gs),

 

The

pilot

does

NOT

black out

at

only

3-5G 

[Darkmouse]

Although this is not difficult - the graphs illustrating the data used are in the Dev update and have been posted here - and I am telling you categorically that the 'average fighter pilot' does not black out after several seconds of 6g. 

 

I asked Faucon yesterday was his personal g tolerance was like and he declined to reply. I would expect a world aerobatic champion flying an extra 300 to be able to take anything up to about 10-12g due to his repeated exposure to g. And as I pointed out, it doesn't matter if the machine is a fighter or an extra, if you use it in a regime that pulls g, you quickly get accustomed to it. 

 

(I'm not saying that pulling 12 g isn't exceptional btw). 

 

 

[KG200_Achilleus]

1 minute ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

I think most people who wrote a message here (if it's not all) never said it was PERFECT and that nothing has to change. 

 

 

The

pilot

does

NOT

black out

at

only

3-5G 

 

Yes i know mate,

thats why i lined this issue because we show this at least on the second barrel roll video..

[Darkmouse]

1 minute ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

 

Yes i know mate,

thats why i lined this issue because we show this at least on the second barrel roll video..

 To be fair, the second video posted with tacview attached showed the barrel roll pulling about 5g - yours was tighter and I suspect required more 'pull' to complete. 

[[DBS]Browning]

3 minutes ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

To say that this model is perfect and it is made a great job,really doesn't helps this game.This game must and can be better and better in any way we all can.

To see that some details are not ok(blackout just in 2 sec at only 3-5Gs)

 

I'm saying no such thing!

All I'm saying is that the Dev's have used a data-driven approach to produce their model and any criticism must match such a standard.

I absolutely welcome criticism of their model, however, if one wishes to say that something about the model is wrong, one's criticism must be based on the same kind of, widely available, data from human g force testing.

If one is using anything else to critique the game's model, then one can expect to be rightly ignored as the Devs have based their model on better data than one is using to criticise it.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Devs could add an accelerometer to the instruments(HUD) and off you go and test to your heart´s content. Then one sees if something is wrong or not. Now it is next to impossible determining how much G your are pulling in any given situation.

Edited October 9, 2019 by LLv34_Flanker

[KG200_Achilleus]

6 minutes ago, Darkmouse said:

 To be fair, the second video posted with tacview attached showed the barrel roll pulling about 5g - yours was tighter and I suspect required more 'pull' to complete. 

Yes that why i mentioned the second video,because it looks more clearly than mine that this maneuver does not pass the 5Gs..

[Blackhawk_FR]

3 minutes ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

thats why i lined this issue because we show this at least on the second barrel roll video..

 

You mean the Requiem one? 

1. There is no black out.

2. It occurs at 5G and something. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Darkmouse said:

I asked Faucon yesterday was his personal g tolerance was like and he declined to reply. I would expect a world aerobatic champion flying an extra 300 to be able to take anything up to about 10-12g due to his repeated exposure to g.

 

Sorry I didn't saw your message. 

G tolerance really depend on the day. In my case, if not in good shape, I "grey out" almost everytime at 5/6G. In good shape, grey out will occur later at 6/7G, after few seconds. 

Extra is certified +10G so I rarely go over 9. 

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

Some people tend more to believe in their feelings than in a very large amount of factual data. 

People in general are really terrible when it comes to making good guesses, as gut feeling is generally way off. Regardless of the topic. In my case, I have done very little aircraft gymnastics in the unpleasant range. The biplanes, you don't take past 4.5 G as you don't want to abuse them. And you can have a lot of fun in the range of -1 to +4.5 G. The only times I (as PIC) went past that frequently is with a sailplane. After I got my license when i just turned 17, they usually left me the Pilatus B4 that was reinforced for aerobatics. As it was not just regularly reinforced, but partched up to IIRC -4 to +9. It made it an extra unpopular proposition as it is a slow aircraft, adding weight was useless, as the higher glide speed turned into abysmal sink rate. However, you can pull 6 G with one finger doing 200 km/h. For roll, it needes all your strenght at higher speeds. As a careless kid, that was fun expending your last kilometer altitude before coming in for landing. At that age, I was also comfortable with not calling out aerobatics (Because I most certainly didn't have a permit for it. And just do it. The Aircrat totally invites doing stupid things, it's what it can. The rest is... well. Sub par.). Everybody just did things. At least that's what I thought. Some years and dead pilot friends later I revised my opinion on that. But it showed me a range where I still was comfortable flying the aircraft while looking at the G meter.

 

For my true limits, I guess you'd have to take me as ballast in the Extra. But I'm certainly not counting on winning any prize here.

[Blackhawk_FR]

1 minute ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

Yes that why i mentioned the second video,because it looks more clearly than mine that this maneuver does not pass the 5Gs..

 

In your video your pilot has a black out, so you take inevitably more than 5G. Otherwise you need to explain me why with the game, you would black out with less G...

[KG200_Achilleus]

4 minutes ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

In your video your pilot has a black out, so you take inevitably more than 5G. Otherwise you need to explain me why with the game, you would black out with less G...

 

Over 5G?so maybe 6?7?

is this enough for a pilot to blackout in 2 sec?

In the second video,there is a blackout at almost 80% full,and this occurred just at maybe 3-5 Gs,is this ok for you?

ok then,ok for me also..;)

[JG4_Widukind]

from wikipedia Germany

 

Der Kanadier Wilbur R. Franks entwickelte an der University of Toronto zunächst mit dem Franks Flying Suit Mark II (FFS Mk II) 1940 einen flüssigkeitsgefüllten Anti-g-Anzug, bei dem sich Wasser zwischen zwei Gummischichten befand. Dieser wurde nach dem Einsteigen ins Flugzeug durch das Bodenpersonal befüllt. Eine operationelle Nutzung erfolgte jedoch nicht. Erst mit dem Modell FFS Mk III war ab 1944 – und somit noch im Krieg – eine Anti-g-Hose für den Einsatz in alliierten Kampfflugzeugen verfügbar. Diese Variante nutzte aufblasbare Gummibeutel, die in die Anti-g-Hose eingearbeitet waren und mit Druckluft aus einem im Flugzeug eingebauten Kompressor befüllt wurden^[1]. Die Erprobung beider Varianten erfolgte ab Herbst 1944 unter anderem bei der 339th und der 357th Fighter Group. Die Besatzungen stellten fest, dass die mit Wasser gefüllten Anti-g-Anzüge zu kalt waren. Daraufhin erfolgte der Versuch diese mit warmen Wasser zu füllen. Dies brachte auch keinen Erfolg, da das Wasser sehr schnell abkühlte. Daher bevorzugten die Besatzungen die luftgefüllten Anzüge.^[2]

Etwa zur gleichen Zeit arbeitete in Australien Frank Cotton an der Universität von Sydney ebenfalls an einem Anti-g-Anzug, der auf einem ähnlichen Prinzip wie Franks Mk III basierte. Dieser erreichte jedoch keine Einsatzreife.

 

The testing of both variants took place from autumn 1944, among others, the 339th and the 357th Fighter Group.

[Darkmouse]

6 minutes ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

Sorry I didn't saw your message. 

G tolerance really depend on the day. In my case, if not in good shape, I "grey out" almost everytime at 5/6G. In good shape, grey out will occur later at 6/7G, after few seconds. 

Extra is certified +10G so I rarely go over 9. 

Fair enough and thanks for the reply. I rarely pull more than 6, but I find sitting at 6 in a sustained max poss rate turn, whilst uncomfortable, quite possible without loss of vision etc. 

 

I haven't flown the extra, hoping to get my hands on one soon though. 

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, Darkmouse said:

I find sitting at 6 in a sustained max poss rate turn, whilst uncomfortable, quite possible without loss of vision etc. 

Interesting. I find going past 5 G a threshold where it varies when onset of the effects come. Depends how exhausted I was from flying etc. But this is why I think the general range that we have in game when the pilot is afected is more or less in the right range. If it wasn't spot on, I couldn't say by how much it had to be corrected.

 

6 minutes ago, Darkmouse said:

I haven't flown the extra, hoping to get my hands on one soon though. 

Neither have I. Plans for the future.

[Darkmouse]

10 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Neither have I. Plans for the future.

? Oh yes! 

 

Ps. I don't think the current implementation is far off, it doesn't need to be tweaked by much, but I do believe it is a little on the restrictive side. 

 

That said, even as it stands, the dogfighting is much more enjoyable now, in an already glorious sim. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Darkmouse

[SJ_Butcher]

I support the devs on this, stop crying because you can't UFO manouver  on those spits.

Edited October 9, 2019 by SJ_Butcher

[RAY-EU]

All the planes has the same G effect support ?  I see Yaks 1 making bigger turns than me meanwhile I already lost consciousness, that’s very important factor should be analyzed with track view plane by plane vs plane ?! 

‘If it works like the overhead engines like before So the allies are obviously the kings of the UFO mambo ! 

[[DBS]Browning]

1 hour ago, RAY-EU said:

All the planes has the same G effect support ?  I see Yaks 1 making bigger turns than me meanwhile I already lost consciousness, that’s very important factor should be analyzed with track view plane by plane vs plane ?! 

‘If it works like the overhead engines like before So the allies are obviously the kings of the UFO mambo ! 

 

If you are pulling lead on a target, you are pulling more g.

Edited October 9, 2019 by [DBS]Browning

[Blackhawk_FR]

6 hours ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

Over 5G?so maybe 6?7?

is this enough for a pilot to blackout in 2 sec?

 

For me, no, it's not enough. Except if you are tired. 4 seconds can be enough.

 

We can't discuss more until we have an accelerometer in game (I've read tacview is not precise enough).

Edited October 9, 2019 by F/JG300_Faucon

[Floppy_Sock]

So I'd like to put some number up for discussion.

 

First: here are my sources, 

[1] https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170441.pdf

[2] https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/751397.pdf

[3] https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a235181.pdf

 

With these in mind, there is relatively strong evidence that the body adapts relatively well to exposure to g forces. From [1] compare these charts. The first being data of experience acrobatic pilots maximum g tolerance,

the second that of a trainee. I would like to think that the models used to simulate pilot physiology assumes that our virtual pilots are not newbies but seasoned pilots. I don't think that's unreasonable. That being said, see figure 3 for greyout tolerances for experience pilots. I think the current physio model is well below these values given the video requiem posted.

From the video posted by Requiem, blackout occurs after a few seconds at around 5g. This seems to conflict with the data above. Now one could argue that the L-1 maneuver didn't exist during ww2. The L-1(hicking) specifically did not, however, the M-1 did, which replaced holding your breath with screaming hey! See the excerpts from [3]

 

So it's clear that pilots during the war were aware, and trained to use some form of AGSM to increase their tolerances. 

 

Finally, lets put some numbers up for loads because until now, we haven't really discussed how much g a WW2 aircraft could actually pull. To consider the worst case, lets calculate the maximum lift generated by an airfoil. This equates to instantaneous turn rate, or the highest possible g the aircraft can exert. (Of course I am assuming here that the model in game matches - at least reasonably - the data that I've dug up to do these calculations)

 

Since I have the 109 data on hand, lets take the 109 K-4.

 

Weight: 3364 kg

Wing area: 16.15 m^2
Lets assume we're at sea level for worse case: density of air 1.225 kg/m^3
CLmax: 1.7 @20 deg aoa
Speed: 500 kph (139 m/s)

 

Using the lift equation:  (CL * A * .5 * rho* V^2 )/m/g at 500 kph the 109 K-4 could produce a staggering 

1.7/2*16.15*1.225*(500/3.6)^2/3364/9.81 = 9.82 g

 

Which is a lot for any human to withstand, even a seasoned pilot. However, I have yet to see anyone consider aoa combined with seat angle in this discussion. The 109 had a reclined seat (about 25 degrees) and max performed at 20 degrees aoa. So, assuming our pilot is strong enough to even pull to CLmax in a 109 (which is a different discussion) we need to consider the the pilots torso angle in the turn - which is now a substantial 45 degrees from vertical - equating to a 30% reduction in +Gz. So in reality, the pilot is experiencing 7g. (Difference in Clmax aoa is likely the reason certain aircraft were more likely to cause gloc than others)

 

Things quickly become even more believable if we relax the altitude assumption. At 1k meters, the max +Gz the pilot experiences is 6.2 g and at 2k, 5.67. 

 

So - given the physio data displayed above, I really don't see how it's reasonable to have a pilot blacking out so quickly as he does with the current physiology model. 

 

Edit: I should say - I really like that physiology is being modeled. I think it's important. I much prefer a game that includes it than one that doesn't. I'm not here to bash the physiology model - more to add more info in to the pool.

 

Edit 2: If any of my info is wrong - please don't hesitate to point it out. I think everything I've posted here is correct to my knowledge but one can never be certain! 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Floppy_Sock

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

I wouldn't really put much into what the British had to say in their anti-G suits, because 

A) they weren't as wide spread

B) The Franks flying suit was frankly shit in both performance and weight (significantly so) to the Berger anti-G suit the Americans issued out.

[RAY-EU]

Accelerometer good appreciation! Tacview should have a very important relevant roll in this kind of simulator that may is not realized at all . 

I like very much physiology: ‘Otherwise g effects Physiology is a new factor in the simulator fabulous excellent design very good realistically engineered , that is surprising everyone .

 I am very happy and enthusiastic about physiology that never has been developed as well in any other simulator .

So Congrats to Il2 & 777 studios to improve simulation with that important relevant factor named  physiology , never developed as well before in the simulators .

‘In the ww2 gun camera footage you see realistically the planes turned slower that you thought someone or you could maybe done but is the realistic of the g effect physiology that sometimes is not possible for the pilots to turn more for the physiology stress .